Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/20/2006 S (LDC Amendments) September 20, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 20, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION, LDC Amendments 2006 Cycle 1, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas Jim Coletta Fred W. Coyle Donna Fiala Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 September 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the Board of County -- Collier -- Board of Collier County Commissioners. We're in session in regards to the proposed Land Development Code amendment. This is the first cycle in the -- 2006. And, of course, today is Wednesday, September the 20th. And at this time if you'd all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now, before we get started, if everyone would turn off their pagers or cell phones, it would be greatly appreciated. And at this time I'm going to turn this over to Joe Schmitt. He's going to give us some preliminary -- MS. FABACHER: It would be me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, it's you, oh. Okay. I'm sorry. MS. FABACHER: Good evening, Commissioners. Catherine Fabacher, for the record. I'm the LDC Coordinator with Zoning and Land Development. I work for Joe and Susan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is the mike on, before you go any farther? MS. ISTENES: Try that. MR. SCHMITT: Right in front of you, Catherine. There you go. No, you've got it. Just talk into it. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Joe. I'd like to just expound a little bit on what Commissioner Halas said, that this is going to be -- this is the first meeting and the beginning of the first hearing of the LDC amendments for this cycle. We'll have subsequent meetings to finish the first hearing, and then we're required by code to have a second hearing on all LDC items. I'd also like to remind you that we need a supermajority to pass all of them, and that this meeting has been duly publicly noticed and so forth. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. Page 2 September 20,2006 MS. FABACHER: We're good to go. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. MS. F ABACHER: I'd like to go with, just kind of in order, if it's okay with you, in the packet. And what I generally try to do is go to the summary sheets and work from there. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'd like to add something to this. Why don't we -- I think the majority of the people here are for the boat canopIes. MS. FABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we start with that one -- MS. FABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and then we'll get -- hopefully we'll address the issues on that -- MS. FABACHER: Great. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and then we can continue on. Now, it's my understanding that we're only going to work up till we get to the environmental issues; is that correct? MS. FABACHER: If we're very lucky, we'll get through all of the yellow, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there going to be a time limit on this so that we can let the audience know who are sitting here in regards to other items that are going to be discussed tonight in regards to land development codes? MS. F ABACHER: The time -- MR. KLATZKOW: Chairman discretion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I'd recommend that we conclude at eight o'clock. It's your desire if you choose to go further or beyond that. But I think given the time -- we have, as Ms. Fabacher said, we have a second continuation date for this meeting, and then we have the second hearing date already scheduled. So we have, we believe, sufficient time. But if you want to continue beyond Page 3 September 20, 2006 eight, certainly it's your prerogative. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I recommend that maybe you poll the audience so that we can fit our agenda to the people that are here so they don't have to come back again? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. I think what we're trying to do right now. How many are here for the boat canopy issues? COMMISSIONER FIALA: And look at the speaker list that she has. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And what other issues are -- MS. FABACHER: The other issues would be the PUD ownership change notification and the limitation on the slab -- the house pad heights, and then -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: And where does that fall into the sequence of events -- MS. FABACHER: Well, that's in the yellow section, so we were hoping -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman, also, the first thing that we have is on fire departments, but I understand that the CCPC is still discussing that, and I was going to ask you if we could continue that till the next meeting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's going to be probably continued, isn't it, anyway? MR. SCHMITT: We were going to -- Commissioner Fiala, we were going to bring that up tonight and discuss that, but since you've already brought it up -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, why don't we get -- take care of the home -- or issues in regards to housekeeping so that the people that are here for particular issues -- if we're not going to discuss them, then we can let them know right at this point in time. But I think that since Page 4 September 20, 2006 we have a -- it seems like a large majority for the -- in regards to the boat canopies, we start off with that issue. MR. SCHMITT: I can pretty well assure you -- in fact, we've already announced, we will not get to any of the environmental amendments tonight. So anybody here for the environmental amendments, we are not going to cover. We have this book broken down into tabs, hot topics, transportation, and then development standards. As we go through the canopy issue, we'll look at seeing what __ where the registered speakers are, and we can bring them back somewhat in that order, where the prevailing -- or predominant speakers are, and we'll bring those up -- we'll bring those back to you in that order. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The other housekeeping issue that I'd like to poll my fellow commissioners on, do you want to stop at eight o'clock? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We were advertised to 7:35, if I remember correctly, or 7:30. MS. F ABACHER: No, sir. I don't believe so, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what was on my schedule. MS. FABACHER: I don't think -- oh, maybe on your schedule, but the -- no, the advertisement doesn't give an ending time. It just says begins at 5:05. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think eight o'clock is probably adequate time to cover it, as long as we can cover it the next time in one Jump. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's fine. And if we poll this one, too -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, do you have any preference? Page 5 September 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's just hear it and get it done with. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I guess the majority of the commissioners are at eight o'clock. So let's get started in regards to this. We'll finish up with the housekeeping issues in regards to the fire Issue. MR. SCHMITT: Can we -- first in your book on page A -- well, on the outlined version, you have outlined, and then you have every version of the page, page one. And since Commissioner Fiala brought it up, we'll talk about EMS first, and let me turn it over to Susan Murray, your Zoning Director. MS. ISTENES: Good evening, Susan Murray Istenes. I'm the Zoning Director. I just wanted to give you a brief update on this. I briefed the chairman ahead of the meeting noting that there are a few items in your agenda packet that are what I would call works in progress, and I was going to call this to your attention before you even considered them, and this is one of them. This item has not had an official vote by the Planning Commission as of yet. And as of even the last meeting, which was roughly a week ago, more or less, there was still some changes taking place. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. MS. ISTENES: What was agreed to do at that meeting was to convene a small committee to get together and work on some more changes, present it to the Planning Commission, and then come back before you. If you wish to take -- if there is any public comment on this and you wish to take it tonight, that is your choice, obviously, but it's not in a complete form. CHAIRMAN HALAS: If we're not going to cover it, I think that we ought to wait till -- at the time that we get everything put together in a package, and I believe that would be the appropriate time to Page 6 September 20, 2006 address that. MR. SCHMITT: Catherine, I think for the record though, do you have any registered speakers? You want to read off the names so that if they -- for this item, and they -- then they can pass to make sure. MS. F ABACHER: Yeah. For the EMS, fire, law enforcement, essential services, I have Chief Rita Greenberg and Commissioner J.A. Rautio. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Would you like to pass at this point in time until -- MS. RAUTIO: I'll pass. MS. GREENBERG: I'll pass. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay -- until we get everything taken care of. Okay. Thank you very, very much. Okay. We'll proceed with the housekeeping duties here, and then we'll get into the first issue. MS. ISTENES: Catherine, the Bayshore. MS. FABACHER: Right, okay, I'm sorry. Just looking to make sure the speaker was here. Okay. The next item would be the administrative deviations in the mixed -- for mixed-use projects right now in the Bayshore overlay and the Gateway/Triangle overlays. MS. ISTENES: And that's on page 7. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. And I think Mr. White is going to address this issue. There he is. MR. WHITE: My apologies, Mr. Chairman. I thought you were still going through the cataloging for your items for agenda consideration. Patrick White from the firm of Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur. And I think that we've fallen into place somewhat with the firematic issue as well in the sense that there is some last-minute revisions going on to the text. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. This is on the Bayshore? Page 7 September 20, 2006 MR. WHITE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. WHITE: The text that you have is probably, I'd say, 95 percent of what it is that I believe will be the -- ultimately available in October for final consideration version. I've had discussions as recently as in the past two hours with staff and have sent a revision to them for the purposes of assuring that we're all on the same page with what the intent is. As an overview, these regulations are being requested for the purpose of assuring that the extensive efforts that were expended by the CRA to create mixed-use provisions in Bayshore and Gateway are, in fact, going to be effective. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So what you're asking for is a continuation in the -- MR. WHITE: If that's your pleasure, I'd be happy to -_ CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to continue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. MR. WHITE: Thank you so very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Fiala. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That brought it right to a head, didn't it? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, it did. MR. WHITE: Thank you. Page 8 September 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, after Page 10, the next item would be boat canopies -- and I didn't mean to interrupt you, Catherine, but I just wanted to jump in and say, I had provided a summary memo to you after page 10 briefing you on the history of the boathouse roofing issue, a summary of the CCPC discussion, a summary of your options, staff comments, including pros and cons, and a recommendation. Would you like me to summarize that verbally or are you satisfied? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, please. MS. ISTENES: Okay. I'll just try to pull out the pertinent points. Just to give you a quick background, approximately nine years ago the LDC was amended to eliminate a then required conditional use process for the approval of a boathouse, and in its place was what we term a boathouse petition. It was still a public hearing process; however, it only required approval of the Planning Commission, and along with those regulations carne a requirement for specific roofing types and materials. That was approved approximately nine years ago, and we have proceeded through, anytime anybody applies for a boathouse, they would have to meet the development criteria, including the roofing material and setback and height and all of the development standards that were adopted nine years ago. Sometime after the adoption of the provision, there was a dispute between the county and some property owners about the interpretation and application of the regulations with respect to the code requirements for specific roofing materials, and largely this originated when boathouses were erected utilizing canvas covers without permits. Canvas covers, canopy roofing material, that sort of thing. An official interpretation was rendered at the request of the code Page 9 September 20, 2006 enforcement department. It was rendered by me as the zoning director, and my official interpretation was upheld on appeal by you all, sitting as the Board of Zoning Adjustment Appeals on September 27, 2005. And as a result of that interpretation and the upholding of that interpretation by you, canopy roofing material was confirmed to be impermissible. At that meeting you also directed us to conduct -- then to conduct public meetings in order to discuss and poll the public to ascertain if there was public interest in a future amendment to the LDC which would permit canopy material as a roofing type. And subsequently, staff held two advertised public meetings on the issue. Both meetings were attended by approximately 40 to 50 residents. Staff discussed the rules, discussed -- or the current rules about roofing material, discussed a potential rule change to allow the canopy material, and also inform the public of the dates of these hearings both for the Planning Commission and for you all. Also I believe there were two or three other meetings held that were nonadvertised, held at -- I think it was, perhaps, Commissioner Halas, one of your workshops or your -- MS. F ABACHER: Breakfast meeting. MS. ISTENES: -- your breakfast meeting that you hold, and I believe there was one other, so -- MS. F ABACHER: Catherine Fabacher, for the record. For the homeowners' association at the library that Maryann had -- we spoke on that, too. MS. ISTENES: So there was -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have any-- MS. ISTENES: -- quite a bit of public notice, public attendance and the collection of actual public input. But mostly we were there to advise them of the potential rule change and the date so that they could come before you or the Planning Commission or both and speak Page 10 September 20, 2006 their opinion on that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. ISTENES: To shorten this up just a little bit, Planning Commission met. They supported an amendment allowing canvas and canopy material. One was drafted. They termed it a little bit differently in that they wished that it be called boat lift canopies. And what they approved was to allow a boat lift canopy by right, meaning you did not have to come through a public hearing process in order to get a boat lift canopy. And they recommended that several development standards be applied to these boat lift canopies. They could be constructed of canvas or canopy material; they were limited in height to 12 feet; they were limited in length; and they were limited as to where they could be attached and what they could cover. So that is what you have in your amendment now is essentially what the Planning Commission approved. So I won't go into that right now. Some options that you have. Obviously, approve as recommended by the CCPC, modify the CCPC recommendations, or reject the CCPC recommendations. Our comments as staff, there really are no Growth Management Plan issues with respect to the proposed change. We've analyzed both the pros and cons of the amendment and have summarized them as follows: The pros of the amendment as proposed by the Planning Commission allows flexibility in the regulations along with another roofing material type option; it serves a stated public interest of offering protection to a boat while minimizing cost; and the required development standards that were also adopted may mitigate the impact on view somewhat. And historically a concern over the impact on view from boathouses or these types of structures has pretty much fueled past regulations and present regulations which require a public hearing, Page 11 September 20, 2006 because there's been quite a bit of concern both expressed from the public, Planning Commission and yourselves as to the impact of view on these types of structures. So that's -- that public hearing requirement has largely remained in the ordinance for over 10 years. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. ISTENES: The cons are the proposal. Even with the proposed development standards, the impact on view may not be mitigated in all cases, meaning a one-size regulation, which is essentially what this is -- it's just a strict regulation with very specific development standards -- may not fit all circumstances and may not effectively minimize the view impact. The lack of the public hearing process may result in perceived negative impacts to view by adjoining property owners. And the reduced cost may result in a proliferation of canopy roofing material, which would defeat the intent of the existing regulations, which is architectural continuity. And in the beginning of your memo, I gave you kind of a brief background as to why the roofing material was adopted nine years ago as it was. So that would obviously change as a result of this amendment. Our staff recommendation is essentially we feel that the development standards adopted with the proposal for the boat lift canopies should help ameliorate the impacts of development but may not capture every situation since each individual property has its own set of facts and circumstances surrounding it. Considering the overall potential impacts on the community and past guidance of the board on the issue, staff recommends the amendment as proposed by the Planning Commission but to be modified with the requirement for the public hearing process as is the present requirement. Obviously we recognize the cost of the public hearing process, Page 12 September 20, 2006 which is approximately $2,000 plus advertising fees of approximately $600, may Dissuade the public from seeking approval; however, such a process assures that the public input into what would otherwise be strictly an administrative process. So as proposed by the Planning Commission, you would be losing that public hearing process. So I -- again, that's -- I just want to make you aware of that is my intent. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. ISTENES: That's pretty much the background on it. I'll turn it over to Catherine if she wants to add anything to that or __ CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we have a couple of questions from the commissioners. MS. ISTENES: Sure. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. When we were discussing this a year or two ago and we were modifying some of the requirements at that point in time or rather, you know, kind of tightening them up, at that time I had requested and gotten approval to eliminate Isles of Capri and Goodland in whatever -- you know, in the modifications that we were discussing at the time, and then Commissioner Coletta included Everglades City and Chokoloskee. And I was wondering, is that in here or -- MR. SCHMITT: I have the record, and I know that was brought up. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: But at that meeting in September, it was explained, if we did that, we would have to create a separate overlay excluding those areas from this requirement. And the guidance from the board was to proceed to make sure each of those communities were aware so you could, at least from this, decide whether you're going to allow these as a permitted structure or allow them at all, whether you have a public hearing or not. Page 13 September 20, 2006 But to exclude a geographical area, I would have to create -- we explained at that time we would have to create an overlay basically eliminating them from the enforcement of this. If you're looking to have that included in this amendment, we did not include it in this amendment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Because the communities that speak of and that I represent have no problem with any of the boathouses, canopies or anything. They're all living happily ever after. We just don't have a problem there, and they feel by enacting something like this, there might be a problem and -- MR. SCHMITT: Ma'am, this amendment allows them. The amendment before you today will allow the canopies through an administrative process. What we're asking, is this the amendment you want to carry forward? So it would allow them in Chokoloskee, allow them in -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, with certain restrictions and so forth, correct. MR. SCHMITT: As long as they were within the specified measurements that are listed in this amendment. MS. ISTENES: This allows them countywide. The document that's in front of you has no geographical restriction whatsoever. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it's attached to the part that we approved before. Well, let me -- you know, we still have another hearing for this. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm going to send this to all of my communities -- I'm sure Commissioner Coletta's going to want to do the same thing -- to make sure that this is something that sits well with them, okay? MS. ISTENES: Sure. