Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/18/1995 S (LDC Amendments)SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:07 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRPERSON: Bettye J. Hatthews Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Hike HcNees, Acting Assistant County Hanager Harjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Item #3A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102 AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE ONE THEREOF, GENERAL PROVISIONS; ARTICLE TWO THEREOF, ZONING; ARTICLE THREE THEREOF, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; APPENDIX B. THEREOF, TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGN STANDARDS; AND APPENDIX C. THEREOF, FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT, REQUIRED CERTIFICATIONS; ARTICLE SIX, DEFINITIONS; MORE PARTICULARLY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 1, 1995 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Calling to order the Board of County Commission public meeting for Land Development Code changes. Mr. HcNees, will you lead us in an invocation and pledge or, Mr. Dotrill. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One of you people pray. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this evening for this opportunity, and as always it's our prayer that you guide the deliberations of this commission in particular as they deal with issues involving our community and its land-related development process and that you would bless our time together, and we pray these things in Jesus's name. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Tonight is an advertised public hearing, an ordinance amending Ordinance 91-102, our Land Development Code. Mr. Hulhere, will you walk us through it? MR. HULHERE: Thank you. Good evening. Bob Hulhere with current planning section, also the Land Development Code coordinator. This evening is the first of two scheduled public hearings. The second hearing is -- is advertised for November 1st. We have a number of -- of amendments. In the past the board has chosen to hear these, each one. And if there were no public comments, we've moved forward to the next one saving those that have public comments till the end. If that suits the pleasure of the board, we can do that again tonight. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does that suit the pleasure? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Fine with me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Seems fine. MR. HULHERE: On your agenda page 10 is the first of the changes. I should note that all of these changes have been reviewed by the development services advisory committee and are supported by the development services advisory committee. All of the changes were heard by the planning commission. One of the changes which we will get to a little bit later was not voted on by the planning commission because of the lack of a quorum as two members had to recuse themselves. And that is the area of critical state concern amendment, which we will get to a little bit later. I just wanted to apprise you of that. Also the EAB and the EPTAB advisory boards heard both of these amendments. The EAB, they reviewed the environmental -- the environments that have environmental impacts, and we will get to their -- as we get to those amendments, I'll apprise you of what their findings were on those. This first one is really housekeeping. It is to put in the appropriate titles and names and procedures for the process of interpretations to the Land Development Code and building code, and we became aware of this over a time changing titles that this needed to be changed, and we became aware of it through the Hideaway Beach, so we've gone and cleaned up that language. The second amendment I believe you will have considerable public comment on, so we may want to move over that one. That is on your agenda page 15, and that is a request by Barbara Cawley of Wilson, Miller, Barton, and Peek to revise the Land Development Code relative to the area of critical state concern and a restriction on clearing of agricultural properties limited to 10 percent. And so we're going to -- with the pleasure of the board, we'll come back to that. MR. DORRILL: Well, there are only two speakers thus far. Other individuals in the audience have requests, but there are two public speakers as it pertains to Ms. Cawley's list request, and they're the only registered speakers we have at this time. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Let me just let you know a little bit about this amendment. This amendment was forwarded to the EAB. The EAB did not have a quorum when they reviewed this amendment. There were only five members present. I -- I identified that in your executive summary. EPTAB at their first hearing in reviewing this amendment also did not have a quorum. However, they have subsequently reviewed it, I believe, on October 9th, and it is their recommendation to this board that the language remain as is currently in the LDC, and that is that there is a restriction of a maximum of 10 percent on agricultural zoned properties with an ACSC overlay, area of critical state concern. The state studies -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me interrupt you real quick, Mr. Mulhere, so you can answer something for me. I understand that if this is -- is appraved, then it's going to be in conflict with the growth management plan. We then have to come back and amend the growth management plan. By doing it in that manner, are we just saving the time between amending the growth management plan in the next LDC cycle, or is this -- obviously putting one in front of the other makes a little more sense, but I guess I just want to know why we're hearing it out of order as opposed to the other way. MR. MULHERE: I think -- and I was going to get to the options I think the board has, and the legal staff may wish to comment on this. We brought it forward because the applicant requested that we carry it forward. And the applicant, Ms. Cawley, she can speak to the issue for her interests, but -- and her client's interest, but your staff would recommend that this particular amendment be either one of two things, either pulled and tracked currently with the camp. plan amendment, or the attarney's office has advised me that it is their opinion that it can be -- that this single item can be continued to a date -- to an uncertain date to track also concurrently with the camp. plan amendment. We would have to readvertise it when we are certain that the camp. plan amendment is either appraved or is going forward. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My point, we are going to have this argument it appears more than once if there are two sides to this. Not only are we here today, when we go through growth management plan, we're going to hear the exact same issues. MR. MULHERE: Correct. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And if the growth management plan is not amended or the state objects to it, then we're really wasting our time on this today. We're going to hear this item again when the growth management plan occurs, so I'm not trying to stand in the way of this. I'm just saying it may make more sense to let the discussion occur in the growth management plan amendment and handle it from there since it has to happen anyway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think I'd probably agree with you on pretty much the idea of debating on a topic more than once if not necessary. And if we're kind of putting the cart before the horse, I wouldn't be opposed to waiting and letting it take its natural course. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And instead make this a part of the growth management plan amendment cycle. MR. MULHERE: Which the first hearing on that is Tuesday -- on this Tuesday. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: question? Well, since we're all here -- Yeah, it may be. Okay. Ms. Student, can I ask you a MS. STUDENT: Certainly. I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is it possible that if -- if we were to proceed forward tonight and listen to the arguments related to the LDC change in ACSC property -- MS. STUDENT: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- can we take on a separate vote if we were to include the new language and have it effective with the adoption of the growth management plan? MS. STUDENT: I believe we could do that. I know that there was some discussion about receiving board direction to, you know, break out really -- we have to have another ordinance for that item, you know, and a separate vote, and there was some discussion about, you know, having to advertise that and would it be cleaner to have the final vote at a continued meeting, say, in mid November, you know, after the November 1st meeting or under the broad parameters of the ordinance that we have then just break it out since it would be discussed publicly and just have it on two separate ordinances. And I believe we concluded -- because I spoke with Mr. Weigel about this today -- that under the existing ordinance we would probably be safe in breaking that out without the need to readvertise a second ordinance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because of the closeness of the growth management plan and this hearing tonight, I'll -- I don't think there's a problem with it anymore, but I was just concerned about us rehashing it in six months, not in five days. So why don't we just go ahead rather than waste any more time. My apologies. MR. HULHERE: This amendment would propose to return the language within the Land Development Code back -- I know you've had this discussion previously. It would return the language back to the way that it originally existed and to mirror what exists in the state statutes. And the state statutes provide an exemption for agricultural activities. They do not restrict that clearing. With that having been said, I think there are a couple of public speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. HcNEES: You have four, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have four? MR. HcNEES: Yes, Gary Beardsley. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Beardsley. MR. DORRILL: Do you wish to hear from Ms. Cawley first? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: She's the petitioner for this particular part of the change. MR. DORRILL: After you hear from her, then I have Mr. Beardsley and also Hiss Straton on this item and none others. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay, Ms. Cawley, why don't we hear from you first then since you spent your money to get it this far. MS. CAWLEY: Well, it's not my money. It's the agricultural community's money from the people that own the land within the area of critical state concern that we're talking about here. Good evening. The reason that the petition was filed was because we have language currently in our code that removed a statutory exemption for agriculture that was in the area of critical state concern section of the law of the state rule. And it's very simple. What we're asking for here tonight is we're asking for that statutory exemption to be replaced into the Collier County Land Development Code and the growth management plan. Since we're going to be talking, I guess, generally about both of them, we're asking them to be identical and that that language be reinstated as it was. I think -- I think we've had some real misunderstandings from the environmental community on what this actually does. And we've met with the agricultural community to try to -- to clarify all of the issues, but we really haven't been able to succeed in coming to any common ground to work out this issue. Our position basically is this is, one, statutory and that it's something that the county cannot do, cannot go farther than a statutory exception, can't regulate agriculture in this particular location under the auspices of the area of critical state concern. That's not saying that they can't regulate agriculture under your home rule powers. You can do that, but not under the auspices of critical state concern. The reason we're so concerned about that is that there's a 10 percent clearing limitation in that particular section of the area of critical state concern rule. And what this in effect does is it tells the agricultural community that they cannot use 90 percent of their land for any purpose, nothing. And that, we feel, is prohibitive obviously and was one of the reasons and the reason that the statutory exemption was put in when it was put in. So what we're asking for is for that to be reinstated. Now, that doesn't mean agriculture can go out there and destroy property. We've got clear regulations from various agencies from the corps of engineers to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the Big Cypress National Preserve, from the water management district that regulates the use particularly of wetlands and -- in that area. And so we believe that -- and plus you've got land code regulations that regulate agricultural clearing and that we understand we have to comply with. We're in an STO overlay. We deal with that entire process, which we think is very onerous, but we know we deal with that process. So it's a fairness issue. It's -- it's really a bringing back state regulations issue into our code, and I think that's -- that's just basically the bottom line of this issue. And it's very straightforward. The language is very straightforward. It just mirrors state -- state rule. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Cawley, does this, in essence -- I'm trying to put this in a nutshell. By complying with or being exactly what the state has set forth, does that mean that upland areas could be cleared and farmed while lowlands are maintained under existing levels of protection? I mean, in a nutshell is that what it means? In the area of critical state concern, will we have uplands that are not jurisdictional wetlands -- MS. CAWLEY: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that they could be cleared and farmed? MS. CAWLEY: They have been for years; that's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They have been, but this would just allow that to continue? MS. CAWLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And the second thing is if I have an ag piece of property out there under the 10 percent rule, other than throwing cattle on it, there's really nothing else you can do. Is that a fair assessment? MS. CAWLEY: Well, it's hard to say what you can do on 10 percent. Also, it's kind of confusing when you say 10 percent. Does that mean 10 percent of that particular site that's there? Is that 10 percent of the land holdings that are owned by a particular person? Is that 10 percent of what they want to clear that particular moment? It's confusing as to what that 10 percent means. But if you say that -- if it's 10 percent of the land holdings of the people that own the land out there -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Say contiguous properties, 10 percent of the block. MS. CAWLEY: Well, it doesn't say that. It just says 10 percent can be cleared. The intent of the 10 percent was for buildings. If you have a 5-acre piece, you can't clear any more than 2,500 square feet of that. It's -- it's clear in the rest of the code and the rule that it was meant for buildings, for putting in roads, for putting in houses. And it was never intended for agriculture. That's why it makes no sense when you start reading the rest of it when you throw agriculture in there. So when you say what else -- what can be done with that 10 percent, well, I guess you grow anything on it. You could put cows on it. You could grow tomatoes. It depends on what the property is used for or usable for. But, yes, it would allow clearing of uplands. It would not allow clearing of wetlands. It would allow them to use basically their property in accordance with all the other regulations that they have to comply with. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the wetlands, they would still have to go to the corps and get a dredge and fill? MS. CAWLEY: They have to go to corps. They have to go to South Florida Water Management District. They work with the panther people for their uplands and wetlands. They work with U.S. Fish and Wildlife on any other endangered species. They work with the county on their agricultural clearing section, which is a very strong section, which requires -- requires you to be bona fide agriculture for ten years, at a minimum of ten years, in order to go out and get a clearing permit for agriculture. So there's a lot of limitations on that. It doesn't put buffers around things and -- and the kinds of things that the agricul -- the environmental community is asking us for but, believe me, there's a lot of buffers out there, and there's a lot of land that isn't suitable for agriculture that has not been used. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions at this -- MS. CAWLEY: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. CAWLEY: I'm here if any other questions come up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Beardsley is next. MR. BEARDSLEY: Good evening, Commissioners, Commissioner Bettye Matthews. I'm wearing two hats. I'm speaking as an individual, and I'm a representative of the lower west coast water supply plan advisory committee. I'm also on the environmental advisory committee to the southwest Florida board of -- board in West Palm Beach. I'm also speaking as a board member of Eco-Swift, an environmental confederation of approximately 32 different organizations in a five-county area. Miss Cawley has represented it partially correct. I think probably most of the people that will speak tonight really don't have so much of a problem with removing the 10 percent. The difficulty is is that ag is a site-altering activity, and there are concerns within the area of state critical concern. The state identified that in 1973 as a area of state critical resource and then later identified it as an area of state critical concern. And we're talking about now about 108 square miles that is in private ownership, about six major landowners. The difficulty of that is -- I think I have pondered on this, and I have called the general counsel of DCA, Terrent -- Erin Terrent (phonetic) I think is his last name. And he said to me on the phone that he felt using the 380 statute was maybe a weak vehicle but that local government could have additional information requirements under the 163. He said but really the 380 has never been tested in court, and for Barbara Cawley to say ag is exempt is not exactly true. 380 says specifically -- and if you read on it says any work or improvement of real property, buildings, and any property located in an area of state critical concern, that regulations can be placed on this. As you know, the state, both the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the water management district, regulates farming in the area of state critical concern. I think you'll find that most of the people that speak tonight have concerns because a environmental resource permit -- and I'm a consultant. I deal with that -- has many loopholes in it, many weaknesses. What we would hope is that the place based watershed management concept that is being fostered by the State of Florida ecosystem management division up in Tallahassee, as well as the national estuarine program, which talks about managing watersheds for any land use change, we would hope that the landowners out there would buy into that as well as the commissioners. They're already putting these in place. Collier County has already identified as one of the districts, and there's already a district manager up in Fort Myers. So I hope that that process moves forward. Specifically I would like to enter into the record, again, for standing later on, both me as an individual and also Eco-Swift. And I will take just a moment to read this. The board of Eco-Swift has advised me, Gary L. Beardsley, a board member, to follow the proposed land development and growth management amendment process in Collier County. I am specifically authorized by John Cassonie (phonetic), president of Eco-Swift -- and that was half an hour ago on the phone -- to offer comments to you, the Board of County Commissioners, this evening. We strongly urge that the Land Development Code amendments be tracked through the public hearing process with the proposed comprehensive land plan amendments. We also state for the record that substantial and material changes must be made to the Land Development Code. If this is not done, Eco-Swift will oppose the growth management plan in its present form and the Land Development Code in its present form. Our board agrees in principle with many of the recommended Land Development Code changes offered by other organizations tonight, and there is an official list that will be presented to you. Our board has not met formally to review all of these recommended changes to the Land Development Code, but in principle we agree. We hope to convene and to make stronger recommendations and to agree or disagree with some of these. Again, I would like to present this letter as part of the record. And, again, thank you very much for your consideration. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. McNEES: Next is Chris Straton followed by Whit Ward. MS. STRATON: Thank you. I'm here today in the interest of your time and also to present a unified front on the part of the environmental community. So I'm here representing the Collier County Audubon Society, the southwest Florida office of the Florida Wildlife Federation, and also the Conservancy. And basically we're really not here to debate any of the legal issues dealing with the 380 versus the 163 or issues of taking because, you know, we can get into all of those. Nor are we here because we have any concerns about agriculture as a land use. The reason why we're concerned is because of the location, that this is the area of critical state concern. Specifically we're talking about the Okaloacoochee Slough, which as we discussed earlier, is already a somewhat fragmented system, and it does feed into the Big Cypress National Preserve, also the panther refuge, the Fakahatchee Strand, and eventually down into the Ten Thousand Islands aquatic preserve. And our comp. plan does require that we take steps to -- to protect those adjacent federal and state conservation lands. The reason -- and we did meet with the agricultural community, and we have provided them with our comments. And what I'm sharing with you today is the result of some last-minute discussions we had with staff. And basically if I could step through them fairly quickly, the first part of this is Section 2 -- 2 -- twenty-four six two. We agree that the ACSC ST process potentially is a very onerous process and has a lot of requirements that do not necessarily make sense for ag, for example, what their parking plans are and those types of things. So what we're suggesting is that language that we defer to the development services people and that if it's not necessary, they certainly don't put that requirement on anybody. We are saying instead of having to go through three boards, what we're proposing is it goes before the EAB with the BCC as an appeal mechanism as appropriate. We're talking about basically amending the agricultural clearing portion of the existing Land Development Code to include language only for ag in the area of critical state concern ST. And so basically the first change is just saying -- is making that addition to the ag clearing. On the top of the second page, we're again just basically repeating the fact that if the development services director -- they may provide any relief from the existing ACSC entity requirements. Now, page 3 and the last page really get to the guts of what we're talking about. We are concerned about uplands as well as wetlands. And we are very much aware that current procedures do not require manage -- wildlife management plans. And the first thing we're suggesting is -- relative to item 6 is that the petitioner, the applicant, prepare a wildlife management plan that's been approved by the game commission and U. S. Fish and Wildlife and submit that. The next thing we're saying, item number 9, is again if it's only ACSC ag land is because of the concern we have over surface and groundwater in terms of water quality and water quantity, so we're asking the applicant to submit their plan as it relates to maintaining class-3 water quality and in it to establish a monitoring plan so that we're able to -- to know what's -- what's happening in terms of the quality of the water and the quantity and asking those monitoring reports to be provided to staff and that if there is a problem, that remedial steps can be taken. Item number 10 is basically saying apply the same language as it relates to the 25 percent need of vegetation requirement that we apply to subdivisions into ag land with a preponderance of the areas being wetlands, and what we're understanding is that 50 percent of someone's contiguous land could be wetlands. We don't think this is onerous, but there may be some small parcels. And by small I mean still greater than 20 acres. May I continue? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You may finish up. MS. STRATON: Thank you. And then item number 11 is because ag -- as it changes from row crop -- well, from row crops to citrus, the water management requirements are different, and the use of the land is different. We would like to be able to look at the water management plan as it relates to that. And then the last item is that we would ask that in these cases that the receiving waters be given an opportunity to review and given 30 days to provide comments to any of these applications so that they know what's going on and we're in a position to have those comments reflected. In summary, the coalition that I've mentioned will -- is opposed to the comp. plan amendment unless there is language such as what we are recommending in the Land Development Code to protect the resource, which is the concern that we have. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. STRATON: Are there any questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions, Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You mentioned having the -- the applicants develop wildlife management plans to be submitted to agencies as well as water management plans and this and that and the other, but you -- you didn't mention how you proposed to have these studies and applications funded. MS. STRATON: Well, in -- in some cases my understanding is that if there is a corps permit that wildlife management plans may be required, and that is something that the applicant is -- is providing, and that's why we have this great consulting business. So those -- those are -- are being done, and there are firms that are providing some of those things. Many of these -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What we're trying to do here is to bring our language into line with the state so that anything that is required by the state will be required by Collier County. But if you as your coalition are asking for additional studies and plans, my question is -- MS. STRATON: Who's going to pay for it? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- how is that going to be paid for. Who is going to do the work? MS. STRATON: Well, I guess it's -- unfortunately if you happen to own a piece of land that has wetlands, the requirements are you have to do certain things and, you know, the -- the crass answer is -- what we're suggesting is that if you happen to have land that has been deemed in an area of critical state concern to the State of Florida, we are suggesting that there is a need for additional studies and that that would fall upon the -- the landowner if he wanted to develop that land in this particular case. The magnitude of the studies would vary depending upon, you know, the significance of the -- of the particular land that's involved. Okay? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other questions? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have one quick one. Chris, can you tell me offhand if you know what percentage of the ACSC area is nonjurisdictional? MR. BEARDSLEY: 50 percent. MS. STRATON: We've heard numbers of about 50 percent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. STRATON: And, you know, we know there is some wetland protection, but it's not cumulative. It's not required, and each project gets looked at independently. And there's not strong vehicles for -- for managing cumulative impacts, and the upland is not protected. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What concerns me about a lot of the language that you've put together here is the nebulous nature that, in essence, could serve to tie something up indefinitely, things such as the most sensitive functioning habitat, you know, determined by whom. You know, everyone except my mother has to sign off on this thing. There is a list under number 12 of things I've never even -- I mean Picayune Strand State Forest -- MS. STRATON: It's southern Golden Gate Estates. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, I understand what you're trying to do, but from the position of Collier County, this is an area of critical state concern, an area established by the State of Florida which Collier County has incorporated into its plan. For us then to place additional restrictions above that such as let's take, for instance, the 90 -- the 10 percent rule, under today's climate we better get ready to get our checkbook out and pay for the other 90 percent. MS. STRATON: We're well aware of that. However, currently the current code limits them to 10 percent. So if -- I mean, 50 percent is still better than the 10 percent type of thing. We're -- we're aware of those things. We're not trying to be, you know, onerous. A lot of this is just to communicate the information to the other people. We are not committed to this exact language. We did schedule a meeting today. We were available to hammer out specific language. We talked with staff. They were helpful. That's not to say that between now and, you know, Tuesday comp. plan we can't get together with the agriculture community to address some of these things. If they want to sit down with us, you know, we're certainly willing to try to work out something that captures the essence but does not through ambiguity create an undue burden. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In answer to Commissioner Hancock's question you said we've heard 50 percent. Heard from where? That's -- where is -- what is that based on? MS. STRATON: Well, part of it is information that Tom Jones from one of the Collier -- I think it was Collier Enterprises '- I'm not sure -- was at one of the meetings, and he gave us that number. We have met with Skip Bergman from the Army Corps of Engineers. We've had -- we've had conversations with DEP. We've reviewed the EERP process, so it's -- it's based on some information that's been provided to us. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. No follow-ups? MS. STRATON: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Hiss Straton. MR. HcNEES: Mr. Ward followed by Peter Comeau. MR. WARD: Commissioners, my name is Whit Ward. I represent the Collier Building Industry Association. I'm just here to tell you that we have reviewed all of these proposed changes. We've worked with staff. We've worked with the development services advisory committee and people who met with the development services advisory committee. We think this is a big improvement over what we currently have, and we favor these amendments as they are proposed. Other than that if we have -- if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. I'm just simply here in support of this -- these proposed amendments. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Thank you, Mr. Ward. Mr. Comeau. MR. HcNEES: Apparently he wants to speak on one of the other items. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He's on the clear and fill. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Beardsley, you had your opportunity. MR. BEARDSLEY: I haven't been recognized yet. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did you want an answer to your question, Mr. Beardsley? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I know what the answer is. MR. BEARDSLEY: This is a very good answer that -- farmers are supporting this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to move forward. Mr. Hulhere? MR. HULHERE: I think from staff's perspective, again, our recommendation is still that one of two things happen with this amendment, either be -- this particular amendment be continued until the adoption of the comp. plan amendment to track concurrently with or actually pulled. I think in either case it's going to have to be readvertised. The attorney's office may want to comment. To our knowledge, the board can continue this specific item so that it can be approved after the comp. plan amendment has been -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I understood our answer to be that we can approve this contingent upon concurrent approval with the growth management plan. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what I thought I had heard too. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We decided that. MR. HULHERE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And correct me if I'm wrong, tonight is not, in essence, an approval but the first hearing of the CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is the first of two hearings. We don't approve a thing tonight. MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman, you would have language in the separate ordinance that would make the LDC provision effective when the comp. plan amendment became legally effective. As the law was changed in 1993 to -- as you recall, the comp. plan amendment used to be effective when it was adopted by the board, but in 1993 the law was changed, and it doesn't become effective until DCA issues a notice of intent to find it in compliance. So in order to be legally correct, the language should state in the ordinance that it would become effective upon the comp. plan amendment becoming legally effective pursuant to Section 163. I can't quote the precise section off the top of my head, but that would be the appropriate language. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we do that? I mean, you don't have any problem doing that? MS. STUDENT: No. No, I do not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So there's no -- there's no reason to physically separate this amendment from the others? MS. STUDENT: No. It should be because -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh. MS. STUDENT: -- the other amendments would become effective upon filing with the Department of State, which would be we send it up there within ten days of adoption, and that would be the reason to break it out, because even if it -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's right. That ten-day rule. MS. STUDENT: Even if the LDC -- I mean, there's a question about your authority to approve an LDC amendment that's in conflict with the comp. plan, because by law the Growth Management Act, even if you had that provision in the LDC, it is of no legal effect until the comp. plan amendment would be legally effective, and that's by state statute. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Gotcha. MS. CAWLEY: Commissioner Matthews, as the applicant, we concur with the staff, and we will go along with any of the procedural type of things with this amendment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. So it's the recommendation of staff that we separate this amendment from the -- from the other amendments and have it be addressed concurrently with the growth management plan amendments? MR. HULHERE: Correct. And as an aside, the language that we're offering tonight may not be exactly the same as the final adopted comp. plan. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that. We've heard both sides of this tonight -- MR. HULHERE: That would be our recommendation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- and there may be some changes. Do you want to go ahead and cover whatever else we have? MR. HULHERE: Okay. Moving along on your agenda item, page 21, this is a change to -- and we actually have a handout here that's been revised. This is a change to provide consistent setbacks in our multifamily zoning districts and our RT zoning district. The draft that you have within your agenda packet really didn't go far enough, which we realized at the planning commission, so we've revised that. And I'll just go over it briefly. We have -- in those districts some of the setbacks are measured on building -- on the percentage of building height or a minimum, and we've now made them consistent for each district, a minimum of 15 feet or, for example, side yards, one-half of the building height as measured from exterior wall or wing of a structure with a minimum of 15 feet. So we've made that consistent in each one of the zoning districts. Where there is a minimum front or rear, that may vary, but the methodology used is consistent. Any questions on that one? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions on these -- MR. MULHERE: The next change on the very next page of your agenda item, your agenda packet is page 23, is as directed by the board. Your staff performed a comprehensive analysis of the parking code, and this is a result of that analysis. The first -- we included the entire section of the Land Development Code 2.3 for continuity for the board in reviewing this. However, the first some number of 10 or 12 pages do not contain any changes, and I will bring you to the first page. Agenda page 38 is the -- or 36, excuse me -- is the first page on which a change occurs. The very first change -- I can go through these very briefly. The first change deals with or as otherwise determined by the planning services director to provide for off-street parking, which is not specifically mentioned. And that is simply to allow the planning services director some administrative authority. On the next page, page 38 of your agenda, we've -- we've attempted to amend this parking code to provide for some greater administrative authority and flexibility. One of the things we've done here is allow the planning services director to make a determination of minimum parking requirements where a particular use can be documented to possibly require a different amount of parking. They will be required to provide studies to us and -- and we will -- we will document that. However, we have -- we have increased the -- the administrative authority of the planning services director in that respect. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock has a question. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, the changes to 2.3.11 I'm glad to see. That's one of the things I've kind of been working at in trying to encourage, in essence, overflow parking to be grassed instead of paved. I think we're all in agreement with that. When we talk about stabilized subgrade with durable grass cover, there's something that has been used at a park in Tampa, and I think Lely used it for their freedom horses when they had something in the ground that the grass grows through. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that be an equal -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My next question is what is -- have we done a cost analysis to find out if, in fact -- in other words, there's got to be a carrot out there. If we want them to grass over for parking instead of paving it, it needs to be cheaper. On a large asphalt contract, do we know if leaving it as grass is cheaper or more expensive, because there is a maintenance cost? MR. MULHERE: There is a maintenance cost. And I think in the long run -- there's a maintenance cost for asphalt repaying, restriping. We have done -- to answer your question, we have not done an analysis. I will tell you the development services advisory committee and the CBIA strongly supported this amendment, and I presume that part of the reason that they supported it was that it would be cost effective, and it's for larger projects. It's for projects that require over 200 parking spaces. So on those larger projects, and it's limited to the perimeter, it can work in conjunction with our landscape buffers providing shade, green space. And I think the maintenance factor over the long haul is probably less expensive to provide some grass parking. I recognize there is an expense for paver blocks and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just trying to find a way to actually encourage this because when we look at things like regional shopping centers or -- and I don't want to bring the mall into this, you know, any large-scale project, that's where we really get the benefit here to the community. MR. HULHERE: One other thing that I thought of and that is another issue is that it would reduce or could potentially reduce the volume of or the amount of impervious area on the site. Although I will tell you that at this point the Southwest Florida Regional -- the Southwest Florida Water Management District does look at paver blocks or stabilized subgrade as impervious. Now, you are working with them to create some flexibility in that respect. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Basically create a percentage ratio. MR. HULHERE: Correct. Moving along to page 40 and going for a number of pages thereafter are the actual parking calculations. I do want to mention that your staff did analyze, and it is included in your packet, parking for a number of -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Big push for archery fields. MR. HULHERE: Right. There's probably a few we could have left out, but we did analyze parking in neighboring municipalities, counties such as Naples, Lee County, Fort Myers, Sarasota, Cape Coral, Pinellas County, Tampa, Broward, Dade, Fort Lauderdale and so on. We -- for the most part these revised parking calculations are less restrictive. We have found that the trend is -- when looking at our code, in many cases we probably have required more parking than is necessary. However, there were a couple of occasions where we have amended the code to require a greater amount of parking. One that comes to mind is beauty parlor or beauty salon in which we have specifically addressed parking confinements for those other ancillary types of uses; tanning, nail polish, and whatever. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Whatever they do. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't use a lot of the tanning and nail polish side, huh, Bob? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great suit, though, Bob -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I love the tie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- while we're on this sort of beauty topic. MR. HULHERE: If you don't have any questions specifically on any of those revisions, I will tell you just a couple of highlights. We reduced the intensity of parking berms for shopping centers and for grocery stores. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have one question on -- and it's under landfill, but it really applies to -- they're using shift work as computations? MR. HULHERE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two per employee of largest shift. I mean, if they have equal shifts, that makes sense because of the exchange. MR. HULHERE: Coming and going. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if you have a day shift, which is 60 percent of your work force, and a night shift that is 40, I would hope what we looked at as far as being able to have a flexible computation could take that into account for an overall reduction. MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. McNEES: Madam Chairman, you have one speaker registered on this section, Ms. Cawley. MS. CAWLEY: Good evening again. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, Miss Cawley, are you going to turn these agricultural fields into parking lots? MS. CAWLEY: Only if we can get a shopping center on it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean rather than Immokalee and 41, okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hold it now. Wait a minute now. In the ACSC ST, I don't think so. MS. CAWLEY: No, that's not what he said. I hope not, no. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. CAWLEY: We're not going to do that. First of all, we'd like to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Don't you shift that off on me. MS. CAWLEY: We'd like to say we really appreciate all the staff's work on this, and we concur with 99.9 percent of this. I think I just have a question on one section that may just need a little bit of clarification. And Bob and I talked about it a long time ago, and we just haven't had a chance to get back. And that deals with the excess parking over minimum. And I am one who believes that we need to reduce excess parking. I think that's something that our community is blighted with in a number of locations, and I'm -- I'm really encouraged if we can find a way to reduce it. I just wonder about how the double interior landscaping actually works. I mean, I think what Bob is trying to do is discourage somebody from putting in excess of 200 parking spaces, and I think that's probably good. And I know that's good, but I'm just wondering the implementation of that where that double landscaping goes, how it's designed. It seems like it needs a little bit more work in terms of coming up with maybe some standards or some locational criteria or something needs -- it's missing something. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had some of the same thoughts. I know what we're trying to avoid is places like Wal-Mart that go in and put in excess parking, and you have the sea of asphalt and the little islands. So I think that's a valid point, because we want to make sure that there are either more interruptions of that sea of asphalt, or it becomes so costly they decide it's not a good idea. MR. MULHERE: I think that those are both accurate statements. It was our intent to reduce or limit or require something back when there are many -- it's only the larger box retail stores really that come in and have a requirement that may be upwards of 200 parking spaces beyond what our code requires. And so we thought, well, that's fine. If you want to buy the land and you want to put the extra parking spaces in there, at least we can have some additional interior landscaping. But I think Barbara brings up a good point. And it was our intent that that be based only on those parking spaces in excess of what the code requires, and that does not -- I think is not reflected in here. And I would suggest that it was our intent to limit that -- that double landscape requirement to be calculated only on the parking in excess of what the code requires. MS. CAWLEY: I think that's fair. I don't have a problem with that. I think that -- just a couple of words. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before we hear this in two weeks, Bob, can we get an idea of how -- could you just kind of give us a brief on how that plays out and if you feel it is sufficient to make people think twice about going in excess. MR. HULHERE: I -- I can take a look at some of the larger -- some examples that we actually have that have excessive parking and how that would impact. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That would be great. MS. CAWLEY: I agree. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any other speakers on this portion? MR. HcNEES: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hulhere, do you want to move on? MR. HULHERE: That basically sums up the parking. We did have some changes to bring the handicapped section into compliance with the statutes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It was not in compliance with the statutes? MR. HULHERE: No. There were some -- no, it had to be brought up to code with federal statutes to some extent with the Americans With Disabilities Act. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The ADA, okay. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. We're now on agenda page 64. This is again a minor change to the temporary use section. We find that as the community develops, in certain areas you have vacant parcels in between developed parcels that are now ripe for development. Once you begin to construct the building, it is very difficult to find a location to park the employees who are constructing the building, and so we want to provide some flexibility. This became an issue in the City of Naples and on occasion has been an issue here in the county. We want to provide some flexibility for off-site parking for those employees who are constructing the building. On page 65 is the language that I think you are all familiar to further clarify restrictions on the intent of single-family model homes, and it reads that model homes are intended to facilitate the sale of the model design, and model homes located within residential zoning districts or within a residential component of a PUD shall be restricted to the promotion of a product or products permitted within a residential zoning district or PUD in which the model is located. So we think that that will address the potential for someone to create a product that normally would not be located in a zoning district to market some development that might be located 10 or 15 miles away from the model. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Hulhere, this final -- and we discussed this about a month ago. This final combination, have you ever received anything from the Pine Ridge Civic Association? MR. HULHERE: Their support. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. I wanted to make sure they were included. MR. HULHERE: Mr. Hardt, I believe, did contact me in support. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. HULHERE: The next change is on page 66, is really, again, some housekeeping. Mr. Milk on my staff worked on this and just inclusion of a number of zoning districts and some other language. This was, I believe, as directed by the county attorney's office to the ordinance. I don't think there's really anything of substance in here. It's basically house -- housekeeping. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I ask what's VR zoning? HR. HULHERE: Village residential. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What does it do? HR. HULHERE: It's a zoning district that has a lot of different types of activities, some commercial and also residential. It allows for mobile homes. It allows for a number of different uses. There are some in Chokoloskee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We ever have anybody -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's the mishmash. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we never have anybody coming in asking for it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The idea of village residential initially was that people could buy a piece of property, maybe put a trailer on it, and then turn around and build a home on the same piece of property, so they could kind of move up without having to move out was the idea. HR. HULHERE: It actually was once called fishing -- it was FV, fishing village, mostly waterfront. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. HULHERE: It's evolved. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Has anyone done it? MR. HULHERE: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: The next change is on page 69 of your agenda packet, and Hiss Student will -- MS. STUDENT: This past legislative session there were some changes in the state law regarding advertising requirements for different types of fezones. And I won't go into detail except I do want to make one correction, and it would be on page 72 of your agenda package in paragraph 272.2. That should say to include rezonings initiated by other than the Board of County Commissioners. And that, of course, will be in the case of PUDs and straight fezones initiated by the property owner or his agent. And they're just different classifications or fezones with different requirements that attach to them. And I might add for the record that these are minimum requirements of the statute. I think tonight you're going to hear some comment about changes to the LDC process where you don't have to have two night hearings anymore. And one other point I want to make for the record, there were two bills. And in the first bill that the legislature passed, the two night meetings remained unless there was a super majority vote of the board to have it at another date or time; then there was a later bill which contains this provision. And I have been doing some research to determine, generally speaking, the last act of the legislature controls. So that would mean that you no longer have to have the evening meetings. But I'm checking into the history of that further and will report back to you at the final meeting. So I just wanted to state that for the record. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. HcNEES: Madam Chairman, you have one speaker on this item. Chris Straton. MS. STRATON: Miss Straton. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This language says the sign shall be erected by the zoning services director. Does that mean that Vince is the only guy that can nail them up or -- MS. STUDENT: It would probably be meant to say or his designee. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You might want to look at that. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. MS. STRATON: I'm Chris Straton, and I'm representing the League of Women Voters of Collier County. And we have urged the Board of County Commissioners to continue in your policy of holding two public hearings for Land Development Code amendments. This policy insures the maximum opportunities for public involvement. There are pros and cons for evening versus day meetings; and, therefore, the league has no position on this particular matter. And in terms of advantages, obviously the day meetings, we know those will be televised. It will maximize the opportunity for the public to be made aware of an item; and, therefore, then they can attend the second meeting if it's something of particular interest. It certainly is easier to schedule for you during the day, which is a problem for the evening meetings. And we recognize that, but one of the advantages to an evening meeting is that it does allow the working-during-the-day public to have an opportunity to attend the meeting. But in summary, when you decide you'd like to hold two meetings, we would urge you still to continue with the two meetings. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Hulhere, you want to continue? MR. HULHERE: The next changes on your agenda -- is in your agenda on page -- begins on page 83. There are some minor revisions, which I'd like to hand out at this time. This -- this item was also directed by the board, and staff has held a number of -- of workshops through the development services advisory committee and one of -- and a subcommittee they created to review this issue. And it deals with clearing and filling prior to the issuance of a building permit. I'm going to actually ask Mr. Kuck to talk to the specifics of it, because he actually authored this change and worked with that subcommittee closely. The one change that you have -- and Mr. Kuck will get to that -- was really just a -- a grammatical change so that we believe the amendment reads better with that change, but we'll get to that item. Tom. MR. KUCK: Yes, I'll briefly walk you through the proposed amendment. What we've done, we've broken it down into three separate categories. The first category would be the single lot which currently they are -- a person would be permitted to remove the exotic vegetation from that lot. Well, the proposed amendment would provide a condition where they could do additional site improvement such as clearing, filling, grading, and revegetation of the lot. And in order to do that, they would have to provide the county for review and approval a site filling and grading plan and a revegetation plan and pay the appropriate fee, which would yet be determined. The second category would be very similar to that, but that's addressing where you would have up to three contiguous lots and would provide the same thing where you could do site clearing, site filling, grading. And, again, they would be required to provide a plan for that along with the revegetation plan and pay a fee. The third category addresses the larger projects, and it's focused in on a project of 25 acres or less. And that would provide the opportunity for the developer to utilize the excess fill that was generated on the site to do the filling. He would also be permitted to -- to clear up to 25 acres, again, subject to the 25 percent natural vegetation requirement that's currently in the LDC amendment. Again, they would have to provide the clearing plan, the revegetation plan, the filling plan. And we went one step further. On the revegetation plan they would have to provide a cost estimate for that vegetation and also what the cost would be for three years' maintenance of it and provide approved security in the amount of 110 percent of that estimated cost. We've also addressed under that same category 3, if you had a project of over 25 acres but say there was no vegetation to remove, then there -- we're providing a provision where that could be administratively approved. And then the other category would be on a project larger than 25 acres and had in excess of 25 acres of vegetation. We're saying that has to go back before the Board of County Commissioners in the way of a public hearing. And, in essence, that's what this proposed amendment's about. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Con -- Commissioner Hancock. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll put little pictures in front of you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Kuck, two things. First of all, this does not apply to any commercial fill operation; is that correct? MR. KUCK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is on-site noncommercial -- MR. KUCK: It's on site. You would not be able or be permitted to bring fill material from off site onto it. And one of the reasons for it, there's a problem with the -- most of these projects of 20 or 25 acres or larger with the lake systems are generating excess fill. And currently they either have to remove it from site then bring it back as they need it, as the building permits are issued, or stockpile it, which there's a safety issue involved with this. This would give them the opportunity as they dug the lake, excavated the lake, they could distribute that excess fill on what's going to be the further house pads or building pads. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And obviously the concern here is that they knock down vegetation, fill it, and it sits idle for ten years. What's the time frame that that bond would kick in if their -- if their actions show that they are not going to be building on it? In other words, to avoid knocking down vegetation and letting it sit idle forever, what kind of time frame is there before the county says wait a second, you guys aren't doing this in good faith and we're going to revegetate using the bond monies? What time frame are we talking there, and how do we monitor that? MR. KUCK: That really has not been identified. MR. MULHERE: I think the thought process was that we would monitor their revegetation of the site, and as long as they were maintaining it, we would monitor also their maintenance of the site as it's been revegetated through the plan. As long as they're maintaining it appropriately, we don't have a problem with that. As soon as there seems to be some degradation, then we could use the bond to make improvements on the site. MR. KUCK: The other condition in the LDC on the SDPs and subdivisions, they have up to three years to complete those improvements. We would get to that three-year period and they hadn't built on those sites, then we would kick in and require them to do the complete revegetation. We would have the security for the leverage on that along with an additional three years' maintenance or the funds to provide that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just -- I want to make it's clear to whomever approaches this on the front end what their time frame is so that we don't sit here and listen to extensions and arguments -- MR. KUCK: I think it would be tied, again, to that three-year time frame that once the board approves a subdivision or even an SDP is approved, they have up to -- on STP I think it's two years, but on the subdivision they have up to three years to complete that construction. And I think that three years would give them the grace period. And then if they hadn't developed those individual sites or building pads, then we would call upon that revegetation to be done. It would be somewhat -- would not be cost effective if as soon as they completed their development we would have them revegetate those sites and then a month later they would come in and pull a building permit so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Following up on that line of reasoning here, what mechanism is it for the first two categories, the single lot, the three lot -- up to three lots side by side? They're obviously not bringing in fill from on site if -- MR. KUCK: No. The first category was where we had a provision that a person or a property owner was -- would be required -- was allowed or permitted to remove exotics. And we've taken it a step farther allowing them to remove the exotics and to fill the site and the thought being a lot of times when you remove the exotics, if you don't place that fill, you don't have any protection about the exotics returning. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. MR. KUCK: And then also in many cases the water management and the drainage enters into the picture. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, my concern, though, is that the reason why we've not allowed this in the past is because we don't want lots scattered around the county that have been cleared and filled and are not going to be constructed on. So what is our mechanism then to -- do we use the same three-year time limit on a single-family lot? MR. HULHERE: It was not -- it was not our intention to put a time limit on the single-family lots. There are a couple of examples Tom mentioned. The third one that comes to mind that the development community brought to our attention is that within an improved -- this has to be within an improved -- improved and approved subdivision. You may have lots which because of the lots on either side are filled to require -- to bring the structure up to some elevation, you have a ponding that occurs. And -- and this weather that we're having out here has brought to light a lot of the negative connotation with mosquitoes, those types of things, public health, safety issue. What we -- as we envisioned it to allow someone to clear those lots, those individual or contiguous lots within a subdivision, would be that they would provide, again, for a -- a grading plan and revegetation plan. They would have to sod the entire lot and maintain that. We didn't have a time frame. We certainly could entertain bringing that back to you with a specific time frame within -- that would force someone who had the intentions of doing this to -- to look at their building schedule. But, again, if it was a question of public health, safety, and welfare, we thought that to eliminate the ponding or to eliminate the exotics, the only thing you can do then, once you've eliminated that, is you either got to fill that site to bring it up to the level of the adjacent sites and then sod it to prevent runoff, or -- and if you remove the exotics and you do not fill it, you would have a reinfestation of those exotics over a period of time. So in those cases we thought it was appropriate that we simply allow someone under those conditions to go in and bring this up to a certain level. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I for one would like to see a time frame also. And you mentioned the sodding, you know, or at least some type of ground cover. I assume once the fill is done -- that's required immediately. You can't sit there and all of the fill end up washing into the water management system for months or years on end. Again, I'm looking for a tie-in of stabilization of that fill so that it doesn't create problems in the water management system. MR. KUCK: What you're looking for is a specific time frame on the single lot or the three contiguous lots. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm concerned about the acreage. MR. KUCK: You know, when we're talking about 25 acres, that's -- we've got the leverage on that. We can -- we can readdress that and come back with a specific time frame. I believe if we reviewed and approved the plans, our specific time frame would be upon the completion of the removal of the vegetation and the filling that they would be required to revegetate those single lots and up to three lots. MR. McNEES: You have two speakers, Madam Chairman, whenever you'd like to hear them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Two speakers. Commissioner Norris, did you have something else? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, a part of my concern, I guess, is addressed by knowing that this is only applicable in an already permitted subdivision. And -- but I think it's still important that the reason why we've had this in our codes all along is to keep lots from being cleared and filled and then not built on. And I -- clarify one more point for me. Are we saying that there will be a bond left on this property to restore it to a natural condition? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that's only on the 25 acres. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's only on the larger ones? MR. MULHERE: The -- well, I think it's important to note that on this first scenario -- we are talking really very strictly of about two scenarios. One is removal of exotic vegetation, and the second one is where they can demonstrate that there is a genuine public health safety issue. That is -- apparently there are a number of lots out there where they're built on either side, and then there's this ponding effect. Those are the situations -- we are not proposing you to allow someone to just go in and clear native vegetation off of single-family lots within an existing subdivision until, you know, prior to building permits. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Until one of those two conditions then exist. MR. MULHERE: If one of those two conditions exists, then we will review it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And that's why it's difficult to put a time frame on it, because the reason that they're doing it is to eliminate something that's a negative anyway, and we're not sure when it -- it may as a secondary -- secondary to limiting the negative situation, it may also enhance the marketing of those lots. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Part -- what we need to remember, that part of the reason we did this originally was to eliminate the possibility of having moonscaped development like Golden Gate originally -- Golden Gate city originally was or Cape Coral, for that matter, where they just came in and took out all of the trees and vegetation and put in the roads and had moonscaped-type development. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Some of it still looks that way. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, you know, that's what we're trying to prevent in the past. And if you're telling us now that we're really only looking at a couple of special situations and we don't intend to allow that type of development to occur again, well then I guess that's probably what I'm looking for. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. It's conditioned on public health, welfare, and safety. And, of course, we also want to support or promote the removal of the exotics so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we hear from the public speakers. MR. HcNEES: You have Mr. Ward, and I'm not sure whether he wishes to speak again. He had registered under this item. And then Mr. Comeau. MR. HULHERE: I just -- while Mr. Ward is coming up, your staff can look at this certainly between now and the next hearing to look at referencing those time limits within this section of the code, referencing those time limits in the site development plan and the subdivision so that someone is aware of when they invoke this -- this process that there will be time limits placed on them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that's a good idea. I like that idea. Mr. Ward. MR. WARD: Commissioners, Webb Ward representing Collier Building Industry Association. We concur, and we would be happy to work with staff to put some language in here that would assure some kind of coverage of lots that are filled and are not going to be -- the construction is not going to be started on within some reasonable amount of time. But I think that's a point well taken and should be included. Otherwise we should -- you like that, too. Thank you. Otherwise we should -- our intent is to allow people to clear the lots and fill it while they're in the permitting stage so that it just makes the construction flow more efficiently. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Comeau. MR. HcNEES: Mr. Comeau. MR. COHEAU: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Pete Comeau with U.S. Home. I'm overall -- the development services advisory committee along with the county staff has done an excellent job of reviewing the clearing, filling, and revegetation issue. And as we go forward, U.S. Home -- not only are we on the lot construction, which I concur with the single, you know, and the three-lot scenario. There's a lot of developers like U. S. Home as we come into Collier and have done Foxfire and Berkshire and other properties. The 25 acres is extremely limited, you know, for doing fill. Our lake excavation for golf course, water management, design issues, everything else, could exceed up to almost 171 acres. And U. S. Home with tied into the three-year development to actually complete the infrastructure and all of the requirements for revegetation pertaining to clearing and filling plan and actually posting a letter of credit for the entire site, proceed forward for all fill generated on site and placed on site to avoid the stockpiling issue, the rehauling of -- double handling of the materials is important. It's great for a hundred-acre sites, 50-acre sites. But when you start getting involved with 300 or more acres site properties where we're trying to build golf courses, put in the golf courses and all the lake management system, a lot of the times -- the majority of the time you have to put in the entire lake system to sit there and meet the South Florida Water Management District's water management system design criteria. And instead of stockpiling that fill, we need to be able to place it. And I'm not recommending, nor do I support hauling it off site, but that fill that's generated on site to be able to be placed throughout the development pod locations and for protection for the county to comply with the requirement time frame for completion and more importantly to be able to sit there as we exceed the 25-acre limit imposed by staff to actually post a letter of credit for the revegetation monitoring and maintenance plan for the entire property that we're imposing to do so. And we'd like to recommend that staff have that authority if we go through the water management permit. The corps of engineers went through your Land Development Code, you know, are aggressively going to sit there and develop and market property and also post a letter of credit to sit there and guarantee to the county that developers such as U. S. Home would be able to sit there and guarantee that it's not going to be a moon, which is not objective to anybody. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Any questions? We're fine. Thank you. MR. COMEAU: Thank you. MR. McNEES: And Chris Straton has registered. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Straton. MS. STRATON: Thank you. The environmental community did work with the development services steering committee as a -- and there was a specific project. We worked very well, and it was a result of that subcommittee and the steering committee to come up with a 25-acre limitation which we felt would provide flexibility but take away any potential for moonscape. So we're very pleased with what's come out of staff, and we support that 25 acres, not -- not anymore, but 25 seems like a good number. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Hulhere, you want to continue? MR. HULHERE: The -- the next amendment is incorporation -- let me just -- is incorporation of the manatee protection ordinance, the appropriate sections of the manatee protection ordinance which we've already adopted, but incorporation into the Land Development Code. However, I do need to mention that Mr. Dugan is here from the natural resources department, is the author of that amendment. And also I need to mention that -- that there are some changes to that proposed incorporation. There was some language that was not necessary to be in the Land Development Code. I have those here for you. It was just for clarification. If you -- if you -- if you have any questions, Mr. Dugan's here to answer them. If not, we can move on. It is incorporation of the existing manatee protection ordinance so that people when they develop know, are aware of it, know what those conditions are based on their development. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And they should. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: One -- one thing we might want to mention here is -- let me ask. Mr. Hulhere, do you know how many manatee protection plans were approved before ours was? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just one. MR. HULHERE: One. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just one, and that's my point. I think Mr. Dugan deserves a little credit for the hard work and -- MR. HULHERE: Come on up here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's give him a hand. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Coordinating the environmental community and the boating community is a big job. MR. HULHERE: The first one that was adopted came from Citrus County. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, is there something about you and manatees? MR. CAUTERO: I don't know. MR. HULHERE: Moving along, the next amendment deals with Section 3.2.7.3.4. It's on page 97 of your agenda packet. This is strictly changing some language to -- to be more permissive in terms of when certain administrative requirements can be submitted for our review, changing a word shall to may and in terms of allowing the development community greater flexibility in the time they can submit platting requirements. The next change is one that was put together by Mr. Kuck's staff on page 99 of your agenda packet and deals with right of way -- right of way and easement dedication language. Mr. Kuck, did you have any comments? MR. KUCK: No. Again, I can walk you through those changes if you'd like to hear them. The one on the right of way and easements, we were deleting the section that was crossed out, and it corrects an error in the language of the LDC, and that was a recommendation by the county attorney's office to do that. Another one is in our current LDC in our definition of a subdivision is three or more lots. We are recommending to change that back to two or more lots which is consistent with the Florida Statutes, and it will allow the owner of a property -- if he wants to subdivide one parcel off, he would not have to go through the entire platting requirements. And, again, that would make it consistent with the Florida state statutes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've got some questions there because -- MR. KUCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- one of the concerns that I was hearing three years ago pretty consistently was a requirement of our development services people that when a property owner wanted to subdivide a five-acre parcel and give their children two and a half acres or what have you, we were requiring them to go through a full subdivision process, and that didn't make any sense whatsoever. MR. KUCK: I agree with you, and this is correcting that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's correcting that? MR. KUCK: Yes, it's correcting that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Because I thought I was hearing you say you were putting it back in force. MR. KUCK: No. MR. HULHERE: I think you might have misspoke. It's going from currently three or more -- currently from -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. KUCK: Currently two or more parcels you have to plat. We're recommending change it to three, the way it used to be consistent with the statutes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: When you started out I thought you were going from three to two, which is what we were hearing the complaints about. MR. HULHERE: Just the other way. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If someone had a 15-acre plot, let's say, they could divide it into a 5 acre and a 10 acre -- MR. HULHERE: No problem. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and they could come back next year or six months from now and divide the 10 acre into two 5 acres. MR. HULHERE: I believe they could, as long as they met the minimum standards for the district. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The zoning district. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That addresses the family that has more than one offspring that they want to provide housing units for. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, it does. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as long as it's not twins. MR. KUCK: Again, if you subdivide it 15 acres, 5 and 10, and say somebody bought the 10 acres, you have a new owner, and he would have the right to come in and split off another 5 acres. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The next day. MR. KUCK: But the owner that subdivided and retained the 5 acres, he would not be permitted to split that 5 acres up into two parcels. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ever or just for a period of time? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Never say never. MR. KUCK: Without platting again. That is a Florida state statute requirement. MR. HULHERE: The reason is that if you take that to the larger picture and say it was a hundred-acre tract, he could continue to do that ad infinitum. If it changes ownership, that owner would have that entitlement to a single split of property. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not a word, nothing. MR. KUCK: And one of the other changes we're recommending -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris, are you okay with that? I'm having a little bit of difficulty with what they're saying. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: State statute won't allow you to subdivide any smaller then what we just -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that's not what they just said. What they said was that -- and help me if I miss -- misheard you, was that if you have a 50-acre parcel and you split off 5 acres for one of your children, you are prohibited as the continuing owner from splitting off anything else on that 45-acre parcel remaining. MR. HULHERE: You can -- you can plat it, but you have to go through the platting process. You're not prohibited. You can do it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But I mean if you've got kids, you can't split all five 5-acre parcels over a 15-year period. MR. KUCK: Yeah. The Florida -- the Florida statutes state, I think, that when you -- when you subdivide into, you know, three or more parcels, you're creating a subdivision which trips you going into the platting requirements. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but I think we're governed somewhat by the statutes on that item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may sound good where family is concerned, but the guy who is not a family is using it to sell lots should be the other end of the spectrum so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. I understand. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately the good get caught with the bad. (Commissioner Hac'Kie exited the commission boardroom.) MR. HULHERE: The next amendment is on page 103, and this is just some housekeeping changes to the signature block for development services director and utilities engineer director and so on and so forth. And also it provides for some additional flexibility and submission process for subdivisions. On page 107 we get into a couple of definition changes. The first is dwelling townhouse, and again the change there is very simple. The very last part of that we're changing wherein each dwelling unit it previously said is on a separate lot under the same ownership, we are now saying that may or may not be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Matthews' book and mine are different. And I don't know whether it's because you guys just don't like her. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, she's the chairman. MR. HULHERE: Are you missing page 1077 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have 107 but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's different than mine. MR. HULHERE: It must have been during copying. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here. I'll be nice, though. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Okay, go ahead. MR. HULHERE: That's a very minor change. On page 108 we made a change to the definition of setback line. Your staff has always indicated that in measuring setbacks, the setbacks are measured inclusive of easements with the exception of an easement that compromises a road right of way. In other words, in a front-yard setback they measure from the road right of way. For some reason -- and we made that change. The next change is just revising some typical sections. I really do not know the content of those changes. I'll defer to Mr. Kuck, who is the expert on that. MR. KUCK: Again, we're just making some changes to the standard details to be consistent with the F-DOT specifications. We're changing where we did call for type S asphalt to type 3. Type S does not have the structural integrity, and it's something again that the Florida DOT has been using, and really the contractors and developers here have been using the same types. We're making it consistent with what's really in use at the present time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it just the asphalt change, or are we looking at any design changes? MR. KUCK: No, it's just the asphalt along with identifying the -- I think the LDR ratio of -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. KUCK: -- a hundred. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's all ASTH-type stuff, huh? MR. KUCK: That's correct. MR. HULHERE: That is the extent of the proposed Land Development Code amendments, and I want to thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to thank you for an excellent presentation. Are there questions of staff? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Not a one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There being none, the next public hearing on this issue is November the 1st, 5:05; is that correct? MR. HULHERE: That's correct. November 1st at 5:05. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In these chambers. So we are adjourned until that date. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 6:30 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan