Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/05/2006 LDC October 5, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE LDC MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida October 5, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Don Scott, Transportation Planning Kay Deselem, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Page 1 October 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now we will be discussing the continuation of the Land Development Code Amendments. This is something that started, I think, August. We've had -- MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, June. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: June. This hopefully will be the very last final discussion on this issue. And we have two items remaining, the first of which will be the deviations discussion concerning the Bayshore Overlay. And the second will be the essential services one. And Mr. White, I believe you are here to speak on the first one. MR. WHITE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Patrick White, with the law firm of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, representing various property owners through Planning Development, Incorporated. The administrative deviations, just to refresh everyone's recollection, actually were something that we'd anticipated discussing in the first round of amendments. So they have a history and a root that goes back to January, I would unfortunately have to say. But I think it's been time we've all well spent getting to the place where I believe we have unanimity with respect to the text that is before you. -Y ou were very gracious with your time at your last meeting to make sure that we had a full airing of all of the concerns from all sides, whether it's from the overlay through Mr. Jackson's point of view, staff and their relevant concerns, as well as those of the actual folks who will be bringing forward these mixed use projects. And I believe that the text that you have is one that I can safely say is a consensus verSIon. And unless there are any questions, I will do everything I can to be out of your hair as quickly as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions on this final version that's evolved over this last couple of months from the Page 2 October 5, 2006 Planning Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You must have done an extremely good job since last meeting. MR. WHITE: We've done a lot of back channel work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I appreciate that because that certainly helps move things forward. Are there any public registered speakers? MR. SCHMITT: Not on this item. MS. FABACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further comments from staff? I want to make sure everybody has a chance to air any questions. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If none, then I'll ask for a motion on LDC Section 2.03.07.1.5, and 2.03.07.N.5. Mr. Murray, you're making a motion for recommendation of approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I would recommend approval. MR. WHITE: And a finding of consistency with the comprehensive plan, please. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for reminding us that. It's been so many times since we've heard this. Is there a second to the motion to find this recommendation of approval and consistent with the GMP? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll approve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein has seconded that motion. Page 3 October 5, 2006 Is there any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all in favor, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. White, for your patience. Next item is the essential services LDC Section, 2.01.03. This one involves the use of certain emergency services as a permitted right in all zoning districts. CHIEF PAGE: Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to come back before you with this amendment. We did meet October 2nd. In attendance was Commissioner Henning, Mr. Mudd, the CDES staff, and Mr. Murray was also there. And what you have before you is what came out of that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last meeting of the Planning Commission, we had asked all to be notified of that meeting so that if anyone of us attended we all then could attend. How did -- Mr. Murray got there, but I never heard of the meeting. It was never notified to me. Did anybody else in this -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. Page 4 October 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now how did that happen, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I defer to Catherine. MS. FABACHER: Well, I had advised Mr. Murray and he said he wanted to attend as a member of a civic association. But I had advised him that it would probably be better not to because none of the other commissioners were coming, and if any of them showed up, then we'd have to advertise it as a workshop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But weren't the instructions from this board that if there was a meeting and any of us were invited that we all be invited? MS. FABACHER: No one was invited from the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray is a member of this Planning Commission. MS. FABACHER: Well, he wasn't invited. He e-mailed and said that he wanted to attend. I asked him not to for the reason that if we all needed to be there and we had such a short time frame, then we would have to legally advertise it by the Sunshine laws, and we couldn't have done it in this time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that was rather unfair of staff to the rest of this board. I'm disappointed that it occurred that way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let it be noted, if I may, Mr. Chairman, that I did not participate in that meeting but I observed what was gOIng on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have liked to have observed then too, Mr. Murray, but I stayed away under the premise that if all of us couldn't be there, none of us should be. Okay, sir, go ahead. CHIEF PAGE: Did you actually want me to read into the record the changes, or are there any specific questions to what you have Page 5 October 5, 2006 before you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've read all of your changes. I don't know if the other members have. And I certainly think maybe if we have done our homework and read the changes, then we can ask you questions concerning those, that might be the more expeditious way to move forward. So let's just move into it. Does anybody on the panel have any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you want to go page by page, Mark, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. That might be -- Brad, it's a good idea. With that, there aren't really many changes on Page 1. So does anybody have any comments on Page I? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, on Page 2, under 10.A, the word adjacent is in little i, lower case i. Should that be adjacent or abutting is the only question that I had there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may be more of a question for Catherine, because that's a definition from the LDC. MS. FABACHER: Exactly. And it means property touches the property line unless there's an intervening public right-of-way or canal. So we decided that adjacent would be appropriate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because we've been using abutting -- MS. FABACHER: Yes, I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm satisfied if everybody else is satisfied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. But also, if the Page 6 October 5, 2006 word is adjacent and it's used within the definitional context of the LDC, you need to bold it, I would assume. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There is another point in another document, I think it was the one preceding it. The word minor collector road was being used. And I just wondered, I know it's not in this one, but I wondered if there really is a distinction on minor collector road. That was new to me. MS. FABACHER: Well, I believe the way that it is written now, it's -- it can locate it -- it has to be on a collector or an arterial, but it could be on a local road, or they've termed it a road leading to an arterial if it's adjacent to a site that's actually located on the road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have no major problem with it, it's just what I'm bringing to your attention is that in the preceding one I believe the word minor collector was used -- MS. FABACHER: I agree. We had a lot of people scripting it. But before we get the final version, we would have our -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Seeking consistency. MS. FABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments on Page 2? Because I have a couple. Item 10, it says it shall be a permitted use in all zoning districts. By all, are you saying every zoning district we have in the Land Development Code? I want to make sure I understand how comprehensive you're trying to apply this. CHIEF PAGE: That was the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means-- CHIEF PAGE: With restrictions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means PUD's as well? CHIEF PAGE: Yes. Page 7 October 5,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a gated community that's a PUD, you guys can walk into it, pick a lot, buy it, build a fire station, with no notice to the public. CHIEF PAGE: Not as this is written. We do have a notice procedure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No notice to a public body. You have an NIM, neighborhood informational meeting, which is a -- just a formality in the sense that the public has no decision-making body at that meeting. You basically -- according to your own document here, you basically tell them what you're going to do or what your intent is. It doesn't even really need to be your final outcome. You accept their comments, but you don't have to do anything with their comments. And that's the end of it. That isn't a public process where the public can participate like they can in other conditional uses. Say someone was putting a rehab center out in the Estates area and they wanted to have a public process in which they could participate and comment. You're going to take your facility out of that process, especially if it's in PUDs. I'm surprised that this can apply to a PUD, because they are a zoning district in their own. Mr. Klatzkow, is there any legal issues there with the developers and private lands within DRIs, PUDs that are zoned? MR. KLATZKOW: The developer wants to sell a lot to the fire district, developer under this would have that right to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if a private individual who bought a lot from a developer wants to in turn sell it to a fire district? MR. KLATZKOW: Could be problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think so. On Item 10.C, the zoned height of the facility shall not exceed 35 feet. Is that every structure in the facility? CHIEF PAGE: Yes. Page 8 October 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all the questions I have on Page 2. Are there any questions from the panel on Page 3? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it has to do with the height. II.B has a minimum six-foot requirement. B.I has an eight-foot requirement minimum. I'm just confused. Should that second one be six also? MS. FABACHER: No. Excuse me, Catherine Fabacher. In lieu of Mike Sawyer being here, I'll attempt to explain. There are three landscaping options. The first is the one we originally had in a 30- foot buffer with the wall being 10 feet from -- well, the wall being 20 feet from the property line, a six-foot wall. That's the first one. And then the 20 feet on the outside of the wall would be adjacent to the residential. And that would have tree requirements. That's the first one. The second one would be a less expensive version where they would have not a masonry fence but another sort of opaque fence. And then they're required to put bushes on each side, and the final height needs to be eight feet. That's the second one. The third one is the way they do gas stations. I don't know if you're familiar with some of those out on Immokalee, one at Immokalee and 951 where they have the undulating berm like this, and then the total height of that has to be eight feet. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: -- that's the three options they have for landscaping. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4? Page 9 October 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's D and E. And you did include a drawing to kind of show that, but essentially aren't you saying that the buffer really doesn't have to go more than 50 feet past the developed area? MS. FABACHER: Correct. This is gauged to those lots in the Estates that might be 660 feet deep. We certainly don't intend that they have to carry the buffer. If they only use the front 200 feet, then the buffer would be 250 feet deep into the lot and not the 660 and buffering all of that wetlands back there that they wouldn't be using. So that's what it's geared to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what you're essentially saying is that you then have a -- you would put the buffer 50 feet away from the developed area -- MS. FABACHER: Fifty feet beyond any-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- essentially making it a 50- foot buffer. MS. FABACHER: No, no, you would follow the whole length of the development. And then where the pavement stops or the last structure stops or the utility stops, then you go 50 feet beyond that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a question, really, having to do with H on Page 4. Now, that speaks to exceeding the sound level limits on zoning districts at any time. And I certainly applaud the desire to minimize or eliminate even any ambient noise. But I have to wonder, during the day, where ambient noise is greater, if the several individuals were exercising in the yard, is that Page 10 October 5, 2006 going to be a problem? If they were playing basketball, for instance, is that going to be a problem? MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, I don't think that will go beyond 75 decibels. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So in other words, the recreation is not likely to be a problem, and the restriction, although it might be considerable, is not so severe as to create a problem for the fire departments, is that -- MS. F ABACHER: Exactly. It's the existing requirements for everybody in commercial, industrial, residential, based on the time line COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Super, I wanted to get that on the record so that we have it clear that -- MS. FABACHER: And I believe that Chief Page and some of the fire chiefs have advised me that in many instances when they're in this sort of neighborhood, they don't turn on the sirens or roll until they get out of that area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is my understanding, too. And it is a critical factor for many people. And it should be on the record that their intent is to discipline their individuals so that they are able to be good neighbors. And that's all I wanted to venture into. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 4? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, under I, we start talking about the neighborhood information meetings. And that goes on here for another entire page. You spend a lot of time detailing what was going to happen at these neighborhood information meetings, but what really is the outcome? Since you want to grant yourself the right to be there anyway, no matter what is said at the neighborhood information meeting. Page 11 October 5, 2006 CHIEF PAGE: Well, I think the intent is to reassure the neighbors what we intend to place there as a facility, talk about preemption devices so that we're not utilizing sirens, any significant questions they might have about it. Rather than just go in and build something. And keep in mind, as a rule, and when you're talking about PUDs, there is land set aside where we go in. Would we actually go in and buy somebody's house and knock it down? We've never certainly have done anything like that, nor would that be our intent. But I have to tell you that you've seen the map I've had before where it showed all the little dots where we're not making response times. There is no way to plan where accidents happen, where a heart attack happens. There is just no way to do it. It's not always at home. It's on the road, it's shopping, whatever it is. So the difference between what a fire load may be where you have a number of structures that are highrises and maybe you need a station there for fire is a little bit different from EMS. And I'm only talking about EMS right now. And sometimes you just cannot plan ahead of where your station needs to be. It's based on response times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 4? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a follow-up comment to your statement just now. We had three PUDs on today's agenda. I read all three, not knowing that two of them will be continued. There's no fire stations, EMS stations or anything mentioned at any of those three. CHIEF PAGE: We may not have had a need to put a station in that PUD. I can tell you I'm looking at properties right now where all the PUDs I'm looking at do have land set aside for either fire or EMS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page -- yes, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And have you been doing that in the past? Page 12 October 5, 2006 CHIEF PAGE: Yes, we have. MR. SCHMITT: Chairman Frane -- Scrane -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not even going to go there. MR. SCHMITT: I'm not going to go there. You brought up a good question, and I think we need to explore this a little more, because from the standpoint ofPUDs and DRIs, some PUDs and DRIs have wording in it that says essential services, and there are lands designated within PUDs for essential services. If there is not language in a PUD, I think it may be problematic to basically say this is an authorized use, because now we're creating a self-amending mechanism to a PUD in a DRI. We may -- and we just didn't think about this. We may have to specify here all zoning districts, commercial, residential, industrial zoning districts and somehow exclude PUDs and DRIs in this language, unless there's some mechanism to amend the PUD orDRI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means all the gated communities in the county basically don't have to be intruded upon by these kind of essential services, but those of us that don't live and can't afford a gated community have to be. Now, I was wondering if that is any more fair than the way it's written now. MR. SCHMITT: Well, I don't know. I think that there are PUDs that have designated areas for essential services in the PUD, in the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I've seen some of those, they've come through here. At the time the word essential services was written into that PUD, do you think anybody, including a developer, realized that by that definition or that reference it was going to be a fire station, an EMS station or a sheriffs office? Because Page 13 October 5, 2006 I certainly think that right now our definition of essential services doesn't include those. And those are a different kind of use to be dropped anywhere in the zoning district than a developer would want to allow generally across the board in his PUD. I think it's problematic from that regard. And if it's not allowed in those, then I think it's unfair to the citizens who can't live in a gated community. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, then I would think in DRIs especially, just by their very nature, those might be the places you would want them, because it would be pretty hard for you to get from one end of most DRIs. CHIEF PAGE: There are specific languages that include -- they'll say fire and EMS structures. In other areas, it's listed as governmental buildings, or governmental property. Heritage Bay would be one example, up north of Immokalee Road. Fiddler's Creek, it actually says -- specifically addresses East Naples Fire and EMS. So there is wording in some of those that allows specifically us to go in. However, again, our intent is to put these stations where we need them. And that's what the amendments really for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, on those developments, and I'm somewhat familiar with one of those you mentioned, when they designed that -- those lands to be dedicated to the fire service and EMS, they chose places where they would be appropriate, where they wouldn't intrude on the local neighborhoods. In fact, they're not around any of the local neighborhoods. That's why they picked those places. They were given the opportunity to. That's the difference between what you're asking for today and what happened back then. CHIEF PAGE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 4? Page 14 October 5,2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On Page 5, under Roman numeral VII, it says must accept public comment. Does that mean you accept the concept of what the comment is, or just receive the comment and will listen to it? CHIEF PAGE: I actually didn't craft this particular part of the language. Catherine, do you have any comment to this? MS. FABACHER: You're correct, as far as a conditional use. If he were to go for a conditional use, then those conditions would be binding from the public hearing. Or the body that's permitting it would make those stipulations to the approval. But you're correct in saying it wouldn't be binding. I guess it's an act of good faith for the neighborhood to believe. MR. KLATZKOW: The only requirement is that they sit and they listen. They don't have to do a thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. Any other questions on page -- Mr. Murray, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all right. Up in Roman -- I think its Roman V, the word not is in the third line, and I'm just wondering if I'm correct in that. It says it's not to be placed in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear. Is that our standard practice? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir, that is. That's state language from existing -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So as to bring it to attention. MS. FABACHER: They don't want it there-- Page 15 October 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I wanted to be sure. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 5? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 6? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question is rather than list it all out again in E like we're doing, would it be better for E just to reference the prior notation? Especially -- well, first of all, it's lengthy. Secondly, if the change is made, it would be nice if it flowed through this. If there were things that were unique to this area, they could be highlighted by listing them in this area. CHIEF PAGE: We talked about that, I think, Catherine. MS. F ABACHER: I have some language here that would read public law enforcement, fire and emergency medical services, facilities subject to all the conditions provided in Subsection 2.01.03.A.10. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like that better. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That also saves us from going page by page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to try to run through the rest of these a little faster, because they are redundant. Number 7? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 9? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 10? (No response.) Page 16 October 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number II? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have on 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what it is is E, do we really want to take E out of there? I mean, what I think would be best back in there is the ability to have a conditional use to get in there. I'm not sure why it's taken out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you at? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm at -- okay, I'm sorry, up at the top of the Page it's E. It would be G.1.E. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, I'm glad you raised that subject, because Susan Murray brought that up with me yesterday. And she said that there's a problem that there might be other government facilities that we may want to allow. So she has asked me, and I'm glad you brought it up, to say into the record that we're going to leave government facilities and strike the rest. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And could you word it like you do the other ones, where it's for those not-- MS. F ABACHER: Right, including where not identified as a permitted use in this section. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 12? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's the -- all the pages for that LDC amendment. Mr. Schmitt or Ray or whoever, is there any public speakers, whoever's got the slips? MR. SCHMITT: I don't have any. Catherine, you have them over on your side. MS. FABACHER: Yeah, we have Chief Potteiger, and then Page 1 7 October 5, 2006 after that will be Commissioner Rautio. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many total public speakers do we have? MS. FABACHER: That's it, those two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. CHIEF POTTEIGER: Rob Potteiger, East Naples Fire. I'm up here for a good thing. I just wanted to let the Planning Council know how much staff did help us, and Commissioner and Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Mudd. So they were great. We appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ms. Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Good morning. For the record, Joyceanna "JA" Rautio, North Naples Fire District Commissioner. I want to thank the staff and County Manager Mudd and even Commissioner Tom Henning for the effort they made to get together on the 25th of September to walk through some of these issues. It was a real team effort and I think it was very productive. And of course our meeting on Monday the 2nd was real productive, too. We learned a lot about landscaping and how much goes into just little words here. We're pretty satisfied with this draft. And I just wanted to let you all know that North Naples Fire District has used our special counsel, who is Laura Jakobs Donaldson, who deals with land use on a regular basis and has previously served on the -- as a staff attorney for the Florida legislature. She's really good at wordsmithing and code writing. She had some technical concerns with the current draft, which she did discuss with Catherine Fabacher. And these generally just involved technical changes that would ensure that the current rights in agricultural, commercial and industrial zoning would remain. And I believe the G .1.E issue came up with that. So we were assured that she would work on those and just clarify them for us. So that was the Page 18 October 5, 2006 major point I wanted to make on just the draft, the technical parts. Now, when it comes to retaining existing permitted rights, the newest proposed language will make it easier to build fire stations where they are needed in a timely, efficient manner. Same goes for EMS stations. And I believe that it protects citizens in a couple of different ways. First, it allows fire stations and EMS stations to be built so that our residents are protected. We do not build fire and EMS stations unless there is a need. We have ways of picking areas and then doing the circle, seven miles of a service area. And then of course second, if a fire station is being built in a residential area, there are numerous requirements now in development standards that will ensure that the fire station will be a good neighbor. And there are, as you noticed additional very specific landscaping and buffering requirements that we think will work quite well. And we have at least three choices to do what we need to do to be a good neighbor. And residents near the proposed fire station will have the opportunity to attend a public meeting regarding a fire or EMS station. And we do believe that at that time people will talk about design, they will talk about some of the landscaping issues. And I don't believe we're not going to listen. So I think the public is protected. I did want to say too that North Naples Fire District has two more facilities that will come on in the next five years, and that we are in discussion with Emergency Services to build these as joint stations. And one of those in our district may even be useful to the Collier County Sheriffs Office for a substation. So we do want to thank you all for the effort that's been put in, staff and the county manager, et cetera, and the Planning Commission, because we do want to make it easier and less expensive and time consuming to go ahead and build the stations that will serve our Page 19 October 5, 2006 residents. I did want to comment specifically on your issue about fixing the PUD language. When we all read this and discussed it, I don't even think Laura J akobs picked up on the fact that in the PUD areas that these would all apply, because the assumption is that normally in a PUD area we've all negotiated to get essential services placed in there. So if that needs to be fixed, I'm willing to listen and see what the language would be. Because that's not our intention, to just run in and plop a fire station or an EMS station in the middle of a developed neighborhood, because you've already solved the problem through the PUD process, and everybody gets to hear what type of essential services will be in there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are no -- any other comments from the Planning Commission? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I have a question for Mr. Schmitt, if I could, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I understood, I thought Susan, when she was here in our prior meetings indicated that you had assessed the track record, so to speak, of time taken for conditional uses. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could you tell me what that was again? MR. SCHMITT: It takes about, on average, about four months. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Four months. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And that depends on the applicant of Page 20 October 5, 2006 course submitting and meeting the schedule. And the reason its four months is normally about 90 days of that are the prescriptive requirements for the neighborhood information meeting, the Planning Commission to make sure you all get your staff report, and then the report and advertising for the Board of County Commissioners. But on average it's about four months. I can look it up, the specifics on it, but it's about four months, no longer than five to go through a conditional use. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is there any reason to assume that emergency facilities would take longer or shorter than that amount of time? MR. SCHMITT: Normally the only time they take longer is if there are site problems, either wetlands or other type of issues that they're dealing with, but they're doing that through other permitting processes. Or traffic, negotiating with transportation, ingress, egress, those types of activities. There have been some stations in the past that were sited, have taken much longer, but those were associated with rezonings, PUDs or other type of activities that took that length of time. It was not specifically a conditional use, it was associated with, like I said, a rezoning or included in a PUD. And-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So our track record is about four to five months? MR. SCHMITT: About four to five months. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion for LDC Section 2.01.03, essential services? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. Page 21 October 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, I asked for a motion. You guys -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion for a favorable recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you're recommending approval? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of Section 2.01.03. And Mr. Murray, you're seconding that recommendation? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there discussion? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd just like to say, when I was growing up we had fire stations in residential neighborhoods, and I think that we tended to think of it as a benefit to be having that protection in our neighborhood. We weren't, I guess, in those days thinking, oh, well, you can only have residential, you don't want anything next to you at all that's not, you know, just houses. And I think that when we live in a community we not only have rights in the sense of, oh, I have the right to have what I want in my neighborhood and what I don't want, but we also have responsibilities to the community as a whole. And as part of the community, I think that we should let the fire stations and EMS stations be put where they're most needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah, I guess I have a problem where we -- any time that we allow government where they're going to do whatever they want to do wherever they want, whenever they want, I have a real problem with carte-blanche and taking the public out of the process. And I think of myself, if I'm in these areas, and -- it's just Page 22 October 5, 2006 not the appropriate way to do it. And I will be voting against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The fire departments have a right to go into these districts. But they do have to blend into the area. But the problem is, the owners in the area have to have rights also. And I therefore feel the conditional use should be requested -- or required. I trust the County Commissioners. They have been extremely competent in their judgment of these issues, and they've done a good job with what they are doing, because they have the power. And I think they should be the only ones that do have the power. There is the responsibility for the County Commissioners to protect the owners in a district. And that is what they should do. Nothing else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Insofar as government is concerned, I can agree that we want to minimize government and certainly government's intrusion. But I think it should also be known that I have been given a document which says that fire departments in this county have the right of eminent domain, which of course they have not exercised. And they have not exercised it for good reason. They don't choose to do that. They're trying to be good neighbors, as far as I can tell. But I point that out because as the government, they have the right, if they wanted to, to go in and acquire the property. A long and difficult process, but they have the right to do that. They're seeking to do something different. They're seeking to be good neighbors and come in and minimize the amount of time it takes of their planning and their budgeting and the rest of it that goes with it is helped. We always want to have a public process. The thought on the neighborhood information meeting, from what I obtained, listening to Page 23 October 5, 2006 the meeting that occurred, was that people never lose their right to complain to their commissioner. If there were enough complaints, the commissioners themselves would work or seek to negate any effort to put a station in their location, if there were enough complaints. So it's a toss-up, really, for many people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Murray, you had said that they have the right of eminent domain, and that will take quite a few years, and it's a very expensive, lengthy process. What I feel that we should stay with is the conditional use, which is only four to five months, and we still keep the people and the public in the loop. They do have some rights, other than to show up at a meeting, voice their opinion and it ends there. Why even have the meeting if the opinion is just an opinion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other comments-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to respond to that, if I might, please, just briefly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as we don't get into a debate-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm not going to debate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with commissioner members, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not going to debate. The fact is that my point was to make it that they have certain rights that they have not exercised. I'm not questioning their right to -- well, never mind, I'm going to withdraw from that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarification on the motion to approve, does that include the right to the fire district to go into existing PUDs and DRIs, or are we excluding that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think they should be able to Page 24 October 5, 2006 go into a PUD if it's allowed within the PUD itself. Some you said have it, some don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion maker is accepting that as a stipulation. Does the second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As the second, I'm not sure what that means. So if I could get an amplification of what that means, please, so I can be sure? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What that means is that you can go into a PUD, but the PUD has to have wording in it that would allow the use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In my mind, that breaks the premIse -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they have it anyway. The PUD has the wording to allow that use they got anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, so it's not an issue then. MS. FABACHER: I think we should maybe exclude it in this sense and then they'll go in through the PUD, through the PUD process. Because I think one of you raised a very good point, that someone could go into a PUD, buy a residential lot, which is not what was intended with going into a PUD. So Mr. Schmitt has recommended that we exclude PUDs and DRIs in this particular provision and that there are still means for them to get in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are we taking them out of the equation then? MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They would be out. MS. FABACHER: I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the motion maker is the only one that can take it out, and I'm just trying to get to that point, but I want to hear everybody's comment. Page 25 October 5, 2006 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment. I think I did at the very first meeting, I've stated that I didn't understand why this change was necessary, that I thought the conditional uses had been working just fine. And I'm especially upset about including the conservation and ARC and EU and NERP As and HISs and FSAs in this revision. That just doesn't seem to make sense. I would be very much in favor of whatever fast tracking the county can do to get these things moving along. I think once it's been decided on, they should be able to proceed at the fastest of paces. I'm not sure how much quicker than four or five months we could possibly make it anyway, but at any rate, I'll be voting against the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, to clarify your amendment based on the discussion that was occurring between Ms. Fabacher and you, are you including or excluding the PUD-DRI issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think based on the comments that Commissioner Rautio made, I would be acceptable to exclude the PUDs and the DRIs. And let me point out one thing: There is another level of citizen participation. They elect the fire commissioners, so if they don't like what's going on in their district, they can elect commissioners who'll do what they want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After their homes are gone. Commissioner Murray, do you second -- do you support the motion now with Mr. Schiffer's clarification? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm really struggling to try to figure out whether or not we're doing more damage than we're doing good. And I'm going to have to ask this question: If we are excluding it, that means that any fire station would be planned within the PUD Page 26 October 5,2006 right from the inception; would I be right on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what the indication is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay, then that doesn't seem to change that. Okay. I'll go with that, but I want to make one last comment regarding this issue of the time. The citation is now four months, approximately. I think the argument was that it had been historically considerably longer. Regardless of who caused it, it had been longer. I think that was part of the premise for going forward this way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I know everybody else has had their comments, I'd just like to make mine. Number one, and I feel strongly about this, the government is not above the law. The law is conditional use. The very first hearing we have today is the conditional use process being exercised by a neighborhood who is going to -- probably most of the people are here for. We pass this today, these people wouldn't be able to be here for this, because it wouldn't happen. We should not be rewarding government or anybody for lack of planning. The system is not broken. In fact, I attended a workshop Monday and I thought -- we heard the system certainly is not broken, it's improved. And I would recommend strongly we vote no on this motion, but there is a motion made to recommend denial. I would caveat that motion with the ability to support that fire services and EMS and Sheriffs go through a fast track -- be included in the fast track process. But that would have to be a separate motion. So for this motion, I certainly cannot support it and will not support it. So with that, I'll call for the question. All those in favor of the motion to support LDC Section 2.01.03, essential services, signify by Page 27 October 5,2006 raising your hand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three in favor. All those against? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) Six against. Motion fails, 6-3. Is there another motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make that motion about fast tracking the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your motion then would be to recommend denial of the Section 2.01.03, essential services, as it's written because of a finding of inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. But would it recommend considering the fire service, EMS and SO for the fast track process that exists in Collier County? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, the shorter we can make COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second that motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- that process, the better it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a motion, Mr. Adelstein seconded it. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye and raising your hand. Page 28 October 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. (Indicating.) One, two, three -- six, seven -- eight. Midney, Paul -- ah, nine. Okay, nine in favor. Anybody against? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobodyagainst. Thank you. That concludes the Land Development Code amendment cycle one. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: We've had an issue raised by Attorney Doug Lewis with respect to the stormwater retention issue. And Mr. Lewis has reviewed the record, the proceedings, and we have also -- and is unclear as to what recommendation, if any, the Planning Commission has made on this particular item. We're going to pass out to you the version of this item that is going to the BCC at our next meeting without any testimony. We're going to ask for recommendation up or down on just for clarification of the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next meeting of the Planning Commission, you want us to re-support whatever position we had last time? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. It was unclear exactly what decision, if any, the Planning Commission made on this particular item. As you know, this item has gone through multiple revisions over Page 29 October 5, 2006 time, and it's very, very difficult to figure out exactly out what was done, looking at the record. So we will have environmental staff here to answer any questions, and the public obviously will be here if they want to chime in on this. But I don't know that any additional hearing is necessary. We just need from you a recommendation up or down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I have two questions on that. First of all, will we be continuing then the LDC amendment hearing again? MR. KLA TZKOW: Once again, yes. For this one last item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll be continuing it, but just so that the public is not misled that might want to be interested, are we or are we not going to allow testimony and discussion on the issue at the meeting in which this is continued to? MR. KLATZKOW: Public comment would be required, if any of the public wants to show up for this. Whether you want to hear any additional testimony is up to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only problem I have is to be fair is if the public shows up, staff needs to be here -- MR. KLATZKOW: Staff will be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because we would want to hear staffs opinion in relationship -- MR. KLATZKOW: We'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to public comment. And the last thing is, the discussion occurred at the only meeting I've missed this year, which was a couple of weeks or three weeks ago. MS. FABACHER: It was the 29th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since I wasn't here at that meeting, am I going to be allowed to participate in this re-vote, or do I have to abstain from that revote? MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, you have attended several Page 30 October 5, 2006 meetings where this has been discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't have any issue with your voting on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what date is it that you're going to be looking at bringing this back? MR. KLATZKOW: I believe its October 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's our next regular meeting, but we do have meetings in between. MR. KLA TZKOW: It would be up to you, sir, if you want to hear it before then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's a matter we could dispense with quickly in the beginning of anyone of our meetings next week or prior to the 19th. MR. KLATZKOW: It's your decision, sir, as chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'd like to see this dissolved quickly. So our next meeting, I believe, is the 11 th, am I right, and that's the comprehensive -- well, you don't know, Catherine, then let me take a look at -- we can't survive without computers nowadays. The 11th. Yes, we have an EAR meeting on the 11th here. And our books are probably going to be distributed to us today. So why don't we continue this to the 11 th, and the very first item up on the agenda. My recollection is that the meeting at -- it's an EAR meeting and it's at 9:00. I don't know, anybody have any different information than that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My understanding, it's here. Mr. Bellows, Mr. Schmitt, anybody confirm that? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Did you say 9:00 or 8:30? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's why I'm bringing it back up, I want to make sure we continue it to the right time. Page 31 October 5, 2006 MR. KLATZKOW: And we will be contacting the parties who have shown up for the public hearing and let them know what's going to be going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schmitt, you're looking at that up, I hope? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I know my calendar shows 8:00, but that's not the start time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8:00? MR. SCHMITT: That's not the start time, it just shows my commitment. I'll look it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: May I have a motion for-- may I have a motion for personal privilege? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to go to the bathroom? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. Maybe you do, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you don't have to ask for that. What does that mean? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What I'm trying to say is, there may be somebody in the audience here who is from the Glades and is thinking we're going to get that on the agenda today, and it is not. So anyone from the Glades who is here, to take up and go home. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I have a better understand what a -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Motion for personal privilege. You always have a right to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not -- you could have had that right. I just want to make sure I understood what it was you were asking. I was a little surprised. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: When the meeting's over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was waiting for Mr. Schmitt to checke Page 32 October 5, 2006 our agenda for the 11 th on the start time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Anybody could get it done that fast. MR. SCHMITT: I'm still looking, so stand by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we were supposed to have some books here for distribution to us today involving that meeting. I was hoping that if they're here, we could look at them. MR. SCHMITT: They'll be here. I signed the paper this morning, and Joe will be back with them probably within the next hour or so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, if you're watching, could you call Joe or e-mail him and tell him what time we're meeting? MR. SCHMITT: That's Randy Cohen. I'm looking at the -- I would -- I'm not going to -- MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Commissioner, our court reporter, Cherie', has said she got a notice for 8:30 that morning. MR. SCHMITT: It's 8:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Land Development Code, the one remaining issue on the stormwater will be continued until 8:30 on the 11th. And we're done with that meeting. ***** COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRPERSON Page 33