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just wanted to say, I -- Page 14 September 20, 2006 Joe covered most of it. This would allow for Goodland and Isles of Capri to have canopies and boathouses without going through a long process of asking the government to do it. Because it was stated, I mean, we can't really do a site specific thing unless we do create some overlays. But I think that the Planning Commission did an excellent job. I think we must remember that people -- this is a boating community, and people have a lot of money invested in property, in their boats __ COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and they have to have a way to protect them. And some people, you know, have their life's savings in their boat. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we -- and I just think it's a better process, and I support what the Planning Commission did. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then that's good. I just -_ COMMISSIONER HENNING: And about -- and about view. I mean, everybody has view, but they -- I don't know if they own the view -- their neighbor's view that they have, you know. I can't see __ CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think that's something that we'll discuss in the -- with the people here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not done, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not done, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I have a vote up here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I know that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: An opinion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think everybody has an opinion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to exercise my opinion. Page 15 September 20, 2006 And I feel that the view that you have in the back of your yard or the front of your yard is yours. Anything else is somebody else's. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick comment about the geographical limitations. The comment was made that there are no geographical limitations. It includes the entire county. I want to point out that is doesn't include any of the municipalities. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand the intent of your clarification, Susan. It's just that other people might not understand what that means. But it doesn't include Everglades City, Marco Island or the City of Naples. MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Any more questions, or would you like to hear the speakers? CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we need to hear the speakers. MS. FABACHER: Okay. All right. The first speaker, Commissioners, is Jerry Haslover. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Each of the speakers have three minutes. MR. HASLOVER: Okay. I certainly hope I don't take three minutes from you. I just spent 35 years working for Florida Power and Light keeping your lights on, and I appreciate you up here taking care of these little problems. Now, I think that they have put together a very nice ordinance, and I know there's been a lot of work put on it. I've owned this piece of property down in Bonita Shores where I think this boat canopy ordinance kind of started a little bit of fire down there. I've owned that piece of property for over 25 years. We've enjoyed doing our boating down there, and I want to go down and Page 16 September 20, 2006 build this product right there for me, for our new boat that we wish to purchase and to go out and enjoy all this. Now, we're going to spend a lot of dollars to do that, and -- but until this little fight gets over with, I can't go down there and put my boat lift in and all of that. And so I am here to support this and to support the other people that are down there in the area that have paid taxes and have the right, feel that we should have the right to go out and do this. We're not going to build a $500,000 boathouse and put a tile roof on it. We're just going to have a canvas up there. And we're worried about -- when the big storm comes, I'm going to go down there and take my canvas down because I don't want it tore down, and that's how I feel about it. So I ask you to support this item that they've put together because I know there's been a lot of work in it. And as far as another hearing, it's a shame that we've got to go through it again. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We also have to go through two of them. MR. HASLOVER: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the process. MR. HASLOVER: But I do ask for your support on that, and I thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: All right. Our next speaker would be John Purvis. MR. PURVIS: Thank you very much for your work on this project. I know it's been long and involved. I guess I was initial -- first one to be called on the citation for this product. I have a boat, spent my life earnings on it, and I want to protect it. Put my canopy up in 1997. And in 2000 they come and knocked on my door and said, you've violated. You've got a citation for no permits. We know that -- we went down to try to obtain permits and Page 1 7 September 20, 2006 they said you didn't need permits. At that point we went back and we got a group together and we started saying, we need to have the right to protect our boats and our properties, and that's how we feel. We think that a lot of work's been done by the Land Development Commission. They've done a great job. We've -- I've been to all the meetings except one. The thing I found ironic at these meetings, nobody opposed the canopies. I was at St. John. There was 50 people there. One guy was there and he said, I oppose them. I said, why? I talked to him later. He said, because I'm the devil advocate. I says, look, we've got enough of that. Why don't you -- why do you oppose them? And he didn't have a reason. He wasn't a boat owner. He didn't live on the water. You know, a view -- of course, we're conscious of our neighbors. We want to be good neighbors. We want to take our canopy down if the storm comes. We don't want tiles in the middle of the canals and wood and whatever. We want this ordinance to protect the people. We want to protect our views. Ifwe meet the setbacks, which is required, we're going to -- we're going to meet those view rights. So again, I would like for your support on this, and we thank you for all your work. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir. MS. F ABACHER: Our next speaker will be Mr. Mark Allen. MR. SCHMITT: Catherine, can you follow with the next speaker as well so they'll be -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, if we could have the next speaker, please. MS. FABACHER: Oh, okay. And the next one will be -- oh, great, Chery I Lewandowski, will be after that. MR. ALLEN: Hello, everybody. My name's Mark Allen. I'm a product of Collier County. This is my 51 st year here. Vanderbilt Page 18 September 20,2006 Beach was my home. I learned to drive on that beach. I finally am limited down to my boat dock. I'm very happy with that. What I don't understand -- I'm a licensed surveyor. And we keep beating up this view issue. You must understand to obtain a dock permit, all the requirements have to be met protecting the view of the neighbors. You cannot put this boat dock or lift in without that permit. Weare not changing the view. Weare simply putting the canopy over the boat lift. It's a boat lift cover. So we're not impacting any view. We're not changing anything. And as the Land Development Code says, that if you've got a permitted dock, why can't you cover that permitted dock with a boat lift cover? So you're not asking to move anything, raise anything, change anything. You're simply protecting the boat. The Planning Commission did a super job working on this. They understood it, and staff did a good job in coming up with these standards for boat lift canopies, and I thank you for that. I would certainly like to see this go forward. I would like to protect my boat, and I would appreciate your vote on this if I could have it, please. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir. MS. FABACHER: Ms. Lewandowski, and then Mr. McCrohan. MS. LEWANDOWSKI: Hi. My name is Cheryl Lewandowski, and I live on -- no, I don't live there. I own a boat dock on Third Street in Little Hickory Shores in Bonita Shores, and I'm here to ask you to vote in favor of the boat canopy, boat lift canopies. We have a little Boston Whaler, an old Boston Whaler, and we hung it up on our boat lift, and within six months the teak was destroyed, the cushions were ruined. I mean, it was terrible. We finally had to get rid of the cute little boat. And we've got a boat with a cover, and we thought this would be the solution to everything. Well, I don't know if any of you are boaters Page 19 September 20, 2006 or if you've ever tried to put a cover on a boat while it's hanging over the water. But let me tell you, you have to be a contortionist to do that. We had neighbors who had a beautiful pontoon boat, brand new, but they were elderly. And after a while they just simply could not put the cover on their boat anymore, so they ended up selling the boat, selling -- the boat dock is for sale now, and they moved out of the neighborhood because there's no reason living in Collier County if they can't own a boat. Now, I know there's a lot of issues about views and obstructing -- the canopies obstructing the view and not blending into the coastal landscape. Well, I guess I'm a little bit confused by that because I don't think a 40-foot scarab really blends into the landscape either, so I can't imagine that a cover would really be -- really help that or not help it. So before I run out of my three minutes, please vote for the canopy covers. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, ma'am. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Mr. John McCrohan, and after that will be Ms. Savard-Boyer. MR. McCROHAN: My name is John McCrohan. I am a 20-year resident of Collier County, and I own a boat dock. I'd like to thank Collier County and the Board of Commissioners for allowing me to express my opinion on the boat lift cover issue that's in front of you this evening. For many years, people have erected canopies at airports to protect the commuters, schools to protect students, right here in our own facility, protect citizens, and residents to protect R V s, cars, and, yes, even boats. They've always been considered safe, functional and economical. Boat dock owners in Collier County, all over the county, are just asking for the opportunity to protect our boats and belongings, like Page 20 September 20,2006 anybody else. We ask the Board of Commissioners, and so do I, to please consider that these investments are very dear to our hearts. The access to the water is very dear to us, and we would really appreciate it if you would help us protect our investments. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Next speaker is Ms. Savard-Boyer, and then Mr. Lew Schmidt will be after that. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is B.J. Savard-Boyer, and I live in the Vanderbilt Beach area. I think it's time that we got this clear in the LDC because an awful lot of time has been spent on boathouses and canopies, and I am not against boathouses and canopies. CCPC did a very good job of putting things together. Only one modification that I'd like to see, and that is color. If they could specify shades of blue or green or beige. I mean, there are so many shades of blue and so many shades of gray, and beige is beige. I mean, you know, that's pretty dull. But if they could corne up with some specifics, not bright colors, but maybe neutral colors. Maybe the manufacturers of these canopies have color charts, and a color could be picked from them or some colors picked from them. So the color is one thing. The other thing in F4 for boathouses, it says, one per -- maximum number of boathouse or covered structures per site, one. It does not state that in canopies. I think one canopy is enough for any property. And Mr. Purvis had mentioned that if a storm was corning or whatever, he would take his canopy down. Well, there are many, many homeowners that have canopies that go north from May until October or November, and I think that's a consideration. And I don't know how it can be monitored. I don't know if a company can be hired to corne in and take them down or what, and I certainly don't know how code enforcement could keep track of that. Page 21 September 20,2006 Other than that, you know, as few changes if possible, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a question. You're saying that if we pass this resolution, you'd like to have some kind of -- MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Consistency. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- consistency as far as -- there would have to be specifications in regards to the exact color so that if we picked blue and green, that we don't have 16 different shades of blue and 16 different shades of green. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay I understand. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Exactly, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Lew Schmidt. And after that we'll have Mr. Rick Palazzo, please. MR. PALAZZO: Yes. My name is Rick Palazzo. MR. FABACHER: Oh, no. I'm sorry. Mr. Schmidt's first and then -- MR. PALAZZO: Oh, pardon me? MS. FABACHER: Mr. Schmidt will go first, and then you're next. MR. PALAZZO: Oh, I'm sorry. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. You're in the warm-up circle. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Commissioners. I'm Lew Schmidt. I live at 405 Pine Avenue. I live on a canal lot, and I do want -- I do have two concerns I'd like to bring to your attention. One concern is, not all neighbors -- can we do just -- MS. ISTENES: You just want one? MR. SCHMIDT: This one first -- not all neighbors are as considerate as many here. But this is what happens if you don't take the canopy off. So you have to be aware that parts can go flying around the community and do damage. Page 22 September 20, 2006 The second concern that I have is, views are very important to us on canal properties because it has a direct bearing on the value of our properties. If you restrict my view to my back yard, all I can see is the boat dock and the boat lift directly across from me. I currently have some view of the bay. And if you don't have some procedure to protect that view, I could be blocked out. This is an example of what can be done and is done. It exists now. Paragraph F, subparagraph 4, which deals with boathouses, says, maximum number of boathouse or covered structures per site is one. Is that permitted? I think it might be because paragraph G does not include that provision. If nothing else, I would ask you to please include paragraph 4 under G so that you cannot have this kind of a situation and block my view, which is valuable. Thank you very much, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Now Mr. Palazzo, and then Emily Maggio would be next in the on-deck circle. MR. PALAZZO: Yes. My name is Rick Palazzo. I've been here for almost 30 years. And ever since I've been down here, I've seen canopies all over. And I decided last year to put a canopy up. And what happens? I get a citation. And the doctor next to me, his was up for a couple years, he never got cited. So I don't understand how this goes about, but I felt like I was being kind of picked on because I just put the thing on, and already I get a citation. And the citation, the way it reads, as if the man was watching me do this, install the canopy. And he definitely wasn't there because it rained that day, and he was nowhere around because -- if he was an actual guy to -- that's supposed to stop you from that, he should -- he would have come over and said, hey, you're not allowed to put this Page 23 September 20, 2006 thing up and that would have been the end of it, so -- but I don't understand all this stuffhere. These canopies have been here longer than I have. And all of a sudden, boom, we've got a big problem. As far as the colors are concerned, this was brought up a couple weeks ago, and they already voted in different colors that they had with the other people that were here. So that's all I really got to say. This has been going over and over and asking the same thing. And basically, you can't satisfy everybody. You can't satisfy the color. You can't satisfy a person's views, whether they can see across the street, watch what their neighbor's doing. You know, to me this is kind of stupid because I want to see what's in my back yard. I don't want to see what somebody else is doing in their back yard, and that's the way I feel about it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir. MS. FABACHER: Ms. Emily Maggio. And then the last speaker I have is Mr. Doug Fee. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. MAGGIO: Good evening. For the record, my name is Emily Maggio, and I live on 2nd Street in Little Hickory Shores. The photo he's putting up, just to remind you, about a year and a half ago, this commission turned down a petition for boathouses on these boat dock lots in Bonita Shores, or in Little Hickory Shores. My concern is, you want to permit canopies, you know, the county's going to have to live with whatever they create; however, on these lots, they needed a provision use to even have a dock. They got a variance to build lot line to lot line docks. And if we're going to put roofs on these now -- the fire hazard, I already pointed out when we had this meeting. You've got dock against dock against dock. You're going to put roofs on them now. I mean, my concern is that this is not a one-size- fits-all matter you're talking about. What you're going to be doing is granting a variance. Is Page 24 September 20, 2006 that what you're granting? Because if you're going -- if the county's definition of building remains the same, then what you're granting them -- to allow them is a variance that they haven't applied for. And I mean, you know, where are we going with this? I understand they have boats. I have a boat. You put money in a boat. You know what, we put money in our homes, and that's what needs to be protected here. This is a residential neighborhood, unlike any other __ I mean, most of these people that want to put up canopies in their back yard have a house, which is a requirement for having a dock, which is an accessory structure. So I mean, you know, this is a horse of a different color there. My concern is that we're doing a one-size-fits-all that isn't going to fit in this residential neighborhood. I think that's all I want to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: All right. Mr. Doug Fee. MR. FEE: Good evening, Commissioners. I have a cold, excuse me. F or the record, my name is Doug Fee, and I'm here opposed to the amendments before you, and basically for the character of our waterways, the safety issues that have been mentioned here. Are we going to have responsible citizens who take down the canvases? At least with boathouses they're structures that are meeting wind loads. I happen to be the person at the public meeting quoted in the paper as being opposed to this. I was the one person who raised my hand, and Mr. Purvis mentioned me, not by name. I do own a boat. I live in a boating community. I live six doors down from the water. And, Mr. Coyle, in several meetings over the past couple years, you've mentioned that Naples and the City of Marco do not allow canvases or boathouses, and I support that. And I remember you saying that, you know, those are boating Page 25 September 20, 2006 communItIes. They protect their boats by using canvases directly on their boats. They obviously are not having view issues because they're not allowed to have them. So I just wanted to exercise my freedom and say I was opposed to this amendment. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Is that the last speaker? MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, that's the last speaker I have. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll close the public hearing at this point. Discussion by commissioners? The only concern -- one of the concerns that I have -- and it was brought up by B.J. Savard-Boyer, and that is the colors of the canopies and the different shades. And I believe that what we need to do is look at this regulation and look -- make sure that whatever's specified for the canopies -- I believe there's five colors, but we have to be more precise in regards to -- I think the tone of the color -- not being a color expert, but -- so that you don't end up with 15 different shades of green. I believe there was what, green, blue, white? MS. FABACHER: Beige. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm not sure about white being a good item to have as a boat canopy cover because of the fact it has mildew and it will turn black or turn another color. So that might be something that needs to be looked into as far as the colors. But I think something that's earth tone, like green/blue or whatever. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or tan. MS. F ABACHER: Staff can provide some materials for you before the next hearing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question. If you do decide on particular colors, don't they get sun bleached, or doesn't this canvas bleach out? Page 26 September 20,2006 MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. Commissioner, I'm not an expert. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just asking because then if you put a brand new one next to an old one, you know, would there be a complaint that one shade didn't match another or something? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's true. They do bleach out. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? Good question. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Ifwe could, with the chair's permission, I'd like to call an expert on colors, Nick Hale, to the podium, and possibly he could give us -- enlighten us on the direction we should go. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He just happens to be in the audience. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Nick, the color guy. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nick's the color guy. We're not paying him for this either, by the way. He's doing it free, pro bono. MR. HALE: For the record, Nick Hale. I'm a color scientist, so I know about how to specify colors and how to test the specification to test the colors to see if the specification is being honored and so forth. When you start specifying individual colors as being acceptable or not acceptable, you're going down a road that has no end to it. If blue is acceptable and green is acceptable, as you have here -- we have two commissioners with blue shirts, and I suspect both of those would be acceptable. But Catherine has a very vivid blue/green jacket, which, while quite attractive, on a boat may not be what you have in mind. If yellow is unacceptable and green is acceptable -- a lady was up here a new moments ago with a very vivid and attractive green/yellow chartreuse jacket. Is that going to be yellow or green? I think you understand where I'm going here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. MR. HALE: Now, it happens that I think in a different item today you're going to be asked to consider a concept and something Page 27 September 20, 2006 that developed for Joe Schmitt involving a set of four large color charts that will sample the visual color space with about 400 different colors, and that will represent the thousands and thousands of color you see in a paint store. And because they're in visual order -- this will be for commercial building exteriors -- you can just put a line across there and say, on this side of the line, they're okay for the whole building. This side of the line, only for trim. My point is this. This is a generic color standard, and you can use it for this particular thing for boat canopy colors by saying colors in this block are okay and this block are okay and this block are okay, and the rest not okay. Remember, they're going to fade like the devil. They're out in the sun. The sun gets hot. We don't have colorants, paints and dyes, that can withstand intensive sun month after month and year after year. So you want a range of color. You want to -- if you're going to have them blend with the surrounding habitat, and I suggest you say natural habitat, because while you may mean that, remember Habitat for Humanity builds houses. So it's good to be precise because this is a standard, a law. So if you will wait on this item for a few months until these color charts are available, they can be used, and I'll be glad to show you how to use them -- for this. And I'm sure not only will you be happy, but more important the people with the boats will be happy. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, Nick. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe agree to move this forward, then we can approach that with the meeting in two months -- it's two months it would be coming back to us, right? MR. SCHMITT: It comes back October 25th. What we will do at that time -- and as Mr. Hale noted, he is doing some work for us on a color chart, but we'll also -- Page 28 September 20,2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue. MR. SCHMITT: -- because these are manufactured items, it's a __ there's pretty much a manufactured standard. We'll try and get a couple of examples from the manufacturers so that you know where those colors are. Nick, hopefully by that time, we will have an assemblage of the product he's been working on. We're going to talk about that in another amendment, but -- and we'll give you an idea of where that band will fall on the color chart that Nick is developing. So we'll -- I guess what we're looking for is, are we on the right track in regards to what the Planning Commission has offered? And understanding that, it basically now reverts this process to an administrative process as long as you're within the defined criteria of height and setbacks. It is strictly an administrative -- there will no longer be the public hearing before the Planning Commission for a boathouse. Now, boat dock extensions will still be a public hearing before the Planning Commission, but the boathouse -- MS. ISTENES: No. MR. SCHMITT: I'm sorry. I spoke -- go ahead. MS. ISTENES: I just want to clarify. The way it's drafted, this is a boat lift canopy, and there's very specifics where you can have a boat lift canopy. It has to be on a legally permitted dock over an existing boat lift, and then you have to meet all the development criteria. If you do that, that's administrative. The boathouse requirements is still there. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. ISTENES: If you're going to do boathouse. CHAIRMAN HALAS: In the example that was -- the gentleman brought up where there was two boat lifts at one residence, what do we do about something like that? MS. ISTENES: I noted the concern over adding boat lift Page 29 September 20,2006 canopies to F5, which would restrict that to one per site. I thought that was a good suggestion and thought I would recommend that to you as well. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. ISTENES: So that would take care of that. Any existing boathouses, you'd have to look at that and see what happened, how that got to be where it was, whether it was legally permitted or not. CHAIRMAN HALAS: But we won't go forward with two situations on one piece of property like that? MS. ISTENES: Right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other concern I have -- and it was brought up -- and that's in regards to those boat properties where we just have dock properties. How should we address that? Do you have any guidance in regards to that? All it is is basically the property is -- MR. SCHMITT: Boat dock lots in Hickory Shores. That's the only place we have them in the county. MS. ISTENES: Correct. The way this is drafted, if they have an existing legally permitted dock and a boat lift, they can get administrative approval to have a boat lift canopy. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. My question is, are these legally permitted? MS. ISTENES: If this amendment passes as -- in its current form, yes, they would be, and all they would -- these boat dock lot owners would have to do, if they have a legally permitted dock -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what I'm asking. MS. ISTENES: -- which I believe -- yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: They are legally permitted? MS. ISTENES: Yes. They were legally permitted under a past resolution which was later amended. And they are, as the other gentleman spoke about -- I think it was Emily Maggio spoke about -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Emily. MS. ISTENES: -- how they were basically built from --legally Page 30 September 20, 2006 built from property line to property line. MR. SCHMITT: Zero lot line. MS. ISTENES: Zero lot line. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And are these still permitted in Collier County, these boat lots as such? MR. SCHMITT: There are no other -- MS. ISTENES: There aren't any others other than the ones on Third Avenue. MR. SCHMITT: These were platted -- they were platted as part of the Little Hickory Shores many years ago. I don't know if there's any prohibition against it, but I -- there is. MS. ISTENES: Well, they -- there probably -- probably what happened was they probably threw fill up on the shore and created-- and then somebody allowed them to plat basically nonconforming lots. And so the -- MR. SCHMITT: Current rule today is you cannot put a boat dock in unless you have a principal structure. These lots are excluded. So the current law today says you cannot simply have a boat dock lot. You cannot buy a lot and put up a boat dock without the principal structure, excluding these at Little Hickory Shores. MS. ISTENES: They're anomalies and, you know, they're-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have any direction from the legal staff in this regard? MR. KLATZKOW: No. It's -- we're consistent with the growth management act. It's whatever the board wishes to do on this, quite frankly. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Now, what -- what guidelines can we put into this, if any, in regards to site view for the neighbors? MR. KLATZKOW: Once you start getting into site for the neighbors, now you're looking towards a public hearing process, and somebody's going to have to determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not view's been impaired, and we're going to figure out Page 31 September 20, 2006 some sort of standards for that, which is not really where the Planning Commission was going on this. We can go that way though. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Halas, the setbacks by the limit and height and in the side yard setbacks create the envelope that one can build in, and that protects -- to a measure, protects the view from the neighbors, but also assures the riparian right that one has if they want to put up this dock -- or I'm sorry, put up the boat cover. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Now, are they going to be pulling a permit on these boat covers? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. These will be permitted, and on the permit will be specified a specification that winds greater than 70 miles an hour, the property owner should remove -- must remove the canopy or move the canvas. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The other question I have is, ones these are permitted and built, is there going to be an inspection process to make sure that they follow the guidelines that are set with these canopies so that you've got like 12 feet -- not to exceed 12 feet? So is somebody going to go out there and make sure that somebody hasn't extended to 15 feet? MS. F ABACHER: Catherine Fabacher, for the record. That would be part of the building process where they would review the plans, and then the building inspector would go out and inspect it under -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: So there would be an inspection process to make sure they fall within the guidelines that is established in this document? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, under the building permit. MR. SCHMITT: I need to clarify. The only way we inspect setbacks is through mandating and spot zoning. I do not have inspectors that go out and actually take measurements to assure setback. They would come in under the permit process, indicate where they're Page 32 September 20, 2006 going to build this. It's really up to the contractor to comply. If there's any accusations that they exceeded that, I would have to go back to the property owner and mandate a spot survey. I would have to have a registered land surveyor perform a survey to validated that they're built within the specified criteria. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're not talking about the dock. We're talking about the cover? MR. SCHMITT: I'm talking about the cover as well. It's basically an application process. Frankly, it's the faith and trust and confidence both in the contractor putting up the structure and the applicant meet -- performing to the code as specified. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we know how that turns out in some of the setback problems we've had up there, okay. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, the only way I would do that is through -- I would have to add the additional requirements to require a spot survey when completed -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, MR. SCHMITT: -- to validate that it is, in fact, constructed. Because it -- unless -- I can develop some kind of criteria just to measure that it doesn't exceed through a site inspection, but normally the site inspection is nothing more, in this case, to validate that it was constructed to standard, to the manufacturer's standard. The manufacturing test submits the design, similar to a pool cage or some other type of structure, and it's just a simple validation. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I just want to make sure that we -- if we approve this, that the end result is that we have some kind of criteria to follow up on and make sure that this is legal in the sense of the construction and how it was put up. MR. ALLEN: Mr. Halas, could I direct that, as a surveyor? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. MR. ALLEN: Before anything is ever CO'ed, we, as surveyors, for the last 30 years, have to go back and locate those improvements. Page 33 September 20, 2006 Drawings are made, they are issued to the county for inspection. So the professional answer there is that the society actually are the eyes for the building department. We go out and measure these things up and find out where they are, how high they are, and that is issued to the building department before the CO is issued. So your point is covered that it must meet the plan or the county will kick it back based upon the drawings that we provide. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a motion? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we're not voting tonight. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. You can't vote tonight. MR. SCHMITT: We're just taking guidance from you tonight, then we'll move forward, bring this back for a second hearing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any other issues that we need to cover on this? Commissioner Coyle, do you have something to add to this? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It's not clear to me what guidance we're giving to staff. No one has said whether or not we're going to grant this by right, whether we're going to accept the CCPC recommendations, or we're going to modify the recommendations. So it's unclear to me as to what guidance we are considering for staff. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think one of the -- go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I like the Planning Commission's recommendations, and that's what I would like to direct staff to bring back is the Planning Commission recommendations. I think it was an add-on to planning staff's language. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I would like to add that we have to make sure that there's only one boat cover per resident (sic). I think that Page 34 September 20, 2006 needs to be added in there. Do I get-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, that -- I'm sorry. I didn't -- I agree with you. I think it's all realistic. And, of course, we're going to come back and approach the color situation at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You said one boat dock per residence? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, one cover. COMMISSIONER HENNING: One cover. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that normal? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't know if that's within Isles of Capri or Goodland. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, if they've got one boat dock per resident ( sic), there's no reason to put two boat docks, unless it's -- unless you can put it on that particular piece of property. What we're trying to do is eliminate what we saw in that picture there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You just said boat docks instead of boat dock covers. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I help you a little bit with this? I'm just curious. Isn't it a zoning requirement that you're only allowed so many docks within so many feet? CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know what you're saying. There's that -- of course, we're not dealing with docks. We're dealing with the covers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. MS. ISTENES: The current regulation for boathouses only allows one per site. You could dock more than one boat there as long as your docks and everything fell within the development standards or regulations; however, regardless of how many boats you have docked Page 35 September 20,2006 there you can only have one boathouse per site -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we don't need to add it because it's already there. MS. ISTENES: Well, my recommendation would be to add boat lift canopies to the existing rule which says all boathouses and covered structures -- oh, I'm sorry. Maximum number of boathouses or covered structures per site is one. We would just add boat lift canopies to that line, too. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. ISTENES: That should cover, I think, your concern. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's the big -- that's the, I think, our biggest concern. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And meanwhile, this will get out in the public domain so that if somebody -- I don't know what the repercussions are on this in my area. I'll be honest with you. I've been there thousand of times, and I can't recall. I've never really looked at what was there as far as boat covers and how many were there at one dock. Would there be a grandfather clause in there allowing for something like this? MS. ISTENES: As far as more than one? MR. COLETTA: Yes. MS. ISTENES: I don't know that more than one has ever been permitted since I've been here in 10 years. So I'm not sure -- somebody would really have to prove that a very old set of regulations existed and they didn't change anything from that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So that's the guidance. Do I have any nods on that? Okay. Thank you. Any other questions we need to address on this before we continue on? (No response.) Page 36 September 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Have we covered it? MS. FABACHER: I think we've pretty much covered it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: We had initially planned to do transportation issues next, but we do have a great number of speakers here for the notification of change in PUD ownership to a homeowners -- I don't know, you know, if you want to take that next. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. Let's get to that so that we can address -- MS. FABACHER: And that -- Commissioners, that would be on page 113. And Maryann Devanes is going to kind of guide us through it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Mary. MS. DEV ANES: Good evening, Commissioner. Mary Devanes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hold on just a minute. I just want to let these people know what we have done is -- on the boat issue is we've taken the guidance; we've looked at what the Planning Commission has given to us. The only issue that I believe is before us is in regards to the boat canopies and the covers and how we're going to address that, and that will come up in the next issue which will be -- MS. FABACHER: October 25th. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- October 25th. So that -- obviously the direction that we've given staff is to continue on, but now we have to address the covers, the colors of covers. We've pretty much established there's only going to be one cover per resident (sic) at this point in time. So I hope that has addressed your concerns in regards to this. So that if you would like at this point in time, you can go home now and enjoy dinner or a cocktail or whatever it is, okay? Thank you very much. Okay. I'm sorry. MS. DEV ANES: Good evening, Commissioners. Maryann Page 37 September 20, 2006 Devanes -- MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. Maryann, you want to wait till the noise stops maybe? MS. DEV ANES: I certainly can. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. MS. DEV ANES: For the record, Maryann Devanes, PUD Monitoring Supervisor. Thank you, Commissioners, for taking into consideration the time and the schedule, the citizens that have joined us this evening. The amendment that's before you, as mentioned, is in the yellow section of your binders on page 113. The amendment is a product of your guidance and direction that's been given during our PUD workshops. As you know, the PUD monitoring team has conducted seven PUD IOU workshops, beginning in June 2003, with our last one conducted June 13th of this year. During these workshops, we repeatedly heard from the residents, ad hoc associations, and those already governing their associations that a mechanism was needed to ensure that all developer commitments were met prior to a transition to an association. We heard many stories that burdened the association financially and emotionally. Currently we have PUD, PUD monitoring program, and the audit program which inspects for developer compliance. But this amendment, if adopted, would be the first trigger for the mechanism to further ensure compliance prior to a turnover. This amendment adds a requirement that a minimum of six months notification be given to the engineering services department prior to any change in ownership to a community association, including but not limited, to the transfer of all or part of the development to a homeowners' association, property -- excuse me __ property owners' association, master association or similar entity. Once notified, the engineering services would then be able to Page 38 September 20, 2006 comprehensively verify a final checklist of the developer's approvals from site clearing through to the final inspection. The information gathered can then be utilized by the associations prior to their transition. Presently the county outreach program offers the only means that we have of helping the associations through turnover. Unless contacted by the transitioning associations, we're not aware of their needs. Additionally, this board recommended that staff find a means of releasing certain commitments. Staff believes that item number 5 will provide this procedure. So there's two additions to that section of the Land Development Code. Section 10.02.13F, item 5, enables staff to release a PUD commitment that is deemed no longer necessary, and you have given us guidance on this. Individual commitments will be brought to your board as an agenda item for their approved release. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any discussion on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none __ COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Other than the fact that it sounds like a good idea whenever you get more notice out there. All of us have dealt with property owners' associations that were caught a little bit short before. CHAIRMAN HALAS: In fact, a lot of them didn't realize the burden that was placed upon them after the developer left and there wasn't a clear path, and I think that's very important that we've addressed that in this particular amendment to the LDC. MS. DEV ANES: Yes, Commissioner. I agree. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very, very much. Any other questions on this? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got speakers. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, yeah, we do have speakers. Page 39 September 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry. MS. FABACHER: Okay. First speaker will be Colonel Leonard F. Nolan, Jr., after that it will be Al Altier. COL. NOLAN: Chairman Halas, members of the commission, I thank you for hearing my words this evening. I implore you to adopt this amendment. I am a member of a homeowners' association that is ruled by a developer. The horror stories are terrible. When we went there to live, we thought it was going to be a beautiful community. There were promises made. We're going to have tennis courts, we're going to have recreational facilities in the clubhouse. Now the clubhouse is going to be made into a conference or business center. You know the development, problem is the old days, as Boyne South. Today it's Royal Palm Golf Estates. I have a book I'd like to present to you afterwards with pictures illustrating some of our problems, but I know my time is limited, so I'll just go through with you a few of the instances what has happened, how we were probably led down a path that was incorrect, and unfortunately you, as the commissioners, were also. It started out with a CCPC meeting in August of2004, the engineering company for the developer said, all the plumbing in the product will be rebuilt. We'll have a much better plumbing system. I'm quoting from the minutes of the meetings. The owner has agreed to maintain all the roads and all the drainage systems. As I stand here before you, that has not occurred. The BCC meeting, your meeting, September 21, 2004, their attorney said, we're going to spend a lot of money to bring this community up to current codes. We agree the golf course owners would be responsible for all the lake maintenance, and all that would be an association expense. It would not be for the homeowners. Please note that date of September Page 40 September 20,2006 21, 2004. In April 2, 2004, the same engineers went to South Florida Water Management and said, the existing outfall structures will not be altered and will continue to function in the same manner as it was originally constructed. They went and got a permit. The permittees were Naples Development, Naples Golf Club South, and one of the other LLCs. Under the special considerations, who was named to maintain the lakes? Boyne South Homeowners' Association. So you approve one way. They went to another governing body and did it another different way. In 2005, unbeknownst to us, the outfall pipes, which they told South Florida Water Management were fine, they went into a contract to have them replaced. We had a special meeting as -- we have no say. All we can do is -- they are required to have a meeting, and we have to listen to what they're going to do. Oh, I'm sorry, okay. But to make a long story short, we got an assessment for $67,000 taken out of our money, and there was a $565,000 bill for outflow pipes what they originally said were no problem. I have the pictures. The only thing dry in Boyne South today is the golf course. Homeowners' lots are being flooded, their homes are being -- we don't want to be the next Golden Gate, but that's what it's turning out to be, unfortunately. Commissioner Halas, I'll give you this, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You can just give that to the court reporter, sir. Thank you very much for your time. MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Altier. MR. ALTIER: My name is Al Altier and I'm a resident of Cypress Woods PUD in Cypress Trade Circle. It is too bad that this amendment had not been adopted prior to our turnover, because we went through all kinds of problems with the developer when the Page 41 September 20, 2006 turnover carne about. This would have saved our turnover committee valuable time spent in research that we had to do. Although our management association has gone through its transition, we want to make our -- make our support known so that other associations will benefit from this amendment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir. Next speaker? MS. FABACHER: Next speaker would be Dawn Bricco, and then after that, J.A. Rautio. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. BRICCO: Good evening. As she said, my name is Dawn Bricco. I'm president of the Sanctuary of Blue Heron. Spoken in front of you before. I want to start by saying thank you to the engineering department at the county. All have been helpful to ensure M.K. Developers completes the compliant issues, even though the developer does not seem to be willing to do so. And I also want to thank you, Commissioners, for being involved in that process as well. The other day I was telling a neighbor how I stumbled upon Maryann and how thankful I was and how there should be regulations and checklists for the developer, and owners should be notified of new developments prior to turnover. If I had not contacted Maryann, our association would not be aware of compliance issues, and after development was completed, we would have been stuck with the financial -- stuck with a huge financial obligation to complete. Our community absolutely, 100 percent supports amendment to the Land Development Code. Our development predated where bonds are required, therefore, he does not have one. Our only recourse for him to comply is the county holding COso There are only seven buildings left in our association to CO. I have 28 compliance completion items on my list which I have compiled by going through our development's monitoring report, and I'm sure there are others that I'm unaware of. Out of these, only two Page 42 September 20, 2006 and a half have been completed since last I spoke before you. Our development is gravely concerned since our developer has not made much progress since last time I was here. We would gladly accept any recommendations or any other ideas that would help us. And we need your support on this amendment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: The next speaker, Commissioner Rautio. And after that, we'll hear from Mr. Floyd Chapin. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. RAUTIO: Good evening. For the record, my name is JOY ceanna, lA. Rautio. I live in North Naples in Victoria Park. I'm a former Planning Commission member, and this is an issue near and dear to my heart. I want to state tonight that I'm definitely here to support this LDC amendment to require that you have advanced written notice before ownership change from the developer to any community association. It's critical that this happen in an advanced period, and the six months looks good. The second item is to support the concept that before the release of any PUD commitment that is no longer necessary, that it shall be accomplished by an item of the Board of County Commissioners. You can do that obviously on your consent agenda if there's not a lot of controversy. But these are two concepts that I think you've corne a long way with the county both as commissioners and as staff. Just focusing for just a moment on the notification as a first step. I think that's very progressive and that it's a step in the right direction. When I left the county as a Planning Commissioner in January of 2002, I had an exit interview as departing chairman of the CCPC, and I expressed my concern at that time to the county manager, Torn Olliff. And, let's see. I think current County Manager Mudd was there, as well as Administrator Joe Schmitt, and they carne to listen to Page 43 September 20, 2006 some of my concerns that we, as a Planning Commission, were very frustrated with the idea that developers were not living up to their commitments and the amount of time that was consumed by petitions from developers who carne to ask for forgiveness rather than permISSIon. And I remember one in particular we spent several hours discussing, what had or hadn't happened. And, of course, we had a lot of homeowners that were expressing their frustration and their anger. So I had sort of suggested, there's got to be a better way, and is there some way that we can start auditing the compliance or non-compliance of developers in PUDs, and that process started, I believe, somewhere in June of 2003. Now, your staff has done a really great job. I have a lot of respect for Maryann Devanes and her crew, and obviously the homeowners really, truly feel that this is a good service you're providing. So this Land Development Code amendment would help staff then be able to have a checklist of all the items that the last speaker just mentioned before there's a turnover and that you really do know what's happening and that your job is made easier as commissioners because you approved PUDs and you approved whole sets of regulations that you know are going to be followed. So I just want to say that I'm here to strongly support this LDC amendment, and I'm glad to see we've corne such a long way here in September of 2006 because it's encouraging to me to see that developers are being held to their requirements. Hopefully time will be shortened at any of your Planning Commission meetings as well as your Board of County Commissioners because you've asked in advance and they know they have to follow through. So thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Chapin, and then after that Mr. Giansanti. MR. CHAPIN: Thank you very much. Thank you, Page 44 September 20, 2006 Commissioners, for allowing me time to speak before you this evenIng. My name is Floyd Chapin. I represent the Sapphire Lakes Master Association. I'm President. And my only remarks are that we enthusiastically support the LDC amendment that's proposed before you tonight. It should have happened in 1992 because we're going through this since 1992, as you commissioners are well aware of. I've been -- appeared before you on many occasions. It's a must-do situation, and we commend you for being proactive in helping the insisting homeowners and property owners of Collier County . I would -- I would urge that you expeditiously take care of this matter in October. We're going through yet, with our developer as Green Heron, as they're neighbors of ours we're within the same PUD, of extracting -- trying to extract funds from him going back 14 years, and it's almost to no avail. So we -- we appreciate your efforts, Maryann's and the LDC people for pursuing this, and we will be back in October to make sure that it's carried through. I know there are other comments, a lighthearted comment. Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Coletta, you're off the hook. Commissioner Halas and Fiala won the award for talk the most tonight. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The night's not over either. MR. CHAPIN: I know. MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Giansanti. MR. GIANSANTI: Yeah. My name's Will Giansanti. I have three lots in Boyne South right now. I currently live on Isles of Capri. But when I first went over there to build, I was going to have my son -- I was going to build a house for my son over there, but what happened was, a new company came in, took it all over, and said, we Page 45 September 20, 2006 are going to make the golf course smaller and more land, get rid of some of the houses, reduce the number of homes that was in the development originally. And in addition to that, we're going to take care of, as Len said originally, the water problems that are here. There won't be any pumps needed. We hashed this back and forth. We had people from the town at all the meetings. We all screamed because it's been a wet area there to begin with at Boyne South. They said, we'll take care of all this. They corne in, they're going to redevelop it, increase the golf course, do the clubhouse over. My -- I voted in favor for it because the golf course was a mess, and these people came in gang busters and promised everybody the world. And I always thought, when somebody comes into a development, before they could sell anything, all the amenities have to be in, golf courses, the pro shops, everything has to be done. Not the case. They're not done. They've got signs out, selling for phase II. We got a bill for $67,000. We got another bill for $400,000 some for water problems, as homeowners. How can we get a bill for $400,000? The project isn't even done. I find out they went to the town and changed the ownerships over to the landowners for the water system. How could they do that? I'm not paying the bills. I've got three bills already. They want me to pay $4,500. I'm not paying it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What community is that? MR. GIANSANTI: Boyne South. They've flipped __ CHAIRMAN HALAS: That was before us. About two years ago. MR. GIANSANTI: Well, it's come back alive now. They're putting everything back on the onus of the landowners there. The development's not done. The developer is still responsible to get what they promised done. Page 46 September 20, 2006 But since they haven't turned the land over to us, they're putting the onus of the costs back on our shoulders. CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, what can we do on this? This is not right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'd like to look at the documents for one thing, because, you know, this is the first time I'm hearing of it. My own view is that a PUD document is both an agreement and an ordinance and that the county, through code enforcement can obviously take action. And as far as agreement goes, I think the county can take legal action in court as well if it so chooses. Whether or not the county wishes to stop issuing COs, you know, would be something else we could consider. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we've got to have some way of getting the hammer in this and getting this taken care of. This is __ I don't think this is totally -- it's not fair at all, putting this type of burden on the homeowners, without -- and there's all this development going on out there. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is your area, isn't it? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Thank you very much, but you jumped the gun. I'm glad I've got one commissioner at least, and hopefully more, that are supportive of this. They've had to endure a lot, an awful lot. And I'm sure that we can probably try to work through this. Now, you're on a public utility, if I remember, a county utility. So I imagine there's many ways we can look at it. MR. GIANSANTI: They have __ CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you come up to the mike, sir? Sir, Page 47 September 20, 2006 if you'd just come up to the mike. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to know who the builder is. MR. GIANSANTI: They have a public sewer system there that connects to -- are you going to take (sic) to it? Well, it's not on your property, so you have to dig half the road up. Oh, you need water? Go to the town. The town's responsible for water. We didn't run it down your street. That's what's happening there now, too. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The town must be the county. MR. GIANSANTI: I'm sorry, the county, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the county is responsible for the water. But, you know, there's certain things that have to be done by the property owners. But still, you know, who is the builder? I think Donna Fiala just asked that. MR. GIANSANTI: There is -- they say it's Hole Montes, which is -- do it right now. Now it's by Triad. I don't -- every time I get something it's from another different person from -- you're chasing yourself -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hole Montes is an engineering firm. MR. GIANSANTI: The engineers. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're not builders. Joe Schmitt, what do you know? COL. NOLAN: The developer is the LLCs that I mentioned to you, Naples Golf, Naples Development. They are the ones who own phase II. They're the ones who own lots in phase 1. They are the ones who run the homeowners' association. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I appreciate that. The problem is is that no one else can hear you that's watching this when __ CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you come up to the mike __ COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- you're not up at the mike. CHAIRMAN HALAS; -- please. MS. F ABACHER: Please identify yourself for the record, thanks. Page 48 September 20, 2006 COL. NOLAN: Leonard Nolan. Naples Golf Club South, Naples Development, they have many LLCs that, A, own phase II, which they're putting in 84 lots. They're putting in -- in the front townhouses. They are the ones who own the golf course. They are the ones who do not know what hat they're wearing. Are they wearing the hat as director of the homeowner association? Are they wearing the hat as the developer? Are they wearing the hat of the golf course owner? We as the people who live there, as he said -- they took $67,000, against Florida Statutes, of our money. What do we do? We implore the proactive thoughts of Maryann Devanes to give us some relief. Florida Statutes state, if you're going to take any -- do any work -- if you're going to do a project, you need competitive bidding. They did it no competitive bidding. They gave the money, they signed a contract. In your documentation I gave you, sir, you will see a letter dated in June saying, we will take $67,000 of your capital expenditures fund. No. There is a check in there, a copy of it. They did it in December of '05. That's what we're facing. That's why we implore you to accept this amendment to the LDC. We need help from developers, and Maryann Devanes has been our one real hope. I thank you SIr. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sounds like they need more than just this amendment. Sound like you need a whole bunch of cameras (sic ). CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly. I think we need look into this, County Attorney, if you can give us some guidance at one of our upcoming board meetings in regards to this, if you could. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I think we need to look at this and come and give you a report. Boyne South or Naples South or Naples -- COL. NOLAN: Royal Palm Golf Estates. MR. SCHMITT: Whatever the name is this week. It is a unique Page 49 September 20, 2006 development. It is -- there are straight zoning areas, so it's kind of an odd-shaped PUD. The -- though the houses -- some of the houses look like they're part of the community are actually straight zoning, and then the PUD kind of wraps around. But there are issues that are being raised here that are -- go beyond county authority. It really is more association foundation issues. We can -- we can enforce the development standards, we can enforce the -- some of those mandates -- certainly the mandates in the PUD, but we'll get back to you in regards to some of the other issues, and we'll have to have the county attorney involved in regards to some of the issues here being raised about the foundation and asking for money. That may be beyond our scope of ability to actually legally go after, but we can certainly help and guide and provide some advise. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you be so kind as to keep me -- MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- advised of the situation? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any more discussions on this particular amendment? MS. F ABACHER: No more speakers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. No more speakers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine. It's a great idea. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Wonderful. We'll move on to the next section. Is there another section where there's a lot of people involved in -- MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. This would be the -- on page 85, 85 in your book, and this is the issue of limiting the height of house pad, the fill under a house pad, and I think we have Stan Chrzanowski to Page 50 September 20, 2006 shepherd us through this discussion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And we have some public speakers on this, too? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir, we do. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, great. MS. FABACHER: Where's Stan? MR. SCHMITT: I thought Stan was here. I saw him. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where's Stan? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is Stan here? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He's standing by outside in the hall, I think. MS. FABACHER: No, Stan's here. I saw him earlier. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay. MS. FABACHER: He must be in the hall. MR. SCHMITT: I was ready to cover it. Stan's here, he'll do it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There he is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Stan, the man. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Stan, the man, yep. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. MR. SCHMITT: House pads, Stan. Put your jacket on there. You're official now. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good evening. Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Review, and I was just outside going over some of the house pad issues with civilians. CHAIRMAN HALAS: With civilians. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, hi. What we have in Collier County, a long time ago Ed Perico and I started looking at an issue in Golden Gate Estates where a lot of homes were being built very high compared to their neighbors. And what we had was a lot of 75-foot wide lots where -- where the fill pad, because we allow a seven-and-a-half- foot side yard setback -- and we were forcing people by the septic tank code -- and by the fact that you Page 51 September 20, 2006 have to build 18 inches above the crown of the road, we were forcing people to come high with their house pad fill. And as they come high, what they do generally is the house pad fill extends over onto the neighbor's property a lot. And we were getting two and three and four houses in a row where the house pad fill fills on -- it extends onto each other. So you're basically raising a row like a dam right through there. Now, in the Estates this matters because a lot of those darns are perpendicular to the flow of the water, the sheet flow. And you can see from this year, bad year, we had a lot of ponded water. And we tried coming up with a way to force people to do stem walls, but it didn't pass through a few of the reviews we had to go through. Now, recently you had a man named Mr. Selck came in, and he complained that his neighbor was doing such a project and that the project was shedding water onto him at a greater rate than it shed before. And we showed on the topography that what the water really did was, since the house pads were staggered, the water just went around one and around the other and kept going toward a third person's back yard where it sat, which happened to be the flow pattern in that neighborhood. We've had an incident, a couple incidents, in the Pine Ridge subdivision. I'll put one of these lidar topographies on the visualizer here. In roughly the center of that topography, there's a red spot that's on Eugenia Street next to Mockingbird Lake. North would be looking to the right. And that red spot is a house pad. He's about eight feet high compared to the road if you stand at Eugenia and look at the slag CHAIRMAN HALAS: Eight feet high. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, he's got a big lot and a big house. And we've got another one off Caribbean Court, toward the left side Page 52 September 20, 2006 of that. Again, north being to the right. And if you look, he's totally surrounded by three roads by -- totally surrounded by one road -- a horseshoe shaped road and another road. He sheds a lot of water. He does have some retention on his site. But this is the property that called our attention to the other property. And then there's another property behind that one that's being built up. Now, we've had a bunch of complaints. I want to put up a little lidar topography of a portion of Golden Gate Estates, one of the nearer portions. All those red dots up and down are fill pads. And you can see as they start building onto these -- and a lot of these are the -- still the 100- and 150- foot wide lots. But as they start building, you see all these pads almost linking up in a lot of the areas. So we decided that it was time to come up with an amendment to limit the size of the fill pad, because as the pad goes up, with the side slopes that we require, the four-to-one side slopes, for every foot you get higher, the pad gets eight feet wider both ways, front and back and side to side. And we already have a requirement that you have to be 18 inches above the crown of the road or 24 inches above an unpaved road. So throughout Golden Gate Estates, a lot of these houses are built to that minimum requirement. We also have a requirement that the septic tank has to be -- the bottom of the drain field has to be two feet above the water table, and the drain field is like a foot thick of rock with the pipe being in the top six inches of that and then by the time that pipe goes back through the septic tank and quarter inch to the foot slope back to the house, the thickness of the pipe, you know, you've raised up the floor slab substantially. And if you build the fill pad up to that, you have a very large pad that sticks out very far, takes up a lot of what we've been referring to as floodplain. Technically, floodplain is a term that they use in Page 53 September 20, 2006 riverine situations where the river overflows its banks. And when you fill in a floodplain, you have to dig out somewhere else in the floodplain to compensate for that. We don't have riverine flooding down here. What we have in the Estates is the slough type flooding, intermittent areas that pass water. The intersection of Randall and Everglades, if you were out there during this last event, what you might have thought was standing water was not. It was water in the sloughs starting at Winchester Head flowing down maybe three or four miles, and coming out in one of the canals. If you start putting a whole lot of these fill pads into that slough, that floodplain, the effect of one is what they call de minimis. You can't even tell. You know, a fraction of a fraction of a inch. But we've been building houses at 800 to 1,000 a year in Golden Gate Estates. That effect multiplied by that amount per year will eventually -- it's already, I think, having some effect with flooding elevations in Golden Gate. But if we let it continue -- this is a close-in area of Golden Gate. The areas that are farther out are less developed but heading this way. If we let it continue, we're going to start seeing the effect of it in increased water -- water heights during storms. So the amendment we wrote -- a lot of the newer projects in Collier County have water management district permits and have backbone swale systems. But areas like the Pine Ridge subdivision, Naples Park, Willoughby Acres, East Naples, Golden Gate Estates, they have not a district permit and a backbone system. Some of them, like Willoughby Acres and Naples Park have district permits, but they were for improvements within there. It's called a surface water management permit, but it doesn't have any water quality or water quantity limitations. It's just to allow the installations of swales, pipes, whatever, because the area was so big the district had to permit it. Page 54 September 20, 2006 So we had to put the -- both in there, that you have to -- if you have a district permit and you have a central backbone system, then you don't have to go by this rule. You can build your house higher mostly because your permit probably already says where you can build. But if you don't have both of those, then you can only build your fill pad to 18 inches above the crown of the road where your driveway meets the road. It limits of height of your fill pad but not your base flood elevation. You have to remember, Robert Wiley was trying to get you all to put a one-foot freeboard in here for base flood elevation to the floor slab, because that improves our community rating as far as FEMA goes. Now, we don't care how high you build your floor elevation as long as you use something like a stem wall, fill inside the stem wall, and put the slab on that, or use a structural slab and have open -- I know people that have open areas under their homes like you would have up north, which is handy for running and fixing the piping and all. So, you know, it's not an unusual design. For a long time fill pads were probably used because they were so cheap, but the price of fill has gone up. So we're pretty sure that this is going to be maybe a toss-up right now because as you add to the mound, you're adding to the bottom of the mound, making it wider. So the less you take away from the bottom -- the more you take away from the bottom of the mound, the cheaper it is to build. The amendment, as written, I would have only one change to it. It was the reason I was a little late coming in, excuse me. The section __ oh, wait up. As a matter of fact, we made some changes earlier because of the comments we were getting from the public. And prior to this, I had __ prior to this, I had that you had to have the district -- that if you had the district per -- that if you had the district permits and a backbone Page 55 September 20,2006 swale system, you didn't have to go by this rule. I added the word both and did a little clarification in there. It's in red. It says the same thing, but it says both, you need both. And before I didn't have the both in. I just had and -- one and the other. But also, it was pointed out that I -- in front of the two, the either/or, the South Florida Water Management District permit or the ERP, I should put an A in parentheses in front of south, and __ MS. HILLER: I would put the A in front of __ MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think somebody's going to talk after I'm done, my English teacher. And in front -- and I should put a B in front of the A, central backbone system, so you know that it has -- you either have to have A, a service water management permit or an ERP and, B, a central backbone system. That's about the amendment and the reason for it. I'm here to entertain any questions you have. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, you were firs t. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course, this -- the existing homes are there, and we have to live with their cumulative runoff as we're dealing with flooding situations in different places. Is there some way, too, we might be able to limit the size of the pad? In other words, some of these people coming in with mega houses, I mean, where they have to build it on stern walls or maybe __ and maybe have water retention or something. I mean, you take a look at some of these house pads that are out there. Some of them are considerably bigger than the others, then you've got the ones that have a house pad then another one behind it, which is adding to the problem. Is there some other way that we can do to lessen the situation of future building? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. I think you could limit the house -- the size of the house pad and force them to go higher if they Page 56 September 20, 2006 want, and I've seen articles in U.S. Today where some municipalities are limiting the size of the house you can build but that, I think -- I'd have no problem with it. I don't intend building a 10,000 square foot house in the near future. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. But I mean, you can take into consideration like the size of the lot. You've got an acre and a quarter lot -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, percentage. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- where they build almost to the edge there. What is it, seven and a half foot on each side just for the setbacks for the side lines? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They just fill that up, and then they -- you go to two and a quarter and you go up to five, and then some people even have a few tens out there. Something might be able to be done to make some sort of consideration for it. But maybe we should look at the idea that the new ones going in there should have water retention of some type. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's been suggested, too. That would mean that every house then in Collier County that was submitted for review would have to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Have water retention. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- get an engineering review or at least a signed and sealed engineering drawing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't have a problem with that if __ COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know. How do you feel? I mean, the commissioner __ CHAIRMAN HALAS: I feel the same way. I tell you, in my district we have not only Pine Ridge, but we have Naples Park, and the problem that we're running into is that these are older neighborhoods -- and even in Palm River and Willoughby Acres. Page 57 September 20, 2006 These are older neighborhoods, and there's a lot of redevelopment going on, and the problem is, when they build these house pads up, they're not held accountable for retaining the stormwater on their property. And what happens is, people that never experienced flooding now are experiencing flooding, and it's -- and the person that builds these mega homes or these big pads are not held accountable for taking care of the floodwater and directing it to the other areas other than their neighbors. And this is __ COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or retaining it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. And I think they -- I think we need to come up with some way of re -- of those people having to address the stormwater issue whether they have to put underground storage systems in or whatever else. I know that adds to the cost of the house, but the end result is, you can't keep flooding your neighbors out. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we can't. And what we're talking about is we're still going to have to look at a central place to be able to take water runoff. We're going to have to buy lots eventually, we're going to have to have reservoirs put in. There's going to be all sorts, but meanwhile, we're allowing people to keep going at it and to continue to build and just exacerbating the problem. So tell me, is it too late to be able to add something to this, or is this something that we should -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You'd have to ask the attorney. I could write something up saying that the largest footprint you could have on the ground is 3,000 feet, and I think you'd have every contractor in town at your next meeting. Not a problem. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Listen, I'm willing to take anyone on in this issue. I've had it right up to here with the flooding. And the people come back and they say, you know, you're responsible. You're allowing this to continue, and they're right. We are allowing it to continue. So why don't we come up with something Page 58 September 20,2006 that can address this situation in a logical and sane manner? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It does get complex though, because if you look at that situation there, the elevations show that the flow is going from left to right, and the right way to hold -- retain water on a site is berms, whatever. If you start putting berms in an area that used to pass flow, you limit that flow, which is the problem we had in Golden Gate. We don't want berms in the flowways. So everything would have to be engineered, and not just locally. You'd have to look at large neighbors. It becomes a bit more of a design problem than a single house. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, don't we require it of developers that come in to do the large PUDs? I thought that was -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Those are taken care of. Those are exempt by this. We're talking Pine Ridge, we're talking Willoughby Acres, Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no second thoughts in my mind. Do it. That's my feeling, you know, I can't think of any other -- I'm sorry, Mr. Schmitt. It sounds like I might be jumping off the right end, is that what you're going to tell me? MR. SCHMITT: Well, my concern is, we're trying to put a Band-Aid on a -- kind of a severed artery here because the pond behind each house may solve one problem but create six more. Normally what you would do, is like Stan said, would have to be an integrated water management system, just like certainly in a PUD we require a 25-year storm event; 72-hour, 25-year event. These are platted subdivisions, old subdivisions, that, frankly, have inadequate central drainage systems. To go -- certainly the first thing you'd want -- the best thing to do is go in and retrofit and design and engineer for the entire community. That would be tremendously expensive. So if you want to go to the next step where we -- as someone builds, they retain on site. We're dealing with -- now we're dealing with other issues -- Page 59 September 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. MR. SCHMITT: -- two and three and five years later. I think we need to look at it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I mean, if we don't do something -- MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we don't take some sort of action and we allow it to continue, then retrofitting the community might be the idea we'll have to go with, but that's down the road quite a ways. Meanwhile, they're building houses at an unbelievable rate. Maybe they've slowed down a little bit, but they're still building out there. And the system, it's just going to continue to get worse and worse and worse. So I don't know what it is. Maybe just some measure that we can put in place that will mitigate some of it. You know, the stem walls, the size of the houses, great idea. Anything we can do to try to make a difference. And then the East of951 Committee will be dealing with the drainage issue globally rather than just specific lots. That's my thoughts. Now, you know, if anyone's got a better idea, I'm glad to listen. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we've got a better idea. We'll take a 10-minute break so we can give our court reporter a break, and then we'll reconvene at 7:01. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We're back in session again. And I believe we were in the process of answering -- getting questions and answers from Stan. And how many public speakers do we have on this? MS. FABACHER: We have three, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further questions from the Board of County Commissioners before we have -- address Page 60 September 20,2006 the public speakers? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I can wait till after. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Could you call the first public speaker, please. MR. F ABACHER: Sure. Our first public speaker will be Phil Carr, and after that we'll have Georgia Hiller. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. CARR: My name is Phil Carr, and I have some pictures. I'm right next door to one of these mega houses that they're building right now. I'm being flooded completely with their muddy water and stuff. They built a stem -- or a -- what is it I want to say? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pad. MR. CARR: No. They filled the lot in six foot, and then they put -- built their pad. They did build a thing around it to try to -- a berm to try to keep the water except the berm isn't working. It washed out part of it. Water goes under the berm. One area they didn't put a berm. Consequently, my yard is full of muddy water all the time now since they started this house. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The house is not completed; is that correct? They're in the process of building it. MR. CARR: No. They're in the process of building it. And I have pictures here that I want to give you people so you can see what the problem is. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: All these? MR. CARR: All of them. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you just pick out maybe three or four of them? MR. CARR: Right. But I want you guys to have the rest of them. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay. MR. CARR: And the last part of these were taken yesterday. Page 61 September 20, 2006 Now, my yard happens to be this one over here. This was taken from -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you point it out on the picture itself with the pencil, give us some idea, for the record. MR. CARR: My yard is right over in this area right here. This is the lot behind this house that they're building. Right over in their yard up? CHAIRMAN HALAS: And this is how high they built the lot MR. CARR: They built -- $100,000 worth offill. They went six foot. MR. SCHMITT: Sir, can you use the microphone? MR. CARR: They used six foot of fill on the property where the house is setting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is that, by the way? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where's this located? MR. CARR: This is in Pine Ridge on Mahogany Drive. I live at 111, and the house next door to me that they're building is 125. I've had the code enforcement people there three times just because of all this muddy water. This is another one. Let's see. Let's take it from the back again. This is taken from my yard. This is my yard here. The house is over in this area over here that they're building, and this is all the muddy water that I keep getting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now, before they filled this in, did you experience this type of flooding? MR. CARR: Not as bad. We had some, but we had Stan out there because we were catching water from that other house, that big ball of red on that other a while ago, from that house. And since then, they've cleaned that ditch out, and this year we haven't had any water since Stan and them corne out and had that all filled in, or had that dug out. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And this is the lidar? Page 62 September 20, 2006 MR. CARR: This is the house here that we were having problems with. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And your lot is the one -- show where your lot is, here, if you would. MR. CARR: This is my lot right here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're in back of him, okay. MR. CARR: Right. And right here, they had this all plugged up, and Stan and them come out, and they dug that, and so that stopped a lot of the water from coming through my yard. But the water now I'm having in my back yard is from my property because we did no filling there, and then also from this new house, I'm catching all the muddy water, all the drain. Also out in front of this new house, they filled a swale in with limerock so they could park and drive their trucks in and out. There is no swale there at all now. This shows you how high the house is compared. This is all their fill in here. This is where it used to be. I have a whole bunch of pictures here. I'll just let -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we've got a pretty good picture of what's going on out there. MR. CARR: Right. But I'm catching nothing but the water. And that's all I had to say, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir. MS. F ABACHER: Our next speaker would be Georgia Hiller, and following that, Mr. Hale. MS. HILLER: Commissioners, Georgia Hiller, for the record. I'm the Vice Chair of the Pine Ridge Drainage Committee. We've been work with Stan Chrzanowski and Phil, among other neighbors, with respect to the problems they've experienced. It's because of these issues that Stan drafted what has come before you today and is the first step towards solving the problems that our county has faced. Page 63 September 20, 2006 Commissioner Coletta has been very proactive, Commissioner Halas has, and I'm sure the others have also with respect to this drainage Issue. I'd like to bring to your attention something that was just raised with respect to limiting the size of slabs. There is a way to accomplish that without limiting how much people can build on their property, which Stan was correct in suggesting that developers would object to. And what Monroe County has done is they have implemented a permitting requirement which basically requires every lot to demonstrate how they will manage their runoff by showing the impervious to pervious lot area ratio and then showing how any excess runoff created by a greater impervious lot ratio will be mitigated. And I think that we could do the same thing here. It was very effective in Monroe County. It's in existence today. I have a draft of that particular permitting standard. And I would like to share it with Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Chrzanowski and work with them to develop this and present this to you possibly in the next cycle or maybe even in this one if permitted. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe, have you looked at any of -- that Georgia has talked about or -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, I'm well aware of it. Georgia sent various notes, and I don't know if I ever got the latest copy. It you recall last year in your town hall meeting, we talked specifically about lot area ratio, size of house to size of lot, and some of those issues. This is -- and the board did not give any guidance at that time. So we basically -- staff did nothing with it. We certainly can look at this with the understanding, though, that as __ so you understand, this does require, again, more reviews, engineering -- site specific engineering for every single-family home. Probably we would -- we would be tied to those developments that do not have central drainage systems. Page 64 ,._-~- .....-.-_0 September 20,2006 And it will add, number one, more expense, because you're going to have to have a registered professional engineer stamp and seal that design, and it will have to be reviewed and it will have to be inspected. And we'll bring all that back if that's the direction. I would have to also preface that it could not be done during this cycle. We would have to take this and then develop it for the next LDC amendment cycle, because it's an extensive amount of work. We would -- certainly we would have to bring it back through all the committees again, advertising, so it's not something I could just bring back in the next cycle. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. HILLER: Can I add one thing? MR. SCHMITT: Not the next meeting, I'm sorry, to correct the record. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The next meeting. MR. SCHMITT: And we'd be bringing -- it would be in the next cycle. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. HILLER: It is a fee-based approval process, and so basically any additional cost to the county to implement such a permit would be self-funding. The other thing I'd like to add, for the record, is that Stan Chrzanowski has done an outstanding job in working with us and working towards the solutions. And we've been one year in the making in bringing this drainage change to the Land Development Code, and I really want to applaud him. (Applause.) MS. HILLER: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Hale. MR. HALE: Nick Hale, for the record. I'm chairman of the Pine Ridge Civic Association Stormwater Committee, and Georgia and I have done a great deal of work on this with a large number of county Page 65 September 20, 2006 staffers. Pine Ridge is 52 years old this year, and we've never had a survey. So through some diligent urging, the stormwater management people have let a contract for a survey, and it should be almost finished now. When that's done, they will know for the first time exactly which way the land lies, which way the water flows in some detail, and they can then design a system to move that water into places like the Goodlette Canal, where it can be -- where if it's ever maintained, the water will be able to flow, some down southward into the Gordon River, others will flow northward -- because the high part of Pine Ridge is right there, some will flow northward eventually into the Caloosahatchee River. But over the years, Pine Ridge, which used to have very good drainage, was surrounded on all four sides by six -lane highways, and because the natural flow of water, the historic flow of water, was not maintained, contrary to ordinances and statutes, things started to back up. Vanderbilt Beach Road to the north and Goodlette to the east are the main villains in this, and so a lot of water is blocked, and the northeastern part of our community has been underwater quite often. The subject of this amendment, these house pads, if you pass this, this will be a big help because somehow all the very rich people who couldn't get into Port Royal have decided to come into Pine Ridge, buy the older houses and tear them down and build these great big mega homes. Our lots go from one to six acres, so there's a lot of room, and they're building them. When they -- when they bring in this expensive fill, it's not a big problem for them. When you're putting up a $5 million house, spending $100,000 on fill dirt is just a minor thing. So we really need this amendment to cut down on these high, high houses. The one you see here, which Stan showed on the display, flows Page 66 September 20, 2006 water when we have rain, really good rain, right down onto my house, which is the one between the house in the middle of the court and the lake. Now, this is a natural lake and quite a good lake with high banks, so we don't get flooding from the lake, but we get flooding from the house in the middle. And stormwater management has consistently refused to build -- to dig swales around that house for reasons which I think you are -- best left to them to explain. But if we had those swales, we would be a lot better off. The water would not flow across the road and onto the properties that have never had flooding before, before that home was built. But this change to the Land Development Code will be a very big help to us, and we urge you to pass it. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Nick. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I think this is also going to help in my region. We have a lot -- because we're at the bottom end of the sheet flow, we get a lot of flooding there. We have a lot of wetlands in that area, and we're having the same problem, especially along Rattlesnake Hammock Road right now. And so I think this is going to help us as well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think this is a step forward in the right direction. And I think some of this other issues of swales and how we're going to direct the water, that may be a cost sharing item, but I think this is the start, because we -- I believe that this problem, as you said, it's in your area because we did have some people that came over in regards to a development and how it affected their water because of the fact that there was a lady that brought forth some pictures, and there was almost a three-foot elevation change and it was causing a serious problem for that community, and that's an older community also, and we've got the same problem in other areas. Page 67 September 20, 2006 And Commissioner Coletta, he's experiencing that particular problem now with the -- with the wet season that we've had, so __ COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to ask one more question, if I may. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: While they're building or when they're preparing to build this house or put the fill in, will they be required to first put in the stormwater management system before they start building so this doesn't happen while people are building a house? And really, you get to see then what's going to happen to the surrounding properties. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, ma'am. That will be with the next cycle because we don't have any rule right now that says a single- family house has to provide a stormwater management plan per see It's just a little sheet that shows which way you're going to shed your water from your site. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we add something like that to it if it meets with everybody else's approval? MR. SCHMITT: We have direction from the board, and we'll bring it back next cycle. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have direction? Yes. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Next cycle? MR. SCHMITT: Next cycle. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Not this cycle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I think we also gave further direction that we want to see something more elaborate corning back in the next cycle. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Lot coverage __ MR. SCHMITT: Lot coverage -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- and on-site retention. MR. SCHMITT: -- and on-site retention or on-site drainage plan of some sort. Page 68 September 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Start working it through the process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: To be built first before they start flooding the surrounding areas and build a home, right? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. I can put that in there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. And let's have some more open discussion amongst the commissioners here so we have __ understanding where we're going. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I presume all of these streets, at least in this particular example, have swales for drainage? MR. SCHMITT: Sir, in this area, probably inadequate swales. It's not like the City of Naples where there is at least an attempt or there are stormwater runoff systems. This area, no. Certainly in Golden Gate, no. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there are no swales along the streets? MR. SCHMITT: Stan? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I cycle through this area. Some of them have swales and some of them don't. In Golden Gate every street has a swale, but the swales don't necessarily __ MR. SCHMITT: Go anywhere. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- go anywhere. Sorry. Some of the swales run uphill. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, in Commissioner Coletta's district, that's the way it flows out there. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The problem is that the sloughs in Golden Gate don't necessarily correspondence to where the canals are. Sometimes -- and there's a canal about every two miles, but sometimes there's a slough halfway between the canals. And when they dug the swales, they just followed the lay of the land, not having topography. Page 69 September 20, 2006 This was in the '70s, so the swales don't run toward the canal. They run towards the slough. Now, to correct that you'd have to run the swales toward the canals which would drain the slough, which is presently against DEP and water management district for water quality retention. So you're kind of stuck. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess, bottom line is, I don't know that you can establish a single rule that is going to solve all of the problems, but I think as a general statement of policy, we should demand that there either be retention on the lot or there should be a stormwater drainage system that works to take it off the lot so that it's not deposited on somebody else's property. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There just is no excuse for the drainage to go off on somebody else's property, and there should be damages concerning that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If you look at the topography, the drainage does naturally flow from the darker colors to the lighter colors. So drainage does flow from one property to another, that's where we talk about historic sheet flow patterns. And in the Estates, these historic sheet flow patterns, like you saw with the Selck issue, they go through one person's lot, through another person's lot, through another -- it's the way of the slough. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you see, to use an example here, that's exactly what I'm talking about. This house that has built up the pad very high, if you go straight north, I guess -- is that your property, Nick, this one? MR. HALE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We ought to put a drainage ditch right through the middle of Nick's property. But if you look at, if you look at this -- I'm just joking with you, Nick. If you look at that property, you will see there's a green area just to the Page 70 September 20, 2006 north, and then there's a little bit of brown area, and then green area before you get to the lake. Now if that lot for both Nick's property and others, had a drainage -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: System. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- swale or pipe -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Between the -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- between those two, you could direct the runoff from this house right through there into the lake, and it wouldn't flow on anybody's property. But that's just one situation. And I don't know how you're going to design these things to do it for everybody. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's somebody else's land, and we don't have an easement to go across with the swale. We have an incident in Pine Ridge where they're trying to get an easement to go in to repair a pipe, and the people that own the property on the side don't want to give it. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Coyle, to answer your -- just to highlight, because the requirements for a design or site specific as being requested for even a lot area ratio or whatever, and they corne in and say, I'm going to move the water to the front of the house, and without some kind of a central system, then what? If they cannot demonstrate where the water's going to go adequately, just as you point out through Nick's yard or adjacent to his yard, we would have to have some kind of criteria to say, permit denied. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The problem that we're running into, Joe, is that the people may have had water on their lawn, but it may have only been about an inch or two inches deep. Now we're getting a situation where the water is becoming six to eight inches deep because of the fact that we're adding homes and we're putting pads in. And where that home or that pad is being constructed, it might have been a low point, and obviously this person Page 71 September 20,2006 that spent $100,000 for fill, this probably was an area where the water settled. And so this person bought the land and then put the fill in, and now, guess what? The -- it's higher than the property next door, and now these people have got not one inch of water on their lawn, but they've got six inches of water. MR. SCHMITT: It's the tyranny of the last lot developed. That lot, which I believe -- Stan, if you could show on the lidar -- where the house now sits was a low area, and I would probably have to guess that water did flow from other people's yard into that lot. Now that that lot is filled, it prohibits some of that flow. Yeah, there's the lot. The other two lots in the blue -- we've been back there, Stan, and those are all small retention ponds behind their homes. MR. CARR: There was another house there -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, you have to go to the mike, please. MR. CARR: That house there -- there was another house there before, and they bulldozed the house and they filled up from there on. So there was no low water there right where that particular house is sitting. There could have been water in the back yard, front yard and that. But there was no water where that house was being built. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We know what the problem is, you know. We don't have to discuss that anymore. What we need to do is give the staff a general guidance that hey, stormwater runoff isn't acceptable. You have to accept responsibility for either retaining it or directing it somewhere, and the staff has to come back to us with some methods of getting that accomplished. Is that right? Is that pretty much it? CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd say that's it. Have I got -- have we got enough nods here? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. Page 72 September 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. Okay. Is that enough direction? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, very clear. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: All right, Commissioner. We would like to switch gears now, and with your assistance, get through our transportation amendments tonight, hopefully. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're dreaming. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we've got about -- yeah. MS. FABACHER: Yeah. I know we've kind of run over with this other discussion, but transportation staff has been patiently waiting to -- MS. ISTENES: Those begin page 17. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Susan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So are his children, right? COMMISSIONER COYLE: They're getting paid overtime tonight, so they probably appreciate it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right. MS. FABACHER: I don't think so, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just like we are. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning. The first amendment you see in front of you is the interconnection requirement. Currently our GMP recommends it. Smart growth encourages it. And the reasons outlined on page 17, facilitate efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation, decrease access points, improve lowering capacity and safety. I think it speaks for itself. This was approved by DSAC and approved by the Planning Commission. If you have questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Page 73 September 20,2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: No question. I just really love it. And this is something we've been pushing for for a while. And it pains me when you have a gated community and then they don't want to interconnect with the shopping center. So I'm glad that this will require it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not suggest it, but require. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Very good. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you've got a nod here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You've got three nods, I believe. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Four nods. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, yes, very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll move on to page 19. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Commissioner. Mr. Jarvi wants to speak on several of the amendments, but he thought in the interest of time he might just address all of his concerns at one time instead of after each one, or what is your preference? CHAIRMAN HALAS: When would Mr. Jarvi like to speak? Would you like to speak now and get it over with, or do you want to wait until we go through all of them and then speak? MR. JARVI: It'd probably be easier for me to speak at each individual one, and my comments for each one are fairly short. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do you have an issue on the one we just addressed? MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. JARVI: Let me get this out. F or the record, my name is Reed Jarvi, a Professional Engineer in Page 74 September 20, 2006 Collier County. The only question -- I actually applaud the amendment and I think it's a good idea. I have a question with the mechanics of it. And on the portion, I guess it's E2, it talks about the -- 10 percent of the value of the improvements, and I would like to define that a little more. And I did talk to Nick about that, and he was talking about the whole project. But at the time you would do the interconnect, you wouldn't know what the whole project is. So I might suggest that it might be the -- you know, the paving and roadway value, because that would be defined at an SDP or plat level because you have to submit that to Joe's group. So you might know what that is. But at SDP or a plat, I wouldn't necessarily have a clue what the cost of the buildings are. So I would just like some definition. I don't have a problem with the idea. I think it's just a definition of what costs are involved. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does the county attorney have anything to opine on? MR. KLATZKOW: No. This is a practical issue really. I mean, I know what Nick was getting at and what the speaker's getting at, to reduce those costs perhaps dramatically. And it's a mechanical issue that, you know, Nick can present, but-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can answer that a little bit, I think. It was an "or" in section 2. It says not to exceed a cost of a typical road section or 10 percent above value of the improvements. It was meant to capture the fact, when an SDP amendment comes in, when we say we'd like you to interconnect and they say, well, it's -- the cost associated with the interconnection is way above what we're doing. We're adding 5,000 square feet and we're putting in an awning, and that is -- it's a $50,000 improvement, and we don't want to be caught for -- this was actually asked for by the development Page 75 September 20,2006 community to put a safety net in there. We don't want to be asked to do a $50,000 interconnection when our value of our improvement is only, you know, $40,000. So it was a safety net. What we've talked about at the Development Services Advisory Committee was to say, equal to the typical cost of a road section, we put that in there, or not to exceed or is above 10 percent of the value of the improvements being made by the person. So it was a safety net we threw in there. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nick, what do you -- what do you mean -- well, how would you calculate the cost of a typical road section? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think when we look at what's out there right now, that's a value you can assign on a year-by-year basis. The county has a cost -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not a historical cost. It is a projected future cost of a road section? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. It would be the cost at that time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: At that time. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if it -- if the cost of the interconnection exceeds the cost of a typical road section by a dollar, they're not required to do it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think this is in -- the way it's written it says, the county manager doesn't need one of the following criteria, it prohibits this requirement. I think there's a judgment in there. I think we left a little room in there. I think this -- these are the guidelines. And when we wrote this amendment, we spoke with Catherine. We had to set aside some criteria to follow, and this was one of the criteria. But I think in fairness, there would be some wiggle room Page 76 September 20,2006 there. They could fight us on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The cost for the typical local road section could include lots of things that are not just the costs of building that interconnect. It could be the loss of revenue opportunity by allocating additional land to a road rather than to a revenue-producing activity. It gets very, very complex. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It can, sir, on a case-by-case basis, you're right. We have -- in the first paragraph we put up one note that was of particular concern to the Development Services Advisory Committee was parking spaces. They didn't want to be punished if they lost parking spaces by providing an interconnection, so we took their comments and we made that comment in there, they're not to have to mitigate for those parking spaces. So we tried to cover the bases that the development, you know, community, were concerned about. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did they have -- and when this came before the Planning Commission, did they agree with basically the verbiage that was put into this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, and they commented on the 10 percent. They thought that was a good gauge or good safety net to put in there. They wanted some safety net to put in there as well, too, so that someone doing a small improvement wouldn't be hit with a large interconnection cost. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would rather leave it the way it is than to revise it down, quite frankly. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have nods on that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And maybe the county attorney can give us some additional guidance when this comes back to us. Page 77 September 20,2006 MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So that -- thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. The next amendment is on the next page, 19. And Commissioners, I have to tell you that with our concerns with SB-360, with the words de minimum and aggregate and everything we face on a daily basis when we review traffic impact statements, this is one of the first steps that we put in to kind of have a catch-all amendment, to be able to say, if something's come in and submitted in aggregate and it's from the same master project, it can be reviewed as such. And if there isn't sufficient roadway capacity when we look at all those proj ects, we can stop that. And we put in a certain time period of six months. You could go less; you could go longer. That seemed to be about what would be a normal typical cycle when you start introducing projects in a master project. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's something -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, it is. And something pretty much to be kicking around. Do my fellow commissioners have anything to add to this? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I think it's great. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Everybody-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have a speaker again. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. JARVI: Yes. Reed Jarvi again, for the record. Once again, I would -- I could argue with this because this was discussed extensively during the development of the concurrency management system we are currently under, but I think for today's purposes, I will discuss the mechanics of it again. And once -- on number one -- paragraph number one, the only paragraph that you have, towards the end of the second line, it talks about when projects are reviewed together. I might suggest reviewed is a pretty wide open time frame that you might -- either submitted or Page 78 September 20, 2006 approved, because I could have a project in review for a year, and you know, I don't know when the next one goes -- you know, when does review start and when does it stop? So I might suggest a more definitive time frame, either when it's submitted or when it's approved so then you know what time is that was done, rather than "reviewed" being a very long period that you don't know when that is, when it's going to happen. So I might -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then does that muddy the waters again? This is what we're trying to do is make sure that all these things are taken -- the total project. And if you give it some kind of review and they wait till the day after where it's -- I mean, rather a time, and then they wait till the day afterwards, then all of a sudden, it doesn't count anymore? MR. JARVI: Well, there is a time period of six months now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. JARVI: But when does the six months start and when does it end? Reviewed is a nebulous number. I mean, when I put -- submit an SDP or a PUD -- an SDP in this case, you know, it could be six or eight months in the review cycle. I don't know when my six months starts or when it ends in this case. So I would sug -- once again, I suggest, just being something that's definitive. And I don't have a preference on the submittal or the approval, but I just think that's a definitive date so when Nick goes, you're five months and 29 days, you can't do what you want to do, I go, oh, okay. Oh, wait, otherwise, we're going to get the lawyers trying to interpret, when is the review. I just think a definitive number -- or a definitive date would be better than what is said here, and that's my opinion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Nick, was this discussed at any length at the Planning Commission when they were reviewing these? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, it wasn't an issue. I think -- if you read the first sentence and get towards the back of it, it says, with Page 79 September 20,2006 projects submitted within the last six months. So I think it says, when a project was submitted within the last six months. So project A is submitted on March 1st, and we get six months after that, you would look back at the date of the submittal of the first project, which was March 1st. Even if it's in the review process, that would be the date I would use, by reading this amendment. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. JARVI: So you'd use submittal, your submittal date? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, I would use the submittal date for the six-month period, MR. JARVI: As long as that's defined -- and I don't read it quite that way, but as long as everybody, you know, understands that, I don't have a problem one way or another. CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, can you give us some guidance? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I understood this to be the same way Nick just explained it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. JARVI: Okay. And the only other question I would have, five line downs it talks about intent of the situation -- intent of this section is defined above, as defined above. I'm not overly sure that that is actually defined above. I mean, as mentioned above or stated above might be a better word. I don't really see it set up as a definition from a contextual standpoint. But I think the -- to try not to use the same word, I think the idea is there. I don't want to use intent. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Does this remind you of the presidential debates? You've got a Republican and a Democrat over there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're winning. Are you the Republican or the Democrat? Page 80 September 20, 2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Republican. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. You're winning. I think we-- MR. JARVI: Since when, Nick? CHAIRMAN HALAS: If our county attorney finds that the wordage -- the verbiage in this is correct, then I think that we just need to have this continued on as it is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got my support. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll pass this on to Trinity, who has the next amendment. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. I'll be back. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Trinity Caudill-Scott, and we will be on page 21. This amendment essentially comes out of the recent adoption by the Collier County Metropolitan Planning organization of the updated Comprehensive Pathway Plan. And in that plan there is a very nice master plan of pathway -- of a pathway network. So we have added language in to incorporate pathways into our Land Development Code -- that is our first major change -- and to allow for design criteria, et cetera. The other major thing that has been added is, about a year and a half ago, Nick actually came before you and introduced the payment in lieu system, which has cut significantly down on the sidewalk-to-nowhere issues that we were dealing with previously. And a new idea that I'd like to introduce is a construction in lieu, so instead of that developer writing a check to the county, they could go out and construct the same length of sidewalk that would connect to an existing sidewalk network and broaden our existing sidewalk network. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And would you give them the assignment as to where you want that done? Page 81 September 20, 2006 MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: We would give them the option from our Comprehensive Pathway Plan. Within that Comprehensive Pathway Plan there's a prioritized list, and they could go and choose a sidewalk, and we would keep track of that, and they would have to construct that sidewalk prior to their first CO. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wonderful. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll buy it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Huh? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll buy it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've got a lot of nods. MS. FABACHER: We have a speaker. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Reed, what's the problem here? MR. JARVI: Once again, some mechanics. I don't have a problem with the idea which Trinity's talking about at all. I have a problem with the size or the thickness of the pathways that are suggested here, or are in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you talking about six feet wide and five feet wide? MR. JARVI: Thickness. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh. And where is the -- MR. JARVI: The structure -- I am talking-- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: He is on page 26, 3B. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Twenty-six, okay. MR. JARVI: Yeah. Specifically -- and I've had this actually in 3A also. I've had this discussion and I've sent emails in the past, not recently, when we went through this about a year ago. And I have a problem with, we are over-designing, therefore, we are overdoing things that we don't need to. You know, in -- our cross-section for a road is one and a half inches of asphalt with a -- or actually eight inches of lime rock and 12 inches -- Lee County's cross-section for a road -- this is a subdivision road -- is one inch of Page 82 September 20, 2006 asphalt and six inches of limerock. If these are pathways for people to walk on, to bicycle on, this is well in excess of what a design standard is. You heard me yesterday talk about things the LDC has that cost more and more money, specifically I was talking affordable housing, but there's things that we keep piling on. And to my knowledge, there's no reason to have an inch and a half of asphalt. This is not a highway. There may be an occasional truck on it. But having done structural design, structural design is based on tens of thousands of trucks a day, not one truck every other month. So this is greatly in excess, and I also would suggest that type S3 asphalt, which is -- I would -- I would suggest you don't put any type in, you just say asphalt, but type S3 is a structural coarse that's used on highways. It's a fairly good grade. But if you want to designate a type of asphalt, I would say you use type 3, which is a much finer -- which would give a better ride to bicycles, skateboards, whatever you're doing, it's a nicer ride. It's not as structurally sound, but it's what used typically in parking lots, and it's been used for years and years in parking lots. My major issue here is just that we -- this is greatly in excess in the design, therefore, in cost for -- whether it's a developer or the county developing this, you're paying more than you need to. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Was this addressed at the Planning Commission when they went through the LDC codes? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: No, it was not. I will note that this cross-section came from a recommendation from our transportation and engineering department as well as road maintenance department. And you will notice that in item B, which is the asphalt, we also have a caveat in there, unless otherwise determined to be acceptable by the county manager or designee. Many of you are aware that we are building many of these pathways with Florida Power & Light corridors, South Florida Water Page 83 September 20, 2006 Management District easement areas. We feel that it's better to have the top of the line cross-section and be able to back down from that as opposed to trying to implement requiring someone to go higher. And if we're in someone else's easement area, they can tell us that they want the absolute best. But they are allowing us to utilize their right-of-way, their land, free of charge. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have any comments from my fellow commissioners on this? Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to verify something. I know we debated this last time, and there was general confusion, I think, about why we were demanding such high standards. I believe that one of the justifications was that for both concrete and/or asphalt, you sometimes have driveways crossing those, and you could have heavy trucks driving in or out of driveways, and that you felt that that was necessary to support this. I don't know, but I -- I'll tell you, I would be very, very concerned if what we're doing is spending lots of money unnecessarily, either in our construction or requiring others to spend money unnecessarily. Can we get a definitive reason for such high standards for construction? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Yes, we can. And this is why we want to take this on a case-by-case basis, because on Florida Power & Light greenway, we will not only have Florida Power & Light running their trucks up and down that area, we also have utilities running through that area, they have a LASIP project that will be going on. So there's a lot more truck traffic than just what mayor may not be perceived as maybe one or two trucks every once in a while, so -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: That casts some light on it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I guess what we're saying is that Page 84 September 20, 2006 sometimes we'll require this and sometimes we won't. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Exactly. It will be on a case-by-case basis, and that's why we have that caveat in there, unless otherwise determined, because there will be many pathways areas where we do not anticipate any type of utilities, FP&L, water management district, et cetera, being on that. Obviously you'll have the occasional ambulance, fire truck, if necessary, but -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. Oops. I'm sorry, did you have another question? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I do. There is not a procedure identified for determining how this is done other than to say that if it's determined to be acceptable by the county manager or designee. What must a developer do if they want to build something less than this very, very high standard? Must they make an appeal to this requirement? How do they do this? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: They would merely submit their cross-section to us, to the transportation department, and we would then take that to our road maintenance department. Obviously we have some sort of idea of what type of traffic we would be looking at on there and make sure that that's acceptable to them. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we -- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: As well as our engineering department, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we make a statement in paragraph 3 that essentially says that, that following are the -- are the preferred standard for pathway construction, however, if the developer can demonstrate that a lower standard will meet the requirements of the county, then upon the approval by the county manager or his designee that might be permitted; can we have something like that? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Yes, I can add that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, that gets to where you want to go anyway, doesn't it? Page 85 September 20, 2006 MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's just a little clearer that way. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. JARVI: I don't disagree with the intent, Commissioner. My concern is, what happens when there is a standard here? Getting past that standard, even though it makes sense, is very hard to do, and it would -- I would suggest that it would be better to do it the opposite way, if there is a reason to have a higher level, that you put it. And I don't disagree if FP&L is out there and it's in their easement and they say, you shall do this, then you shall do that. But it's hard for me to say -- you know, it's going to be very hard for anybody to go to Trinity or any other person that -- if somebody succeeds her in the position, and say, I think an inch is the right answer, and they're going to say, nope, it says right here, an inch and a half. CHAIRMAN HALAS: But I think with the added verbiage that Commissioner Coyle has suggested that we put into this, I think that covers the bases in regards to what you're trying to address. MR. JARVI: I think if you put in, you would demonstrate that there was more than 600 trucks a day, what -- something definitive, I think it would. I support that it still will not satisfy staff, my opinion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Staff is easy to satisfy. See, they agreed to my suggestion. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Absolutely. We're here to please. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You know, it's interesting, as we talk about this, one of the places, I would guess, that is going to want to certainly decrease the amount of asphalt or cement use would be an affordable housing complex, and yet when you drive through Naples Manor, for instance, we're finally getting some sidewalks in there. I mean, what a mess it's been because the children have to walk Page 86 September 20, 2006 on the street with all the cars and trucks. Interestingly enough, the people decide that that sidewalk is another parking lot for them, so they use it for parking all the time. And I'm not talking about just cars. I'm talking about trucks. I'm talking about big vans, pick-ups and so forth. Not only that, but in the habitat village I just went through at Victoria Falls, they even have a semi in there that they park. I mean, that's -- you know, you just -- and they have four, five, six cars per house in there, so I think you're going to have to take it by bases -- you know, by case-by-case bases. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Commissioner, on a recently constructed sidewalk, Granada Boulevard, we had the same exact issue, people parking across the sidewalk. And what we have done is we've gone out and done an education program. We've put fliers on everyone's home that you cannot park across the sidewalk, and it seemed to help the issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course, we need some education out there. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Yes. That was actually something that the transportation department did, because we noticed that we just put in a brand new sidewalk. People were parking across it. We did go out and try to take care of that, because sometimes it's just merely telling someone, don't do it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that we just ought to recommend staff to add the additional words to address the issue that Commissioner Coyle brought up, and I think that's going to cover the aspects of what we're trying to get addressed here this evening. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we anything other-- MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, I think we're on page 27, and that's Nick again. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Page 87 September 20, 2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: How much farther we got to go on this? And do we have any other speakers? Because we're getting close to closing time. MS. F ABACHER: Three or four more, we could finish transportation. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we'll be brief on some of these. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, great. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, in this section, if you read the reason -- I understand we're getting ready to do a proportionate share ordinance to bring to you pretty soon. As part of that, we're going to update our TIS guidelines and procedures. And I can tell you in the two years that I've been here, the devil's in the details when we review TISs and studies and planning studies, the multitude of information and scenarios you can do in a model, intersection analysis, project analysis, that information is growing exponentially, not to mention the fact that we don't have a full-time modeler on staff, we don't have a full-time intersection analysis engineer on staff that can perform those calculations. We sub out -- we use a consultant right now. We also are going to be adding things to TIS guidelines and procedures and require much more detailed information. What we've done is looked around in some of the different counties, and they charge fees for TIS review because they're subbing out that work. So what this section does is it defines a minimum standard and it references the TIS guidelines and procedures and references that we'll have a fee. Now, I reference a fee in the operations portion of it, but tonight you're not voting on the amount. You're just saying that you're going to authorize staff to bring you a fee schedule. Pasco County right now, to meet with the transportation department to review the methodology, they charge you $1,840. They Page 88 September 20, 2006 also charge you $3,000 to do the review and $400 per intersection, and they've got a pretty detailed set of requirements that they require you to do. We're not proud. We're going to borrow and steal some of their recommendations, and we're going to include them in what we do, and we're going to bring you a fee schedule when we do the proportionate share and TIS guidelines and we'll ask you to adopt that fee schedule. This amendment simply states, we'd like to bring a fee schedule under the TIS review. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any discussion? Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that mean then that these TIS submittals will be a little more believable at times? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think, you know, to -- I don't want to defend my Democratic opponent here -- but they do a good job, and I think in our -- we don't ask enough information, and we're going to start asking for more information. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nick, if you don't require that you count less than 1,000 average daily trips in the TIS, the cumulative effect of that can get quite large. How do you deal with that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Currently, as staff, when a project comes in, if there's multiple projects coming in from the same site, we have them look at the background trips and the future trips. In other words if a site is an approved PUD with seven outparcels that are commercial, when the first one comes in, we'll ask them to look at the whole project. If it's the fifth one, we'll ask you to look at the four that came in, especially for operational analysis, the turn lanes, the median openings, the intersections. So we do ask that. Our TIS guidelines don't specify that clearly. You're going to see that. So that is in there right now. Page 89 September 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: But according to this, you're not going to require that they include anything that generates less than 1,000 average daily trips? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think there's a difference between what we require for the concurrency system and what we require for the report. This is more the trip generation for the concurrency system. Our TIS guidelines currently do require what's not written in here. They do require cumulative review of proj ects surrounding the area. That's already in our TIS guidelines. So this is more for the concurrency part to say, you do a trip generation with distribution and a limited analysis, and you go into a larger TIS. And our guidelines say that we can request more information anytime we wanted. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why not just ask for a complete and accurate count for all of the traffic generated rather than putting a cutoff of 1,000 average daily trips? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it's intended for the smaller projects that come in to not say you have to do a full TIS. If you're not part of a bigger project, that's the cutoff for those projects to come in. And when you see the updated TIS guidelines and procedures, see where that kind of falls into place, there'll be place for that. This is a cutoff, if an out-parcel that has one driveway that comes in and it's 50 p.m. peak trips and we believe it's not going to be an impact on an intersection, we'll just take a simple trip generation and distribution and apply that to the network for concurrency review. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if you've got a project that's going to create 4,000 average daily trips per day, you're essentially letting them cut off 25 percent of them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the way I'm reading this. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Is there a particular section, sir? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess page 28, paragraph 3. Page 90 September 20,2006 I guess the question then -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exceeds 1,000. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah -- is that if it's a project that creates only 999 trips per day, you don't have to even include the traffic. You don't have to do a TIS. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, comply with the existing -- in number one you say, you comply with the existing transportation impact statement guidelines and procedures and may be amended from time to time. This is a guide in the LDC. It always references back to that. Depending on the location, for instance, if the proj ect provided 900 daily trips and staff knew that there was an intersection failure right there, we ask the review or the consultant to look at the intersection, which is more of a detailed review, and we've never had a problem asking for that. They always comply, because for health, safety and welfare, they have to. It's an-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're saying they're going to give you two analyses, one for these projects that are generating less than 1,000 average daily trips, and another analysis for projects that are generating more than 1,000? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a different kind of analysis. It can be. For instance, if it's a small project that generates 900 daily trips and it's on a segment such as Livingston Road and it's not near an intersection and we know that that area is functioning properly, what they would submit would be basically a trip generation based on ITE with the distribution, and we would accept that because we don't have a problem in that area. Now, if it was that same development but closer to an intersection that was maybe failing on Pine Ridge Road, we could still ask them to provide analysis for that intersection in more detail. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not buying it, Nick. He's . . WInnIng now. Page 91 September 20, 2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. MR. JARVI: I might be able to help clarify it, because I -- maybe I'll try to simplify it. The 1,000 daily trips or the 100 peak hour is a threshold that if you're below that you do a concurrency analysis, as Nick's saying, a distribution. For your purposes, that's putting it on the concurrency system, so that number does get input into the concurrency system so it gets counted. If you had 10 of those in a row that are 100, they're not done cumulatively because they're 10 different developers, but they would cumulatively get put on the concurrency system. If you're over 100 trips, peak hour or 1,000 daily, then you'd just have to do a higher level of analysis. And this is quite normal around the area, that there is some threshold that you don't have to do a $10,000 study for 14 homes, and it's quite common. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's consistent with Pasco County and a few other counties as well, too. MR. JARVI: For instance, Lee County does 100 trips and 300. They have three threshold, or two threshold, three different levels that you have to do. The bigger the project, the more you have to do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you feel comfortable with that, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, but I understand it better now. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have -- you have some nods on this? Everybody in -- concurring with this? Okay. How many more issues you got, or is that it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have one -- two more. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Three. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Three more, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Why don't we see -- okay. And Page 92 September 20, 2006 then we'll call it quits if we can get through this issue -- these issues here in transportation. MS. FABACHER: We're on page 29, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Commissioners, at the PUD workshop you asked us to find a way to alleviate some of the responsibilities for reporting from some of the small PUDs that had to do traffic counts that were very -- little units left. We've taken out a little bit and we've put that in there, but we've also added a few little changes to it. Keep in mind, as staffwe don't want to punish the homeowners' association for having to report when the developer might be holding onto those units. So what we've said in this amendment is, you will report until you are 100 percent built out, but the person responsible for the reporting is the owner of the units, whoever that may be. If it's less than 25 p.m. peak trips left over, which is not that much, you would allow that to be waived at the county manager's or designee's discretion. You may also seek from this commission to be released from traffic counts if you are willing to release the units as well, too. So there's a couple of different things that are happening here. The unit was developed with -- approved with 1,000 -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Buildout. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- single-family homes and they built 800 and there's no more land left on the ground and there's a homeowners' association, but somehow in that contract, like you've seen with two different amendments in the past, the developer holds on to those units, then we'll ask the developer to do the traffic counts. He's not going to want to do that. And at some point in time -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: He's going to release them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- he's going to release those units. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that gets to an issue that Commissioner Coyle talked about a couple of years ago when we said Page 93 September 20, 2006 we have all of these ghost units out there and trying to figure out how we're going to address the ghost units so that we can get a better clarification of what the traffic impact is and the real time. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a small step towards that, and we're going to be working with Maryann Devanes with some more amendments in the next cycle to get more at those ghost units, I think. But this is a nudge at them to say, if you want to keep them, you keep track of them, you do traffic counts. And if you own them, you pay for them. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have any comments from my fellow commissioners on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We -- we give staff guidance to continue on with this. Okay. MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, we're on page 31, and Mr. Tindall, Phil Tindall, is going to explain. MR. TINDALE: Good evening, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. F or the record, Phil Tindale, Transportation Planning Department. This item pertains to some administrative timing criteria for the processing of or certificates of public facility adequacy or COAs. The first item seen on page 32, section 10.02.07, C1E, that specifically has to do with when the application for development order, a Site Development Plan or plat, has gone through the entire review process and it's basically ready for final approval. The applicant will receive a letter stating as such and be advised in that letter that they have 90 days to come in, pay 50 percent of their road impact fees and any other fees that may be due, and pick up their COA, and then they'll be done with the process. This is -- the purpose of this application, I mean, is nothing -- for this amendment is nothing more than just enhancement for good customer service. The reason being, in the course of processing the COA application and doing the development, transportation will Page 94 September 20, 2006 review the TIS that's associated with this application, and they'll grant a one-year traffic capacity reservation, which is basically a temporary placeholder for the purpose of concurrency to ensure that that applicant for that development order keeps their place in line for concurrency purposes and -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Provided they've paid 50 percent of their impact fees? MR. TINDALE: At the end of the process. Now, sometimes the smaller-size businesses that do these types of applications may not have quite the amount of liquid assets available. They may need a few more weeks in terms of time to come up with the money necessary to pay those impact fees which could be pretty sizable at times, excuse me. Since there is a one-year capacity reservation, if the application has gone through smoothly with the review process, they may have more than 90 days left on their temporary capacity reservation. All we're doing with this proposal is just to give them the full benefit of that year. Let's say if there's six months remaining and they need more than 90 days to come up with 50 percent of the impact fees, we have no problem giving them the full benefit of the remainder of the capacity reservation to come up with the money to pay their fees. So that's all that is about. The next item -- unless there are any questions on this. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions on this, Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. TINDALE: Section 10.02.07.4C. This has to do also with processing of COA applications. Currently, the provision requires -- and this is a little problematic at times -- that once an applicant submits an application form for a COA -- and there's a special form for that that has -- provides for all the information that's necessary to Page 95 September 20, 2006 put the certificate together that has all the required information on it -- 20 days to conduct that review and grant or deny a traffic capacity reservation which, as I mentioned a moment ago, was good for a year. The problem with that, sometimes there may be a COA application received, but there's another submittal that's required for us to do the concurrency analysis, and that is the TIS itself. Well, more than 50 percent of the time from our experience, we find that -- we've found that the TISs are insufficient for one reason or another, and we've had to ask that they be redone and that always takes us beyond the 20-day time line. So we're trying to -- the -- and also the -- this particular review is the only one. There could be dozens of reviews required for any SDP or plat application, but this is the only one where there is the specific review time frame set forth in the LDC, in the code itself. All the other review time lines are set forth by -- in terms of policy by the CDES administrator. And that's all we're trying to do here is just come under that same umbrella of time lines, which is, in fact, currently 20 days, so there's really -- for the applicant, there's no real change. We're just trying to give ourself the flexibility so that someone's not thinking that they're entitled to an automatic capacity reservation just because we didn't make the 20-day time line. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. TINDALE: Some other issues that could come up. There are times when there are significant problems with the SDP or plat application itself, the package, where there might be access or interconnection or off-site related issues that are health, safety, welfare related and may call into question the viability of that particular development, proposed development at all. We have a hard time granting a capacity reservation for one of those things, so we would -- we're asking for basically the flexibility to hold off on that until we can get those serious items resolved, in Page 96 September 20,2006 which case we would then be required to grant the capacity reservation as soon as possible thereafter once those resubmittals are received. We also have the latitude -- if there are minor issues with the SDP or plat, we can always -- and it's provided for also towards the bottom of the last paragraph. We can do an approval with stipulations so that we can go ahead and do the capacity reservation knowing that these are minor unrelated issues that can be resolved over time and we don't have to hold up the capacity reservation for something that's not related to the TIS. So that's basically, in a nutshell, what all of this does for us. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any questions? Okay. Commissioner Fiala-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- do you feel comfortable with this? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm fine. Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The last item. MS. FABACHER: Page 35. CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is the last item, right? MS. FABACHER: Last item. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Promise. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I appreciate my commissioners hanging in here. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, if you read this, what this basically says is when you submit your TIS, you would come to the board for zoning application, tell us when you're going to build out, we're going to hold you to that date. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Within two years -- we're giving a little flexibility. And that issue about government action or permits is in here as well, too. It says, if that's beyond your control, we'd respect that, but if everything's going smoothly, at the end of that build-out Page 97 September 20, 2006 year, any phantom units will disappear. That gives you some flexibility there with that two-year time frame. It helps us clean up and true up and it helps force the development community to really tell you when they're going to build out and not make guesses that you feel are unreasonable, and it holds them to that. Two years, we think, is a reasonable amount of time after the build-out year to accommodate any review and permitting applications our staff usually comes across. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's under paragraph 3, item A. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What we're referring to at the present time. MR. CASALANGUIDA: These extra units, when they're done, they expire, they're gone. They're considered no longer in the PUD anymore. So you won't have someone coming back like you have before with units on a golf course that you didn't expect to have to deal with 10, 15 later years. They're gone. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what about somebody that gives you a build-out date -- and I don't know what this build-out date is -- like Lely Resort, for instance, and they started in the '70s, right -- and -- for 10,000 units, and everybody knows they're never going to build 10,000 units there and they sold off 1,000 already. But when is build-out? Do you have a build-out date on something like that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: When they submit that TIS for their zoning approval, they tell you the build-out year. And we're using the anniversary adoption of the PUD for that build-out as that build-out date. So we tie it to that, and we say after that, the units go away, within two years. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, you woke up. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I did, just in time to read that last line. And I'm -- I think I understand it. I was going to ask you, Page 98 September 20, 2006 Nick, why you didn't include the intensity and density there, but you're really talking about non-residential units, so intensity is the proper term. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I'm okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, did you have anything on this? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm fine. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We've got enough nods on that. Yes? MS. FABACHER: I'm anticipating you adjourning. Before you adjourn the meeting, I would like to say that this first public hearing of the LDC cycle amendments will be continued to the October 25th date at 5 :05 here in the BCC chamber. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And that's to continue on the items that -- MS. FABACHER: Public hearing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- we didn't cover -- MS. F ABACHER: Exactly, for the first time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- for the first reading, okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So if there's no further communications, we're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:12 p.m. Page 99 September 20, 2006 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL FRANK-MiL-i~~/ ATTEST:r. ., DWIGII'T:':ri/BE-OCK, CLERK ./' . '.' .' ..1iJ);...'...\.... / - '. ~ / ,./;.~ ", . . ::: '. .~. /\ ~- " , . Ii to artt s The~~~~.'approved by the Board on presented ~ or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 100