Loading...
DSAC Minutes 04/05/2000 RApril 5, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, April 5, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Development Services Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, as the governing board of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:30 p.m. in REGULAR SESSION at Conference Room E, Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dalas D. Disney R. Bruce Anderson Robert L. Duane Marco A. Espinar Brian E. Jones Sally Lam Dino J. Longo Tom Masters Thomas R. Peek C. Perry Peeples Herbert R. Savage Page April 5, 2000 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Vincent A. Cautero David Weigel Edward S. Perico Ronald F. Nino Don Murray Michelle Arnold Ross Gochenaur Bob Devlin Diane Flagg Nancy L. Siemon Tom Kuck Phil Tindall Barbara Burgeson Fred Reischl Kim Maheuron Alexandra Sulecki Page 2 April 5, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Since we have a quorum, we'll start this meeting. Before we start, I would like to remind everybody that we are verbatim and, please, if you're not recognized in advance, state who you are for our recorder. MR. SAVAGE: Wouldn't it be great if we just knew all the folks who were here? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Savage, you're up. MR. SAVAGE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to know who is in the room besides this -- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We can definitely get to that. And, to run off here just a tad, first, are there any modifications to the agenda? MR. PEEK: I move approval of the agenda. MR. SAVAGE: I second it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Do you have any -- before we do that, are there any modifications to the agenda? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. Mr. Chairman, we would recommend that you -- sorry. Slow at the switch here. There's an item that we would ask your indulgence, provided we have representatives from the legal staff to join us. Several months ago the Board of County Commissioners instructed the legal staff to work towards hiring a consultant for revisions to the noise ordinance. And the legal staff has been working with the Code Enforcement Director, Michelle Arnold, on some proposed changes. The Board of County Commissioners plans to hear this item next Tuesday, April 11th, and our staff received the ordinance amendment draft and the executive summary late last week, after your packets went out. It is not customary for us to submit ordinance amendments to you at a late date like this, and I would like to hand those out and request that you place them on the agenda for discussion as Item VII(C} under New Business. However, whether you discuss it or not and how involved that discussion is is contingent upon the arrival of Tom Palmer, the Assistant County Attorney who worked on the ordinance. Assuming that he does come and that you do hear it, I am going to ask you how you want to structure your agenda for the following reason. As we discussed prior, Mr. Chairman, to Page 3 April 5, 2000 this meeting, at 5:15 the Rural Fringe Committee has this room reserved, but we do have another conference room reserved which, unfortunately, is smaller. We do have several members of the public here that wish to address you on some issues. So it's the committee's pleasure on how you want to structure the agenda items. The EMS and library impact fees items, VII(B}, I anticipate will take some time, as well as the noise ordinance amendment. The subcommittee reports shouldn't take that long, or as long as those two items, but I'm sure that there will be discussion on them, as there will be discussion on Item IV(A), Mr. Devlin's update to the flood insurance rate map revision. I don't expect all of those items to take as long as the items -- as VI(B) and VI(C). So I just open it up for your discussion on how you might want to restructure your agenda today, if at all. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. We've got a modification adding Vi(C). Tom, you moved for approval. MR. PEEK: I was the one that made the motion. I will accept the amendment to add VI(C). I would also suggest, in light of the heavy schedule that we've got that we keep the schedule in the order as published and we move as expeditiously as possible through them. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. A motion -- MR. SAVAGE: Well, let me ask your acceptance. You're going to accept the fact that we take VI(B) up now; is that correct? MR. PEEK: Wrong. My suggestion is we go I through VII very quickly. MR. SAVAGE: Well, we're not going to do that. And I think it's important that -- most of the people that are here should be heard now, and then we talk about the regular items after that. We always seem to have everybody sit here until the last hour when we have an item like this, and I don't think we should have them sit here that long, unless they would like to. But I'll agree to the amendment. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Page 4 April 5, 2000 MR. SAVAGE: I never seem to get rid of the groups who want to leave early. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So a motion and a second. Any other discussion on the items? MR. DUANE: Do you think we have enough time to get through this tonight? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Perhaps not. And it may be that we might want to consider to continue some items to the next meeting, depending upon where we are and if we can get through any of the large issues here rather promptly. I think we can move through things. My speculation is that maybe we can get Mr. Devlin to be prompt, one or two minutes, with his update, since we don't have any consultants here, and we can move through issues as expeditiously as possible. Motion and a second. All those in favor of approving the modified agenda, say aye. All those opposed? (No response.) Hearing none, it passes unanimously. The next item is approval of the minutes of the March 1st, 2000, meeting. Is there a motion? MR. DUANE: So moved. MR. LONGO: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any comments? MR. PEEK: One comment. I am listed as being present, and I was not. I should be under the excused absence column instead of present. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you, Tom. Any other comments or modifications we need to make there? If not, all those in favor of the approval of the minutes of the March 1st, 2000, meeting, please say aye. Any opposed? (No response.) None. Before we go to staff announcements, maybe what we will do is take Mr. Savage's suggestion and go around the Page 5 April 5, 2000 room, and those of us who are here can identify yourselves and what you might be here to hear or be involved with. Marco, why don't you start us out? MR. ESPINAR: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We're going to identify ourselves and go around the room. MR. ESPINAR: Marco Espinar, member of the Development Services Advisory Committee. MR. JONES: Brian Jones, also a member. MR. MASTERS: Tom Masters, member. MR. LONGO: Dino Longo, member. MR. DUANE: Bob Duane, member. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, Community Development Administrator. MR. PEEPLES: Perry Peeples, member. MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage, Member. MR. PEEK: Tom Peek, member. MS. LAM: Sally Lam, member. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Dalas Disney, member. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, current planning section. MS. ARNOLD: Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement. MS. SULECKI: Alexandra Sulecki, Code Enforcement. MS. MAHEURON: Kim Maheuron, Planning. MR. ELLIS: David Ellis, Collier Building Industry Association. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, Planning Services. MS. BURGESON: Barbara Burgeson, Planning Services. MR. TINDALL: Phil Tindall, Collier County Impact Fee Coordinator. MR. TINDALE: Steve Tindale of Tindale-Oliver & Associates to make a presentation on impact fees. MR. KUCK: Tom Kuck, Engineering Review. MS. SIEMON: Nancy Siemon, Current Planning. MR. BERRINGER: Len Berringer with The Conservancy. MR. DEVLIN: I'm Bob Devlin, Flood Plan Management Coordinator. MR. PERICO: Ed Perico, Building Review and Permitting Department Director. Page 6 April 5, 2000 MR. GUSTAFSON: Joel Gustafson from Holland & Knight. I'm here on the telecommunications. MR. S. GUSTAFSON: Scott Gustafson with Lodestar. MR. GELBER: Adam Gelber with PBS&J. MR. SOLIDAY: Ted Soliday with the Airport Authority. MS. BLANC-HUTCHING: Sheila Blanc-Hutching, Airport Authority. MR. MURRAY: Don Murray, Current Planning. MR. SICILIANO: Bruce Siciliano, Agnoli & Barber. MR. EMMONS: Clay Emmons, Planning Review and Permitting. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you very much. Welcome everyone. The next issue is Ill(A), Staff Announcements. Mr. Cautero? MR. CAUTERO: Under Item A as a standing item we have the chart in your packet for the summary of ordinance amendments and the current status. That, of course, will be updated after actions by this committee today and the board in the upcoming meetings in the next month. Any questions, we would be happy to answer them. A sign-up sheet is moving around as well. A couple of items under Miscellaneous, if I might. We have an updated roster with phone numbers, fax numbers and E-mails. Sally has a new E-mail address so we revised it. As always, if you have changes, just send them to my office and we'll update this constantly and make the copies available for you at the meetings. Also, we just wanted to give you a little bit of an overview. In the aftermath of last week's flurry of permit activity right before the impact fee increase deadline for transportation impact fees, the final numbers we're looking at right now for the permits -- and Ed could probably give you a little bit of an overview of what that means in terms of temporary turnaround time, delays, things like that. MR. PERICO: We took in approximately 3,600 permits this month. That's double what we normally take in. 3,600. Page 7 April 5, 2000 MR. SAVAGE: 3,600? MR. PERICO: 3,600. We normally take in about 18, 1,900 permits per month. It took a little longer to actually get the reviews done than anticipated. So far what we're seeing, some of the applications, they are lacking a little bit of stuff, but we're not in worse shape than we would normally be, which we expected. Be patient with us and we'll get this stuff turned around as quick as we can. The goal is, when it goes out of here, it's going to be close to being right, so we're not impacting anybody out in the field. Bear with us. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Ed, a question that has come to me from a couple of clients, and that is, now that this has occurred, is there a Stack A and a Stack B type approach to this where those projects that are just in here to beat the impact fee and have no real push to go to construction are considered any differently than those that are just caught up in the normal process? MR. PERICO: The ones that came in, they all go to the back of the pile, so to speak. And everything that was in prior to that will be addressed before this influx. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. So anticipated time frames for reviews? MR. PERICO: You're still looking at probably in the neighborhood of about eight weeks, I would say. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Eight weeks. Okay. MR. PERICO: It's turnaround and everything else for comments coming back. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. Anybody have any questions on those issues? Dino? MR. LONGO: On the weed and litter and exotic control ordinance we have pending, I was just wondering what the status was. MR. CAUTERO: My understanding is it's going to be discussed under Land Development Regulations Subcommittee today. That's my understanding. THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, I'm having trouble hearing Page 8 April 5, 2000 those of you at the far end of the table with the projector on. MR. CAUTERO: I know. We'll try to talk Iouder. MR. TINDALL: We'll turn it off now and turn it on for the presentation. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. MR. CAUTERO: Thanks. Appreciate it. I just had one more announcement, Mr. Chairman, which should resolve this. I learned just a few moments ago that Mr. Palmer will not be at the meeting today. I -- my staff and I will attempt to answer any and all questions on the ordinance amendment, walk you through it. Michelle has been involved with it, with the legal department, however, they are the lead agency. I will tell you that my recommendation to the county manager will be for the board not to hear the item next Tuesday. However, I cannot guarantee that -- I will not feel comfortable unless you get all the information you need to make an informed recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you for that. Vince, obviously we have not been privy to what that ordinance says. Are there copies of it here? MR. CAUTERO: I have copies of it. Since it's the last item on your agenda, why don't I wait to hand it out? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: If we get to that point, wonderful. If we don't, then it can come next month. Anything else? MR. CAUTERO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Next is Old Business. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Mr. Devlin, you are going to speak to us. Can you do it briefly, in about three minutes; could you give us a little update? MR. DEVLIN: On February 14th there was a workshop in the City of Naples that included Collier County, Marco Island and Everglades City. And at that workshop our consultant, Tomasello Consulting Engineers, did his review of the flood maps and presented his findings. And basically what he did was a detailed overview of stormwater surge, wave set-up, wave analysis. He had several maps, as well as the water surface profile study that was done by South Florida Water Management. Page 9 April 5, 2000 Basically, if we follow the recommendations and FEMA agrees to his findings, there could be as much as a 2.5 difference in proposed elevations. Darryl Hatheway, who is representing FEMA and works for Dewberry & Davis, concurred with Commissioner Constantine's comments that if there was a question as to the validity of the information used in the study, FEMA would be willing to work with our community. That's very positive. So the three bodies of government agreed to support the re-evaluation of flood studies. And the commissioners agreed to fund the coastal study, the additional work on the coastal study as well as the additional work that's needed for the Golden Gate Estates study. On March 1st we had a conference call with FEMA. Representatives of the County, City of Naples, Marco Island and Everglades City were there. The purpose of that call was to deliberate technical concerns for the coastal and riverine studies with the intent of reaching an agreement. Tomasello reiterated his concerns about the coastal study and proposed that FEMA accept a Sheet 2 D study, which he has authored. And so what FEMA has asked that we do is provide a letter from the community saying that we support that Sheet 2 D study. I have a letter from South Florida Water Management saying that they used that, giving details about the study and saying that they support it 100 percent. Okay. And on March 28 I spoke with Chris Taggert (phonetic) from Dewberry & Davis, and there's going to be some additional work that Tomasello needs to do to get that Sheet 2 D study accepted by FEMA. We think we can have that done within two to three weeks. And FEMA says that they're going to have an answer to us by tomorrow on our recommendations on the coastal flood study. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Wonderful. Thank you. And the FEMA workshop you're speaking of February t4th, that is the same meeting that we have the transcripts of in your packet this month? MR. DEVLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Great. Thank you for the update, Bob. Page 10 April 5, 2000 Anybody have any questions for Bob before we move on? MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Savage. MR. SAVAGE: You're saying that you might think they will be accepting the 2.5 figure? MR. DEVLIN: MR. SAVAGE: MR. DEVLIN: MR. SAVAGE: CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Longo? MR. LONGO: I want to reiterate and clarify that Tomasello has been hired by all of the municipalities to continue with the WHAFIS model and all that and that he is already sending information up to FEMA and they are to respond to that by April 6th. MR. DEVLIN: work yet. MR. LONGO: MR. DEVLIN: Well, that 2.5 is a general foot figure. Yes. It could be a foot, it could vary up to 2.5. Up to 2.5. No. Actually, Tomasello has not started his Okay. At the meeting the County and City and -- City of Naples, Marco Island, had all agreed that they would fund additional work. The additional work for the coastal study would be about $20,000 and it would be split up according to the transepts along the coastal area. And then Golden Gate Estates would be $50,000 for that Sheet 2 D model to run. MR. LONGO: So there '- MR. DEVLIN: So nothing has started yet. Once we get the '- once Tomasello gets the okay from FEMA with going with those recommendations for the coastal study, then we should have an answer sometime tomorrow. MR. LONGO: And what happens if they don't accept the Sheet 2 D study? MR. DEVLIN: I don't know at this point. We need to '- MR. LONGO: So they are basically responding to the objections that we've raised saying that we don't agree with the methodology and that, if they agree that it's out of sync, per se, that they are going to work with us on it? MR. DEVLIN: Right. Page 11 April 5, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Good. Thank you very much. MR. DEVLIN: Sure. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Appreciate it. That was information only, no action required I believe. Okay. Next is VI (A), subcommittee reports, land development regulations. Mr. Duane. MR. DUANE: We had two meetings on the three dozen or so amendments that were presented to us. I think there may be some questions still remaining on a couple of amendments that some committee members had. I suggest that we have Ron Nino briefly go through each one. If none of these amendments are of any interest to any board members, then perhaps we can move over them quickly. Otherwise we have made a recommendation in most cases. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. MR. DUANE: Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll point out that in your amendments cycle package there was a schedule of meeting dates that we are attempting to achieve, and there is another opportunity for this committee to wrap up the LDC amendments on May the 3rd, in the event there are some outstanding questions. So I will begin at the top. The first amendment has to do with an amendment to Section 1.9.8.6, and it has to do with minimum tree sizes. Your subcommittee recommended approval as recommended by staff. This morning the EAC also heard that amendment and they recommended approval as per staff. Any questions? (No response.) The second amendment has to do with allowing retail sales of vegetable produce with a conditional use, permitted nurseries. That was recommended for approval by your subcommittee. The next item deals with restructuring the business park zoning district. We have made that a requirement for a PUD zoning district and essentially categorized the use into principal and accessory, with some additional uses added. However, basically the structure remains the same. That was Page 12 April 5, 2000 recommended for approval by your subcommittee. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Can I interrupt you for a second? MR. NINO: Sure. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Bob, I wonder, because this is quite lengthy, if we go through it in this process, we're going to be here all afternoon and run over into the next meeting that we're trying to avoid. I wonder if maybe we could hit the topics that have not been -- have not reached conclusion by your subcommittee or any other issues that maybe are outstanding that people in the room might want to address. And I understand the communication tower is one of those, and maybe vegetation removal? MR. DUANE: Why don't we start with vegetation removal. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. That's on Page 5. MR. DUANE: Page 5. MR. NINO: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: That particular one is being recommended by my staff. Alex Sulecki is here and I'll ask her to go over that with the committee. There is a slight change from what's in the packet. The language that was in parentheses has been deleted. Go ahead. MS. SULECKI: Okay. I proposed this amendment because I found that in enforcing clearing violations, particularly in Golden Gate Estates, that I ran into a situation often where single family homeowners were trying to do a lot of their own work out there. They have relatives in the building trades. And so often I would find them clearing their properties prior to any kind of permits or interaction with a development professional. And I found that the things that were in the LDC seemed to me extremely harsh. They involved re-planting the lot. And, if that wasn't possible, then donating amounts of money equal to not only the vegetation but all of the maintenance and the installation and watering and so forth. So, for this particular type of case, where an owner is clearing his own property, not in excess of the one acre that his subsequently obtained building permit would allow him, that there could be a different way to deal with these things. And so I proposed a fine, basically, that's -- it's a donation, actually, that's Page 13 April 5, 2000 going to be made in the same way the LDC prescribes now. But it works out to a little bit less. It's enough to make people think twice about it, and it's also enough so that -- the point of it is so that the property owner, should they then decide to sell the land and not get a building permit and build, they wouldn't gain anything by the clearing, because the fine is really just based on the value the clearing would add to the land if they were to resell it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Dino? MR. LONGO: How do you come up with that value? MS. SULECKI: Well, I have a formula that I figured out, and what I did was call some contractors to find out how much it would cost to clear in the Estates, roughly. I called three contractors and the average cost of clearing and removal for one acre is $3,000. So, if a lot had an assessed value of, say, 15,000, its market value would probably be about double that. So what I did was figure that that $3,000 was 10 percent of the -- or the market value of the property. But since we don't use market value, we use appraised value, I then took 10 percent of the appraised value, which would turn out to be $1,500. MS. ARNOLD: We're basing it on the assessed value not '- rather than the market value increase. MR. LONGO: Assessed value? MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. SULECKI: Right. But finding the percentage, the value added to the market value, and transferring that percentage down to -- I'm not sure I'm explaining it real well. MS. ARNOLD: And the 3,000 would -- we used a couple different examples. Looking at the average cost of vacant property out in the Estates and using the $3,000 which the contractors gave us as an average cost for clearing that acre of land '- MS. SULECKI: Uplands too. MS. ARNOLD: -- of uplands in the Estates area and kind of comparing that cost to the average cost to come up with a percentage. MR. LONGO: What happens today if they clear their property Page 14 April 5, 2000 without a permit? MS. SULECKI: Right now we're basically just waiting until they get their building permit. So right now nothing is happening. MR. LONGO: Is there a mechanism in our LDC to define or whatever? MS. ARNOLD: If we were to use the language in the LDC, literally we would require the property owner to re-plant all that vegetation that they removed. MR. LONGO: Well, that was the purpose of the ordinance to start with. MS. SULECKI: Well, if they are going to subsequently get a building permit, then they will have authorization to clear that acre. And the amount of donation they would be making sometimes runs into thousands and thousands of dollars for what amounts to a technical error on the part of a homeowner doing the clearing just prior to when he gets his building permits. MR. NINO: I might add that the EAC heard this amendment this morning and they recommended approval. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any other questions? Yes. Mr. Savage. MR. SAVAGE: You mean to tell me, if I am an owner and I have property out there and I want to clear all the brush from around the trees, I cannot do that without a permit? MR. CAUTERO: That's correct. MR. SAVAGE: Is that correct? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Under the current code, that's correct. MR. SAVAGE: Then I would get my rebel flag and go up and down the road all the way to the County headquarters. That's ridiculous. I'm glad I wasn't involved in all this in earlier discussion. MS. SULECKI: Could I clarify that a little bit? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Please. MS. SULECKI-- You are permitted with your building permit to clear one acre totally. MR. SAVAGE: I just want to clear my grounds from around the trees. Page 15 April 5, 2000 MS. SULECKI: You can clear some things. What's protected is woody ground cover, mid-story shrubs and trees. The vines and ferns and things like that on the ground, some of those are not protected. So you can do some clearing without a permit. I mean some cleaning without a permit. MR. SAVAGE: I'm just glad I wasn't involved earlier. MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yes. Marco? MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman, I was opposed to this originally when I was on the Land Development Code subcommittee. And the reason I was opposed to this is that this is a deterrent for illegally clearing your parcel of land prior to the issuance of a permit. If you go and get your permit, you're allowed to clear your land the way it is. This is a deterrent to keep speculators from going out there, clearing land, putting a for sale sign and letting the area sit there. And, basically what it looks to me is that we're alleviating the severity or the penalty phase of a violation. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be unsympathetic, but, I mean, we've got procedures in place. You come in, you get your building permit, you're allowed to clear, you know, your land. As simple as that. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be not sympathetic, but, to me, reducing the punitive phase of a violation doesn't sit well with me. The law should be applied equally in the county as it is for a big-time developer or a single family lot. The rules are the way they are. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Peek, you had a question, comment? MR. PEEK: If Marco's statement is correct, that answers my question, because that was the question I had. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Maybe, Michelle, you could clarify, or Ron. Is Marco's statement correct? MS. ARNOLD: With respect to the way the ordinance was written originally, to deter speculation, I think that was the intent of it. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Thank you. Sally? MS. LAM: What happens if you've cleared your acre and then you sell your land and somebody wants to have a different Page 16 April 5, 2000 acre? MS. SULECKI: One acre. MS. LAM: That's it? MS. SULECKI: Unless you get other permits. MS. LAM: I happen to think also that it really opens the door. A lot of people would rather say I'm sorry after the fact. If you own the property out there, I would assume you know the regulations. And if you have enough sense to know that you have to go in and get a permit, don't they explain to you what you can do when you get a permit? MR. LONGO: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: A question for Mr. Duane. MR. DUANE: Thank you. Michelle, are there some cases where people have cleared an acre without a permit, have to put the vegetation back on the acre and then theoretically take it off the land again? MS. SULECKI: At this point we're not requiring that. MS. ARNOLD: Right now we're not requiring it. The problem with requiring something like that, there is -- when somebody re-plants in that area with no irrigation or anything, they are re-planting and then it essentially dies. And so it doesn't -- what we're trying to say is, it wouldn't make sense for us to require them to do something like that when -- essentially, when they are ready to develop, they would be permitted to remove that acreage anyway. And what we're saying with this is, since we're not requiring them to re-vegetate, this would put a monetary penalty on those cases where people go ahead and clear without first obtaining the permit that they're required to have. MR. DUANE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Longo? MR. LONGO: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we not accept the language as it is and keep in the LDC the language as it already is. I agree with Mr. Espinar that the rules were meant to affect people equally amongst all the citizens of the community. It should stay that way. I think Sally's right. I think we open doors, not only on this ordinance but on others. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Motion. Is there a second to Page 17 April 5, 2000 that motion? MR. ESPINAR: I second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any other comments? All those in favor of the motion, say aye, please. All those opposed? Let's do a roll call. MR. JONES: Could you repeat which way was which on that? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: To accept the motion was to leave it as it is currently written in the LDC, without modification. We'll poll, go around. Marco, if you would start, please. MR. ESPINAR: In favor of the motion. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Dalas Disney, I'm in favor of the motion. MS. LAM: Sally Lam, in favor. MR. PEEK: Don Peek, opposed. MR. SAVAGE: Opposed, Savage. MR. PEEPLES: Perry Peeples, in favor. MR. DUANE: Duane, opposed. MR. LONGO: Dino Longo, in favor. MR. MASTERS: Tom Masters, opposed. MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, opposed. MR. JONES: Brian Jones, in favor. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We should have counted. MR. CAUTERO: I have 6-5, approval. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: 6-5. Approved. Very good. So it passes 6-5. MR. PEEK: The opposition to strike what's proposed here passes; is that correct? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: To not accept the modification passes. MR. JONES: Double negative. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: To leave it the way that it is currently written in the LDC is what we've just voted upon. MR. ANDERSON: Should you also follow that up with a motion to direct staff to enforce the ordinance then, if we're going to be consistent? Page 18 April 5, 2000 CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Would you like to place that in a motion? MR. ANDERSON: No, because I wasn't in favor of leaving things as they are. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: That's a very good point. It's not being enforced currently. We can either ignore it and allow staff to continue the way they are or we can ask them to enforce it. What's the -- what's the preference? Anyone care to make a motion on it or not? We can ignore it. MS. LAM: I think there's another potential that we go back and look at it again and see whether there are other options available to us with this. Is that a potential? We didn't like one way, maybe there's a better way to deal with it. Is that -- I would be happy to meet and see whether we can come up with something that would be more equitable. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Could we do that as part of the next cycle then, review this and come forward? MR. PEEPLES: This cycle is not over yet. MS. ARNOLD: Are we saying this is not going to the board then? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I was asking if we should move this to the next cycle for further review and modification, as Ms. Lam has suggested. MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, we can take that request to the board. However, it's received a recommendation of approval from another subcommittee and we would just present all the recommendations to the board when we go in with a packet and see what their pleasure is. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We need to see what the Board of County Commissioners does with it before we can do anything further. It may be of no avail anyway. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Savage? MR. SAVAGE: It is now five minutes after 4:00 and we have longer items to discuss than these brief items. And I'm concerned that all these people that are here for another item, we should get on to it. Page 19 April 5, 2000 MR. ANDERSON: I agree. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you very much. We'll move along as rapidly as the committee allows it to occur. MR. ANDERSON: Let's see what people are here to speak about. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: With respect to the Airport Authority people that are here, is it safe to assume that the amendment that deals with Page 30 to Page 56, recommended for approval by the subcommittee, meets with your approval, so we can let those people go, if that's their wish? Ted Soliday and Lisa LaBlanc are here. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So the item on Page 30, Section 2.2.23. And, Ron, what was the other item, please? MR. NINO: It goes all the way to Page 56 -- 55. It all deals with amendments to the airport overlay zoning district. Your subcommittee supported the amendments. We don't have -- Ted Soliday's here and Lisa LeBlanc and Don Murray of our staff who put this amendment together. If you don't have any questions '- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Does any member of the committee have a comment on Pages 30 through 50 '- MR. MASTERS: 56. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: -- 56. Mr. Masters? MR. MASTERS: Yeah. We discussed that at length and heard presentations of the subcommittee, and I think we're pretty convinced, along with staff's recommendations, that that was going to be fine as is, so '- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. So we can move forward with those. Comments on any of the other items? Then maybe we can dispense with all of this in one '- MR. DUANE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Duane? MR. DUANE: There is one other item, the floor area ratios and the RT and for hotel/motel, staff was going to come back and give us some additional information. And if they are not prepared Page 2 0 April 5, 2000 to do that today, I'm not prepared to move this item forward but would be happy to consider it at our next meeting when some additional information could be provided. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Which item is that on the summary, Tom? MR. DUANE: The very last item on Page 7. MR. NINO: Very last item. We don't have anything additional at this time. MR. DUANE: I would like that item to be pulled, Mr. Chairman, until our next meeting. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So we'll pull the last item on Page 7 and there will be no action on that at this meeting. MR. NINO: Might I point out that on Page 122, endangered, threatened or listed species protection, the EAC -- no, that's not the one. Item 121, that your subcommittee recommended -- did not take action. They recommended that this body take up that discussion and the EAC, in dealing with that matter this morning, recommended approval of the staff recommendation. Do you want to take up that discussion now? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Perhaps we could do the same thing. We could pull that item. That's Page 6, second item from the top. MR. PEEK: Which one are we talking about? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The only thing they didn't hear was the gopher '- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Vegetation removal donation land funds. MR. PEEK: That's what we just '- MR. ESPINAR: We just did that. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We just did that one? I'm sorry. 128, is that the one that we're on? MR. PEEK: I don't know. I'm asking Ron. MS. MR. MR. MR. MR. DUANE: recollection. ARNOLD: On what page? NINO: 122 is the -- SAVAGE: Page 1227 NINO: The gopher tortoise discussion. We recommended approval of that, is my Page 21 April 5, 2000 MR. MASTERS: We recommended approval as well, Ron. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So that one is a nonissue then as far as committee. Okay. Very good. MR. NINO: Then respect to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Anderson had some concerns with Item -- Page 14, planned unit development district. Do you want to take up that discussion, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: I do, but I would just as soon allow the other members of the public that are here on other items to speak before me on what they are here about, frankly. MR. NINO: Then why don't we go to the telecommunications issue. There are people here for that. What happened in that regard, your staff recommended the two additional towers under the overlay district along the Alligator Alley. The petitioner asked for four. This was the petition initiated by the industry. That went to the EAC this morning and the EAC recommended -- agreed with the petitioner that four tower sites would be appropriate. So we have a disagreement, you might say, between staff and the EAC. Your subcommittee supported the two, agreed with staff. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So, on the summary sheet here, we're on Page 4, Alligator Alley communications towers, Page 101 in the text, and we have a conflict, two towers versus four towers, and sites for that, EAC recommending four tower sites and subcommittee looking for just two. MR. DUANE: Two. We were supporting the staff recommendation. We thought that there was some logic to looking at the two additional sites later rather than moving upon them at this point in time. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. Mr. Masters? MR. MASTERS: Yeah. Additional questions for not going for the other two towers, and perhaps this could be clarified in their presentation, if there is one is, there was some thought that one of the tower locations could be replaced by a shared usage of other locations at the Ford test track. And the second one was, it was the staff's thought that that tower could be permitted through other mechanisms rather than putting it in the LDC. So, Page 22 April 5, 2000 if either of those didn't happen, then perhaps that would add reason to have the extra towers. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. Mr. Espinar? MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman, one of my concerns were that two of those towers were proposed and one of them was in the boundaries of the Florida panther refuge. The other one was in the boundaries of the Big Cypress Basin. And my only concerns was that those two agencies that police or are responsible for the maintenance of those areas didn't have a chance to comment or have any input on these towers in their backyard. And that was one of my concerns. And I believe staff's comments on their staff report reflected that same concern, that there has not been adequate time to field all the comments. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Very good. I think we have some folks here, members of public, to give us a little information on this. MR. GUSTAFSON: You're up against me as far as an agenda, so I'll try to be quick. My name is Joel Gustafson. I'm an attorney and I'm with the law firm of Holland & Knight, and I represent Lodestar who is the party that's contracted with the Florida Department of Transportation to put in this system. Maybe you can stick it on that table right there. Do it right here. MR. SAVAGE: Isn't there a tray there, we could lift that screen and put it there? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: You can put it down there, on that. MR. GUSTAFSON: I'm not sure what you have for backup, and I don't want to repeat all that. I think you do have the benefit of Don Murray's recommendations and the intended use by the Department of Transportation for this system. The issue is putting a tower system across the Alley, and it's all part of a system that includes 1-75, 1-95, 1-10 and the turnpike. Florida Department of Transportation is attempting to put together systems that really are public safety issues to provide for -- you know, you're aware of the Smart Pass issue, this is reader boards that would be located at various locations to warn people of traffic issues. There would be also situations where you would Page 23 April 5, 2000 actually have AM stations that would give you some notice, and there's a whole list of other things that DOT wanted to do with this system. DOT then said, but we're also getting a lot of calls on our property from private users saying, we're -- because of just the sheer road traffic which increase the number of cell. users that we're not -- we're getting a lot of pressure to do that. We can kill two birds with one stone. We can build these towers, put our equipment on there, and then make them available, leasing space to private users, one in many cases -- and I know I've been there. I've found my cell. phone as a safety measure when I had blow-out in a neighborhood I didn't really want to be in, and it helped. And I'm sure you all have some experience like that. So it had that also, private public safety aspect to it. So, what we're obliged to do is build these towers for this system and also make it available to private users. The revenue that you gain from the leasing of the space for private users, DOT gets 60 percent of that, and Lodestar, the builders of the tower and putting the system together, gets 48 percent of that, of that revenue. The system on Alligator Alley is particularly critical in that the fact that -- and you've probably used your cell. phone over there, it's kind of a hit and miss situation and it's problematic. The problem even gets more heightened in light of the fact that there are no hard telephone lines across the Alley. So, as a result, you really have to, instead of using hard telephone lines, you have to use microwave dishes and that also extends, to some degree, the height of these towers. There's been a tower approved at Andy Town (phonetic) at the beginning of the Alley. There's another one -- the other one for Broward County has been approved, and the Miccosukee Indian Reservation, and then we have located four -- and, of course, we're not building towers for towers' sake. We would like it -- if we could have two, we would be happy with two, or one, for that matter. The first tower is located here. This is about Mile Marker 91. All of these are being built in the right of way, so some of the environmental issues as to, are we disturbing some of the Page 24 April 5, 2000 Everglades itself -- fortunately or unfortunately, this is a disturbed area anyway. This is part of that right of way area. The Number 3 -- and this one by the way was recommended by staff. This one is 4, that we had, and was recommended by them. This Number 3 is a replacement tower. At the present time, if you're familiar at all -- and this is about 63, I think, it's on the report, I think -- there's an existing DOT tower on the north side across from the new rest area. The intent is to take that tower down and build a new tower, and these are not guide towers, by the way. This one here is a guide tower, the old one, but they are newer, they are stronger and going to have a greater capacity. And they're building a new tower in that rest area. That one is also one that staff concurred with us on. The second -- this one at this particular location is the one at 29, State Road 29, and there is -- this is a replacement tower in this location. There is an existing tower, I guess it's two or three hundred yards north of the -- of Alligator Alley that you've seen there. It's a big, huge guide tower. We are going replace that tower with a lattice freestanding tower at that location. And that, again, that's a -- it's a fenced -- will be in that compound. There's a big base for the existing guide tower, but we're going to put it in that location. So, again, it's not going to disturb any more additional areas. In fact, getting rid of the guide towers -- and we have some gentlemen, as you might have heard their introduction -- here who will be happy to talk about some of the environmental issues that they've looked at, and we were required to do that on all of these towers by DOT and make sure we go over those. That's the replacement tower, and this is the one that staff thought we could use -- since it is in an agriculturally zoned district we could use, through a variance, we could -- this would be a replacement tower and we could use that as opposed to identifying it specifically in this ordinance. We don't really have a quarrel with that. It seems the Environment Advisory Committee thought that, you know, why not put it in here and, as we go through the process, I guess of looking at that, if we need Page 2 5 April 5, 2000 it in the ordinance, fine, but if we didn't -- but at the end of the day we're going to have a replacement tower at that particular location. The last one is located at Everglades Boulevard. And it's -- if you're familiar with that -- of course you're familiar with Everglades Boulevard, it would be in what would be the northwest quadrant of that -- well, it's not an intersection, it's a fly-over. There's kind of a ramped road that comes down. It looks like at some time maybe someone thought about having access to the Alley from Everglades Boulevard. Our information, because DOT looks at all these sites, is that probably is not going to happen. But that's where this particular tower would go. The issue on that one was that, could we go elsewhere. This is mislocated, I should point out. It's probably here. This is too far. Forgive us, but that's about where it should be. That's where Everglades Boulevard comes down. The little dark spot on the -- is your eastern-most industrial park, almost eastern. And that's the Ford Motor proving grounds. They amended their PUD, I guess about a year and a half ago, to make provisions for putting in a tower. And American Tower -- Don Murray will tell you -- who were the builders of that tower, came in and talked about building that tower up. We don't have any kind of a relationship with either the Ford Motor people or with American Tower. We do have four co-users that we know, in fact on all of these, four to five co-users already that under contract -- I think it's with Sprint, isn't it, Scott? At this time and they call us every week about, how is this coming along, to get this tower built. We would like to go forward with that particular tower. DOT, from our-- everything we've gathered, and we're going to get a letter from them, is that they don't share towers. They don't rent towers from other people. So that would be the problem of going to -- as far as we know, there are security issues and all that. So your board recommended approval -- excuse me. The Environmental Advisory Board recommended approval of that. And that's how we got the fourth. Page 26 April 5, 2000 And we do have our Post, Buckley people to answer environmental questions. MR. SAVAGE: Your left tower there is about equidistant from the rest of them, is that correct? GUSTAFSON: This one here? SAVAGE: Yeah. It's about the same distance, all four of MR. MR. them. MR. MR. GUSTAFSON: Uh-huh. SAVAGE: Are they interrelated? MR. GUSTAFSON: Yes. These really connect by microwave because there is no hard phone lines. Then we get east -- we get further west, excuse me, we actually get a hard phone line. MR. SAVAGE: Not knowing anything about the reception and so forth, but would that not improve the reception of the user? I'm talking about people that are going along Alligator Alley, or would any '- MR. GUSTAFSON: That is the intent. MR. SAVAGE: Yeah? MR. GUSTAFSON: And it also is going to help those call boxes, you know, those emergency boxes that are really not tied to a hard line and they just sometimes work. MR. SAVAGE: Having been recently towed from Punta Gorda to Fort Myers, I understand about the need for communication with a cell. phone, if anybody hasn't had that problem. And '- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Sally? MS. LAM: The one that's going to be replaced, it's going to be -- it's significantly taller than the other one there '- MR. GUSTAFSON: Yes, 310 feet. MS. LAM: How tall is the one that's standing there now? MR. GUSTAFSON: It's 310. MS. LAW: 3107 MR. S. GUSTAFSON: It's 310. The guide is 310. The one at Route 29 is 310 feet. It has existing DOT microdishes on it. Our system that we're developing is going to have microdishes for one sake is to provide a dial tone for all the carriers to locate on there because there is no, as we said, hard line to take advantage of. My name is Scott Gustafson. Page 27 April 5, 2000 MR. GUSTAFSON: With Lodestar. MR. S. GUSTAFSON: With Lodestar. Anyway, the existing -- currently there exists a tandem for DOT on there. They need those heights. What we are doing is we replace that exact tower with a self-supporting tower within the existing compound. What the -- usually for the height we have to keep their equipment there where it is and add additional equipment. One of the outcomes of this project will -- that is call boxes will be enhanced. Currently you just have one dish facing each direction on the towers that they have. We're going to be adding specifically four dishes, two in each direction, because what happens is, you have a dish right now that can receive and transmit, but we're going to have one that will always be receiving and one that will always be transmitting. So, your call back issue will be enhanced as well as a lot of -- there's a list that we have in a packet of other services that DOT has planned for the future for what you've discussed in the beginning, for the entire State of Florida and travel safety. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Longo, you had a question? MR. LONGO: Marco, you said your concerns were that the towers were in the Big Cypress and the Fakahatchee Strand, but, according to this map, the only two towers that are in any of those places that are existing that are either going to be replaced exactly, almost, except for guide wires, so the Number t that he's shown on the map is actually out of the Fakahatchee and the Number 4 is out of the Big Cypress, and 2 and 3 are existing replacement towers. MR. ESPINAR: Correct. I caught that Number 1 was outside of the panther refuge, yeah. But, on that same note, have we had an opportunity-- excuse me, Marco Espinar. Have we had an opportunity to receive any comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife or Florida Game and '- MR. GUSTAFSON: Which one of you would like to comment? MR. GELBER: Adam Gelber (phonetic) with Post, Buckley, Shoe & Jernigan. I contacted Ranger Casser (phonetic) from MPS in Big Cypress regarding the replacement tower that's in the rest area Page 28 April 5, 2000 and the replacement for it is the one that's on the north side of the road. His environmental concerns were bird strikes. The main environmental concerns were the bird strikes and -- let me review my notes here very quickly -- and impacts to the wetlands. And I told him -- I had informed him that the area where this was to be located was already in a pre-existing hydraulically altered rest area and that there were no wetlands that were going to be impacted. MR. GUSTAFSON: You might mention, the EAC committee this morning recommended a concern -- one of the concerns, I guess, is the lighting on these towers for the FAA, is that we would adopt the same type of light system that has been put into a most recent tower that was approved by the county, a strobe type of a light that has a frequency that doesn't fool birds that it's the moon or stars. I guess that's a simplistic way for a lawyer to explain it, but, anyway, that's what we would do. We would adopt that particular system. And, again, the guide towers are less of a problem. MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage. If you didn't have towers, what would you have, power lines going along 1-757 MR. GUSTAFSON: Well, that wouldn't solve the cellular phone problem either. MR. SAVAGE: I understand that. MR. GUSTAFSON: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: But, you know, that's what we have now, so much of, power lines going from here to there, cutting our trees in a U-shape, you know, to keep away from the lines. Here we have towers where we have a small area in a vertical sense, but at least we don't have a lot of lines going on both sides or one side of a highway. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. Mr. Jones? MR. JONES: Brian Jones. A question for the committee members who worked on this. Your recommendation was two instead of the four. One of the issues was to co-locate or to locate in the Ford test track area, and you're looking into that issue, and why -- how did you come to your -- looks like they need Page 29 April 5, 2000 four from what's presented. Tell me otherwise. MR. MASTERS: Tom Masters. I'm satisfied, I think, with their argument, and if the EAC heard some additional items that we weren't privy to, it sounds like there are reasons for not joining the Ford test track which we weren't aware of during our previous discussion. And I think I'm in agreement that it should be approved. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Peek? MR. PEEK: If Mr. Jones' question is answered, I would like to offer a motion. MR. JONES: Please. MR. PEEK: I'm convinced by the arguments, and I was a member of the subcommittee that brought this to the full committee with two, but I'm -- after thinking about it more and hearing the arguments today and studying more of the material that we were provided last week, I'm going to ask that all four of them are acceptable. I would move that we -- that the full committee accept all four locations. MR. MASTERS: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We've got a motion and a second. Other comments? I think we have a comment back here. MR. MURRAY: I just wanted to say '- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Have you '- MR. MURRAY: Sorry. I'm Don Murray, Planning Services. But one of the reasons that we were asking them to look at the tower at the Ford Motor test track was that, if that is going to be built and it could support equipment, then why not use it instead of building another tower here, because they have an approval and they could come in and build a tower and you'll end up with two towers here instead of just one. MR. LONGO: Different companies? MR. MURRAY: Different companies. That's right. MR. LONGO: I think that could be a '- MR. NINO: May I point out, when the EAC heard that same argument, certain members of the EAC were convinced that there could never be an agreement between those two. Page 30 April 5, 2000 MR. LONGO: There is a high potential for that? MR. MURRAY: There is potential for that. This is part of the information that I requested from them as well as some additional information. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you very much. Marco? MR. ESPINAR: Mr. Chairman -- Marco Espinar. I wasn't really totally opposed to the idea of having four towers out there. As a matter of fact, I'm a cell. phone user all the time and I travel the Alley all the time. I'm not opposed to the four towers. I wasn't originally, I'm not right now. What I was opposed to and I was supporting was staff's recommendation, because of a lack of comment that had come in. And I thought that this was being expedited too fast through the process and not a sufficient amount of comments was being received from the outside. And I actually still stand by that. I mean, I have no problem with the four towers. I just wish there was additional information. Actually, we were privy to more information and additional information today than we were last week. And that's part of my problem, is that we've been getting all this information very fast on this. And I still stand by that. I wish that we had, you know, official letters from maybe U.S. Fish and Wildlife or Florida Game and Fish or other agencies out there saying, we have no problem with this, you know, i.e., it's in the right of way, and so forth. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Understood. MR. PRECHT: Bill Precht with Post, Buckley, Shoe & Jernigan. And I would like that respond to Mr. Espinar's comments. One of them has to do with all the agencies involved. We have contacted, either via phone call or letter, every agency that will be involved in the permitting of these towers, which includes the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Water Management District, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the state fish and game commission, and National Park Service, and so on. And, essentially, all the comments that have come in -- the major concerns were, one, were the cell. towers going to be built Page 31 April 5, 2000 in wetlands or would they impact natural areas. And we have assured them, based on our field reviews and where these towers have been located, they are all within already modified DOT right of way, paved graded areas, or sodded areas. So there would be very minimal natural area impacts. The other concerns were bird strikes. And all these towers are lattice towers, which, if you know the difference between wire towers, sky wire towers and lattice towers, these are probably the safest, from a bird strike standpoint. And then also there are lighting issues that we've also gone down that road. So, yes, Fish and Wildlife Service will probably continue to have comments, as will the National Park Service and we will continue to coordinate with them throughout the process. So those are not dead issues and they will continue to have their voice heard through the permitting process. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you very much. MS. LAM: I think this is fine, you know. I'm ready to go along with this. But what I'm thinking is, Collier County can end up looking like an oil field the way we're going, with the towers popping up. And I think eventually Collier County should develop a proactive approach as to how many towers we can eventually have, how far apart they are, how much sharing everybody has to have. I mean, it's very fine if Ford is going to have their own tower, but if we allow everybody to have their own tower and not require them to share -- because, after all, we have to look at these things. And, as you drive up and down the road, or even driving into town, you begin to see towers popping up all over the place. And I think, from the human, environmental point of view, they are unattractive and they may be very bad health-wise. We don't know that yet. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Good point. Thank you. Mr. Savage? MR. SAVAGE: Herb Savage. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We'll go on quickly here. MR. SAVAGE: What I would like to ask all of the people who are involved in developing this, you have two different groups, Sprint and somebody else participating in this. Page 32 April 5, 2000 MR. S. GUSTAFSON: Scott Gustafson, Lodestar. We have Sprint '- MR. SAVAGE: All right. Say there were eight different companies that wanted to use those towers; is that possible? MR. S. GUSTAFSON: Well, there's a limited amount of frequency span that's out there. MR. SAVAGE: I understand. MR. S. GUSTAFSON: So there's only a certain amount of carriers that are providing wireless services. Services, I should say your cell. phone. So, with that in mind, there's already a limitation on how many of those carriers can be -- are even going to be required to go out there. MR. SAVAGE: Whether we have one pole or 50. MR. S. GUSTAFSON: Correct. MR. SAVAGE: Each pole guarantees so many uses. You're talking about microwaves, or whatever it is. MR. S. GUSTAFSON: On our poles we are currently going to have carriers as well as the DOT equipment. And the carriers we talked to are Sprint, Nextel, Primeco, AT&T. MR. SAVAGE: And they are all available? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Peek? MR. PEEK: Mr. Chairman, I call the question on the motion. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. MR. ANDERSON: I just want to know if they are going to be subject to the same tower sharing agreement requirements as anybody else that puts up a tower. MR. MURRAY: Don Murray. The way we have this set up, they would be required to meet all the other standards and requirements, so that's the LDC Section 2.6.35, and that requires sharing, and we would require them to submit a site plan as well as a shared use plan specifying how many and who and at what location on the tower the equipment from those companies would be placed. So, yes, that -- the question (sic) is yes, they would be. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. We have a motion and a second to allow all four towers in the locations identified. All those in favor, say aye, please. Page 33 April 5, 2000 Any opposed? MR. ESPINAR: Aye. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: One opposed, Mr. Espinar. That brings us to the conclusion of that issue. Is there anything else on the LDC recommendations that we need to deal with here? We need to move on. Do we need a motion and a recommendation to dispense with this or does this come back and we do that next meeting? MR. NINO: You can do it now. MR. PEEK: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward this with the recommendation for approval. MR. LONGO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any other discussion? MR. DUANE: And that includes several items to be continued to '- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We have continued a couple of items, yes, Okay. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. Construction code subcommittee. Mr. Longo? MR. LONGO: I have no report. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. Utility code subcommittee. Mr. Peek? MR. PEEK: Since I wasn't present, I will ask Mr. Kuck to make the report. You have the minutes of the meeting of March 23rd before you. THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, please repeat the last portion of that statement. I could not hear you. MR. PEEK: Okay. Maybe I'll stop talking. Mr. Kuck will give the report from the committee. You have the March 23rd minutes before you of the committee meeting. MR. KUCK: For the record, Tom Kuck. Yes. We did meet on March 23rd and we reviewed the utility standard details. There is a point -- there are a few minor Page 34 April 5, 2000 revisions and then we'll be ready to adopt them. At the April meeting we are scheduled to start doing a review of the utility ordinance. And I'm urging some of the members of the subcommittee to attend that meeting. It will be very important. If you've got any questions, I'll try and answer them. There's a copy of the minutes from the last meeting for your information. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Any questions for Mr. Kuck? MR. PEEK: I have a question. Tom, on Page 2 of the minutes, the second paragraph indicates that with the blessings of this committee today then you would distribute the master standard detail drawings. So do we need a -- MR. KUCK: The master list of-- MR. PEEK: So is there a recommendation from the subcommittee to this committee today they do a blanket approval of the revised standard detail drawings? MR. KUCK: Yes, there was. MR. PEEK: Then I would make a motion that we approve the revised standard detail drawings. MR. SAVAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Savage seconds. Any other questions or comments on that issue? All those in favor of the motion approving the standard details, please say aye. Any opposed? (No response.) There being none, passes unanimously. Thank you. The next item is new business. VI(A), budget. Mr. Cautero? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. Mr Chairman, just a brief announcement on that. After I finish, I would ask your indulgence for maybe a three-minute recess to allow our staff to synchronize the laptop and machine again for the presentation and to give our court reporter a break. This is just an announcement to let that you know that in your May packet you'll be receiving our budget request as is our mandate every year, in accordance with your ordinance. What Page 35 April 5, 2000 we do is present our proposed budget in development services areas, which crosses several departments in the division. For those of you who are new to the committee, you'll hear the term expanded service used often. That is a Collier County term that is used when staff requests additional resources, whether they be staff, equipment, consultants, whatever the case may be. We'll be presenting that to you. There are several that we wish to talk to you about and hopefully you'll recommend approval of those before we submit that budget to the Board of County Commissioners. Our entire budget package is due later this month to the county manager. But we do not discuss it with the county manager for at least another month, maybe a little bit more than a month, and then we are also discussing our budget request with various committees, in addition to yours, most notably the productivity committee. They have had questions of us in the past. So I just wanted to make that announcement and let you know that we look forward to that discussion in the coming weeks. And, with that, maybe we can go off the record for three minutes and allow the hook-up. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We'll take a three minute recess so the equipment can be set up. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Back on the record. This is Item VI(B), EMS library impact fees. Take it away. MR. TINDALE: Steve Tindale with Tindale-Oliver and Associates and very briefly we'll go over this afternoon the two impact fees that we have been updating with the staff. I'll briefly go over some historical perspective of growth rates in the county and the basis of the impact fees, talk about the components of an impact fee and what we've updated and then actually show you the potential fees that we've recommended to the county. This graph shows Florida in the blue in terms of percent growth. In each decade, forties, fifties, sixties, seventies, you'll see that Collier County consistently has grown about twice as Page 36 April 5, 2000 fast as the Florida average, and most of the counties we're working at -- working for, the impact fees, the county should have a high growth rate, so Collier fits right in with the counties that are experiencing that growth rate and the impact fees that assist in absorbing some of that growth. Not paying for all, but at least paying for a major portion of the growth as your county develops. The impact fees have not been updated since 1991. And if you're doing business, if you could imagine not changing your rates in terms of anything that you charge for any services you provide for nine years, after nine years any adjustment you make, you need to be prepared for some significant changes in the adjustment in terms of that nine year period in terms of the calculations and the basis for the impact fees. The two we're going to talk about are emergency medical services and libraries. The impact fee is a calculation that takes basically the demand for services for every time you have a unit of development that's approved and permitted and constructed, times the cost to provide service for that unit, minus any taxes that is used for capital expansion. The only thing we're talking about this afternoon is capital, no maintenance, no operation, strictly what it costs to add a facility because of the growth, and the capital facilities, its new facilities, either a new ambulance, a new station or a new library or books. Nothing in terms of replacement. Emergency medical services, you have the facilities, the structures. You have the vehicles and here you also have a helicopter, which plays a significant role in terms of delivery of service in the county. So those are used as the components to calculate the cost of service. EMS service is county-wide. We do have counties we work in where there's different arrangements with cities and counties, and you have emergency medical service provided here on a county-wide basis. The current level of service is about one station in terms of a fully equipped station for a little less than 15,000 residents. And the goal here is, as you double your population over the next period Page 37 April 5, 2000 of time, that you maintain that level of service, that you don't start having degradation of level of service. The way the station's configured and -- versus the population, you have standards that say, in the outlying areas an eight and a half minute response time, in the more urban areas, it's a six minute response time. The average response time is about 6.3 minutes. And there is a great interest in maintaining that in terms of safety and provision of service. MR. SAVAGE: Question on that? By what mode of transportation? In other words '- MR. TINDALE: That's the actual time it takes for the emergency vehicle to get to the site when they get a call. MR. SAVAGE: For instance, from Naples to Marco Island, they do it by helicopter most of the time. MR. TINDALE: This averages mainly the vehicles themselves, not -- it doesn't really deal with the special case of the helicopter. MR. PEEPLES: Mr. Tindale, real quick. Do you want us to interrupt with questions or hold them? MR. TINDALE: It's up to you-all. Maybe it would be good for me to go through it and you-all could ask me at the end. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I think that might be the better way to do it. We can move things along that way. MR. SAVAGE: We'll forget what we were going to ask. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Write it down. MR. TINDALE: In terms of those facilities, basically you take the value of all of those facilities you're on and divide it by your population. And the value is about $70.00 per person in the county. It's a fairly straightforward calculation, taking the value of all of the facilities, divide them by your population for every person in the county and you own and have been operating $70.00 worth of capital value of assets. The tax credit per person is about $3.60 in terms of actually calculating some taxes that have been used to, historically in the past, to fund emergency medical services in terms of gas tax '- excuse me, in terms of tax credits. Both that calculation of cost and those credits are shown in detail in terms of reporting how Page 38 April 5, 2000 they -- how we go through that process, showing both the capital cost and the revenues that have been used for capital expansion. You take the difference between those two and it's $65.98. What we're saying is, the difference between capital revenues coming in and the actual costs when you have a person move into the county is almost $66.00. What we've done -- and this is something we have been doing for several years now and we're proposing to do here, is actually look at -- coming up with the cost by size of home, mainly to deal with some issues about affordable housing and you have a differentiation between very large homes and smaller homes in terms of both impact and recognizing the impact. We calculated it within a zero to about 1,500 square foot home, that the persons per household is about 1.4. The impact fee for that would then be $93.00. We then looked at persons per household of a mid-sized home. It was about 1.57, the impact fee being $103.00, and the larger homes, almost two persons per household, that's about $130.00 per home. Now, that's not the average number of people who live in those homes, because we have also taken the percentage of time that people aren't home and allocated it to commercial development. We're saying about sixty percent of your day is at home and about forty percent of the population, of your time, is at a commercial or retail or an office. That's how we allocate the impact in terms of the average number of people at each different site. So we basically have taken the persons per household, reduced the amount of time those people are in it, and looked at the persons per household by size and come up with an impact fee by size of home. But I can tell you this is dramatically different than historically what you had. The methodology used in the past, the retail and the office was very high, much higher, and the residential was much lower than these numbers in terms of historical methods you used for your impacting calculations. And libraries, we're talking again about the facility, all the equipment inside those facilities, the buildings and we're talking about the actual books in terms of the materials that are Page 39 April 5, 2000 available to the public. We have the land, the equipment, the books and the facilities. And then again we do the same thing. We looked at the total cost in terms of the provision of the facilities and then we looked at any historical revenues that a vacant piece of property has developed in the past and any potential revenues that, once it's developed, they would be available for capital, and give that as a credit. So the impact fee basically is the difference between the two. There's one major difference between the libraries and the EMS. As a matter of fact, libraries and parks are kind of unique, and that is, we only charge the homes, we're not charging the retail people, the office people, any other ones. We're charging the home. So when you see that population you're going to see the actual average number of people per home with none of it being allocated out towards any other uses so that it is definitely a residential based impact fee, just like more -- like parks and recreations are based that way. There was an interest in trying to allocate it out. There's things like real estate people were calling in and were using the Internet and asking questions, and we did some sampling and looked at it and we couldn't get comfortable with it, so, at this point in time, we recommend to stay with a residential based fee. Sometime in the future, when more data is available -- and I think they are starting to talk about actual uses, then we'll talk charging and kind of distributing that cost out more to the retail and the office and other users. But it's definitely a residential based fee at this time. The standards to services county-wide, we don't have a city versus a county system, so the population is county-wide and the service area is county-wide. The standard is 1.5 volumes. That's the book or periodical in the library. And the building is 33 -- 0.33 square feet per resident. And I can tell you, I've looked at your turn rate and your books and materials turn over very fast. You can set standards and get -- set a standard of so many books, and you don't have the books turning over and it's just a standard you're just picking. The standard is not one in which they've Page 40 April 5, 2000 picked a standard and have a lot of books that sit there for months without anybody turning them over or using the books. So I think it's a very reasonable standard. You've got a very active library service in terms of delivery of service. The cost for the facilities is about $64.00, 63.89. The actual items is about $34.00 per person. Not real complicated. You take the complete value, divide it by your population, and for every person in the county, you have a library system that's sitting there right at about 97, $98.00 per person in terms of what it costs to provide the services. The credits is about $11.90 in terms of library credits, in terms of the revenues that are used -- have been in the past used for capital, and again, that method is detailed in the report in terms of how we've done that. We did the same thing, and this one you'll see a difference because there's 2.5 people who live in the smaller home that we have now allocated part of them out to the other land uses, $214, mid-sized home, about 2.75, $237, the larger homes, about 3.45 or $300. And you can see that there's somewhat of a benefit here of having a smaller home, you pay -- a larger home pays I guess fifty percent more than a smaller home. So there is some fairness or equity involved with us being be able to split this out and deal with the demand and the average number of people by size of home. I happened to have a report come across my desk, so I went and put it in here. When we make our presentation to the county commission we'll do this both for EMS and for the libraries. And these are ones that are just convenient. We're going to go back and look at the neighboring counties and provide information. Everybody always wants to know, how do we compare to other ones? And because this was convenient, I put it in here. Again, before we go to the commissioners we'll pick counties that are adjacent to you or comparable. Collier County, we're proposing the average of the 237 for that mid-size. Martin County -- and one of the issues here is which one has been done recently. Martin County, I think, has been updated in the last months, you see they are in there, right Page 41 April 5, 2000 in the range of what you are in terms of the same costs and calculation because they have recently updated theirs. I really don't have the dates for some of the other ones and when they were updated. That's the end of that. This is a whole different presentation relating to how to moderate some of the impact on various things. So that's the presentation for both the emergency medical service and the library and the calculations and the numbers. And, again, we have provided the staff now with a detailed technical document that has all the back-up and calculations. MR. SAVAGE: All of those figures are in here? MR. TINDALE: Yes, sir. I see one thing. I think the last version we handed out to the group, we had homes like from zero to 850 feet, 850 to, like, 1,500 and 1,500 or greater. We did manage to break -- like we did in the transportation, people were saying we don't build any 850 square foot houses here, so this report here is different and the numbers seen here are different from the one we gave out to the last group. But this has been sent to the staff about a week ago, so staff has an updated version of those calculations. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Longo has a question. MR. TINDALE: Is it all right if I turn this off? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Absolutely. MR. SAVAGE: This one worked. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Longo? MR. LONGO: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions. My first question is, we're basing the methodology on current population, correct, and the second part of that question is, you have two differences in the number of people per household for emergency services and libraries. The impact fees are supposed to be imposed on new development. Those fees cannot be used for existing services or go back towards existing services. So I guess my question is two-part. Why is there a difference between emergency services and libraries as far as how many people per house, and why do we base our methodology on existing population when they're not being charged for an impact Page 42 April 5, 2000 when they move from house to house in a residential area? That doesn't make sense to me. MR. TINDALE: Well, first, the persons per household are identical. What we've done is, in the libraries, there's two and a half people who live there and there's -- when they are traveling around, they are not using the library system, at least in this methodology. The charge is to the home, period, no commercial charge for libraries. So you hit the two and a half people a hundred percent for the libraries. What we have done for the EMS is, when you're out and you're at the mall and you have a heart attack, they will respond to you. If you're -- wherever you're going, the probability of having a heart attack or needing services is equal. So we've taken about forty percent of that two and a half out of the home. We're saying about six-tenths of the day you're home, the rest of the time, you're not home. So it's the same identical persons per household, except that EMS, the retail, commercial and office people are sharing some of the time of that population and the libraries, the home is going to pay for the libraries. When you bill a retail center, you don't bill the libraries. When somebody moves in and goes to school and they use the library -- so that is the major difference. But the persons per household for all three sized homes are identical. We've just taken a percentage of those and the EMS and allocated it to another group of people. MR. LONGO: That answers my question on how you came up with that. My next question would be '- MR. TINDALE: The population. MR. LONGO: -- in the long and short, we have a growth management plan that says we are supposed to have so many people in our community in so many years, or at the end of our build-out. Is that methodology based on the projected people coming in? MR. TINDALE: Here's the answer to that. If you wanted, say, one fire station for every 10,000 people, if that's what they desired, that's a better level of service than you currently have. Your current level of service is one for almost 15,000. We can't use the one for ten, even if it was in your comp. plan, because Page 43 April 5, 2000 the law says that the new development cannot pay more to provide or be charged for a better service than people who have already moved here have paid for. So the reason you use the existing standard -- it's not even a standard, it's an existing condition, the existing condition is one fire station for every 14,700 people. If they want to improve on that, they can charge impact fees at the rate of one fire station for 14,7 and they've got to go find some other money to build the other fire stations at a faster clip to make up if they want to improve the level of service. So the concept of impact fees is to current condition, which I've defined as a -- achieving that as a standard, but it's a condition. It's not something that someone has said you have to achieve. It's where you currently are. So we're using your current level of service, what you've achieved with the current people, and saying we can't do any better than that as far as a charge. You can't charge more than that, that's the reason you use that standard. MR. LONG: So what's the time on the standards that you've set? MR. TINDALE: Basically what happens, if your population doubles, you will maintain the same ratio. You will have double your assets, you will have double the stations and you will still maintain a 14.7. And when your population is increased by fifty percent, you still have 14,700 people per station. So, as time goes along, you generate revenue to maintain that and not vary it in any way. MR. LONGO: So, theoretically, we should have no more impact increases on emergency medical services and libraries? MR. TINDALE: It won't increase because of the standard, it will increase because of the cost. Only because of inflation, not because of standards. We won't come back two years from now and say, well, we've decided to have one station per 10,000, the impact fee's going up. We cannot do that. It's not legal. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Yes. Perry? MR. PEEPLES: We currently have one station for 14,700 people, and that's giving us a level of service and a response time of 6 point some odd minutes, which is what the county is Page 44 April 5, 2000 trying to do. How is that paid for if it is not paid for through impact fees? Is that not part of what you've done, or do you know how that's been paid for? MR. TINDALE: A big portion of it's been paid through -- with the impact fees when you passed it. Some of it's been paid through ad valorem tax and some other taxes. And what we've done is looked back at someone who is going to come in with a vacant piece of property. We've given them credit for that property generating some capital. Now, vacant property, usually what happens is the vacant property brings about five or ten percent and most of the total ad valorem tax in. So we basically have said that we've looked at the historical revenues, looked at that person who is going to come and pull a permit, and said this vacant piece of property has generated a certain number of dollars that has historically helped build things and we're giving that vacant piece of property a credit when they come to pull the permit. MR. PEEPLES: That's the $3.58? MR. TINDALE: Yes. MR. PEEPLES: On the libraries, I'm just curious as to where your figures come from when you say that each person is allocated 0.33 square feet or one and a half volumes. Where did those figures come from? MR. TINDALE: You take the total square footage of all the buildings. MR. PEEPLES: No. I understand. How do you determine '- oh, they come from what's currently in place and you can't improve that '- MR. TINDALE: Right. You have to come up with a different -- a tax source or a different assessment or whatever. You cannot use impact fees to improve the current condition. MR. PEEPLES: The only other question I have on your figures, where does the number of persons per household come from; is that '- MR. TINDALE: That's both from the census and some information that Collier County has, and I think the University of Florida. There's footnotes in the document showing exactly Page 4 5 April 5, 2000 where the person per household is calculated from, the source. MR. PEEPLES: You talked about going back and raising impact fees in the future due to inflation. Could they be raised again due to the new census results? MR. TINDALE: My guess is you probably may have underestimated rather than overestimated your population. So my guess is, if anything, it may come down a little bit because your population is a little higher, and if we were wrong in terms of saying there's really 16,000 people per fire station, we probably would have to adjust that. But we're -- usually we're so concerned with everything else that that's not a real fear of mine. I don't think the census will create a major adjustment to it, other than a more accurate basis for the population. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Cautero, before we go on, have we reached our time limit or have other arrangements been made? MR. CAUTERO: No. I think you're okay. We're making arrangements to start the fringe committee in C and if they have a large -- a large contingent from the public, we might be able to do something before you get into your next item, but I think you're going to be okay for a while. Why don't you just proceed? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We'll continue on until something happens. MR. PEEPLES: One final question. Why was the impact fee so low; other than the fact that it was set in '91 and hasn't been adjusted for inflation since then? It seems like going up sixteen, seventeen times is pretty dramatic and certainly far exceeds what inflation is now. MR. TINDALE: The libraries, that's not the case. But EMS for the home is -- EMS for the office and retail is actually at some places about the same or down. The biggest difference is, they used some sampling techniques to try to figure out where they were providing the service. And we didn't feel really comfortable with the sampling techniques to draw a conclusion that the homes were not creating the demand. And we've recommended that they not use that, and that was, I guess, collected something like ten or twelve years ago when they did it. It's one I've not seen used in other places in Florida. We feel a whole lot Page 46 April 5, 2000 more comfortable with the allocations so the actual -- I think the total revenues and the fees aren't that dramatic in terms of cost per person. MR. PEEPLES: Do you know what percentage increase has occurred from '91 through current, if you take both the household and the commercial? MR. TINDALE: What we need to do is give you-all some '- showing you the change. As a matter of fact, we had created -- I don't have it with me -- an actual current and percent difference. And when I showed this, I wish I had had that in there, because we're really highlighting the residential. The commercial is not that dramatic. MR. PEEPLES: Right. So that brings the overall number down, I assume. But '- MR. TINDALE: It's really just saying we think that there may be some -- there's a better way of allocating in terms of fairness, more accurate, in terms of different land uses and a single family home, which is way undercharged, and some of the retail which was overcharged. The other example was the medical services. I relate it to almost like the gas station. Medical offices -- gas stations collect gas tax, but you don't charge them impact fee or transportation impact fees because of the amount of gallons they pump. You know, that's where people go. And the same thing with medical services. You may end up at the medical center, but when you bill a medical center, do you have a huge increase in demand for medical services? If a third-year population moved out and you built three more medical centers, would you have an increase in medical service? The answer is no. So it's more of a, where they were going and delivering it versus an allocation of what's really creating the demand for service. And it's our opinion, when people move into this county, when the population increases, the need for emergency medical service goes up. It's not where it happens to be that the services, you know -- what land use it happens to show up at. So it's a significant change but we think it's more consistent in terms of what causes and creates the demand. And clearly the single family home and the residential and then the Page 47 April 5, 2000 accompanying retail and office development, the people there, is what creates the demand. So it is different. That's for sure. MR. PEEPLES: I would just like to see, if you balance out the residential and the commercial, see what the overall increase is, and compare that versus what inflation has done since '91, because I'm '- MR. TINDALE: We'll provide that. I think they even estimated some total revenues. I think the total revenues are pretty well neutralized, it's just a reallocation. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Longo? MR. LONGO: Would you happen to know the difference between new home buyers and the population that moves in that you're kind of basing your numbers on versus existing homes that are changing hands from the older residents who are moving, dying off, for lack of words, and the newer -- the incoming new transfers coming in with families, two versus five. MR. TINDALE: I'm not sure -- I can tell you what we charge for. We don't charge the family, we charge that structure. MR. LONGO: If Perry owns a home in Park Shore and he decides to move and he's got two kids and the next family moving into his home has seven, they are not being charged an impact fee. But when he moves out of that house to a new home that I build him, and the new fees are based on historical data, he and everybody else moving into that new home are paying for our remissions in the past. MR. TINDALE: He also pays a water and sewer connection fee, because that structure has that connection fee. He pays it on the first one he builds, he pays a connection on the second home he builds, and he pays a connection fee on the third home. And the connection fees or any type of assessment is clearly blind to where the person's moving from. It's basically structures going up and the structures are being assessed a fee because, the county as a whole, when you build these structures, has an increase in demand. So it's clearly an assessment on the structure and it's -- the structures increasing in the county have to pay it. Who moves into '- MR. LONGO: I would caution that, the development industry, Page 48 April 5, 2000 to really take a hard look at impact fees and their percentages of increases because at some point in time, you're going to start seeing people not building new homes and new structures. You're going to see people taking over existing, and your impact fee revenues are going to go down and we're going to have to come up with a new system of collecting revenues. I'll put on my other hat today as well, but impact fees are not our answer. And I'm not sitting here to make any defenses, I'm just saying we have a whole section of our population that is on a free ride when it comes to impact fees. But all your new home buyers, whether it's a million dollar house down to that starter home somewhere, people -- every thousand dollars you put onto a new home puts about 15, 1,600 people out of being able to get into their first home. MR. TINDALE: Well, if the tax rate goes up, if somebody decides to tax rather than collect the impact fee, the impact fee would go to zero. So you would have an option. All we are doing is just calculating what your current policy is. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Following up on some of Dino's line of questioning, does your methodology factor in when you're determining the functional population for EMS, functional population, that we may have a number of people who work at businesses in the county who commute here from Fort Myers? MR. TINDALE: That -- the business where they are working is going to pay the impact fee. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. But isn't there -- maybe I misunderstood you, that there had been a change in the methodology to place more emphasis on single family residential uses as opposed to commercial. MR. TINDALE: Well, I don't know if we're putting more on them. More than in the past, not more than what should be. There is a change. MR. ANDERSON: Right. If there is a change, the price is more. MR. TINDALE: I think what we've also done is we've actually taken the total population, and there's something like Page 49 April 5, 2000 7,000 employees migrating, in other words, during a day you have 7,000 more employees here that move in than go out to work. We actually looked at census data, and the total population we're dividing by is greater than your total population. So the cost per person is lower because of both the employee migration and the people coming in to buy, et cetera. I think we end up with 6 or 7 percent more people we're dividing by, which is several thousand people, to come up with a cost per person, than actually live in the county. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. And I just want to point out for county staff that they have used in the past -- and it was an executive summary on April 14th, 1998, they used a permanent population figure that works out to 1.6 persons per dwelling unit for Collier County, as contrasted to the figures that they have given you to use. And I would like for them to maybe check that out. MR. TINDALE: We'll definitely check it out. MR. PEEPLES: I don't know if Vince heard that. MR. CAUTERO: No, I didn't. I'm sorry. MR. ANDERSON: Vince, I was just pointing out that there is a discrepancy between the numbers that county staff has used before and given to the county commissioners for purposes of population build-out than what are being utilized for these impact fee studies. April 14, 1998, executive summary to the board about build-out in the urban area, came up with a figure of 1.6 persons per dwelling unit as a permanent population. MR. TINDALE: My guess is that's probably forty to fifty years from now. We were at 3, 5, and then we moved to 3, zero in the seventies and eighties, and you're two, four. And forty or fifty years from now we may be down to 1.6. MR. CAUTERO: I don't know if we've given the board new numbers since then. If we haven't, then we need to reconcile that. MR. TINDALE: These are currently noncurrent numbers. These are build-out numbers, and whether they are correct or not we can check. There is a trend, a significant trend of the persons per household significantly going down. What's odd in Page 50 April 5, 2000 transportation is the persons per household is significantly going down, but the travel per house, per home, is going up. So every time we reduce the personal home, the demand for service per person has been outreaching it in terms of just mobility. But we'll check the build-out and your 1.6 and make sure that there is some logic between what -- historically where we are and what's going to happen probably in forty or fifty years in terms of your persons per household. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: That's impressive research. Any other questions? Thank you very much for the presentation. MR. TINDALE: This is a document that's a work in process. The one that we've done now has been modified since some comments. We'll take all of what you have done to the next document. If we do find that something needs to be adjusted based on your comments, there will be a modification to it as we move forward. MR. JONES: The parks and fire and the other impact fees, are they also in your analysis at this point? MR. TINDALL: No. The parks was done, updated, last year. Roads, we just did. Utility was updated -- that's water, sewers, updated in '98. That's probably going to be coming up -- probably within the next year or so. I can check on that for you. Some of the others, such as public schools and all that, we really don't get -- we're not aware of any push up like that any time soon. Basically for the next several months, this should be all that you see. MR. JONES: What about fire? MR. TINDALL: That's basically established by an act of the state legislature and it's not by a county ordinance, except for the Ochopee and Isles of Capri's fire districts done recently. That's not something the county commission would act on, for the larger fire districts. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: One last comment, and this is directed to Phil Tindall. Please, as you're doing these impact fee Page 51 April 5, 2000 ordinances, come up with consistent definitions that will apply in each and every impact fee ordinance. MR. CAUTERO: That's part of the assignment given to our consultant. And, to complement what Phil said, the consultants that were hired, Mr. Tindale and his partners and associates, and Mr. Bill Merrill (phonetic) from Mike Cardinaro (phonetic), a law firm in Sarasota, part of this assignment not only involves updating the fees for roads, which they've completed, and EMS and the library, but a recodification of all of the ordinances, including standard definitions and a procedures manual for the county, which was recommended by the auditor's office. So there is a lot more work to be done after the fees are '- MR. TINDALE: We'll be coming to you again in the coming weeks with a presentation having to do with our consolidating of all of the impact fee ordinances from an administrative standpoint to let you know how we're making those improvements Mr. Cautero is referring to. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Very good. Was this information or do we need action on this item today? MR. CAUTERO: We did want action, to answer your question, however it's a work in progress. I would ask you to probably hold on a recommendation until we can get more information. MR. TINDALL: I will prepare an updated table that shows a percentage change from the present fee to the new fee, just so you'll have that as a reference. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Pursuant to Mr. Peeples' request? MR. TINDALL: Yes. And other information we have here. COMMISSIONER DISNEY: Good. So we'll see that with our next meeting then? MR. CAUTERO: We should be able to get it. MR. TINDALL: We'll definitely be able to do that. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. Thanks for your presentation and for waiting. Our next item is the item VI(C), which was added, the noise ordinance. I understand we have some papers. MR. CAUTERO: Yes. Mr. Chairman, what I have is -- the Page 52 April 5, 2000 hand-out for you is a draft executive summary prepared by the office of the county attorney and a proposed ordinance amendment to the noise ordinance. Several months ago, late last year, I believe, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the legal department to work in conjunction with the Code Enforcement Department on potential revisions to the noise ordinance amendment. And a consultant was hired by the county under the auspices of Mr. Weigel office, who is with us today, the county attorney, to propose revisions to the ordinance. And we have those for you today. Again, my apologies for the lateness of this. It is not our custom to do that. What we would like to do is have Mr. Weigel and Mrs. Arnold, our Code Enforcement Director, walk you through it, answer your questions, and tell you what the board intends to do next week. Consultants will be here making presentations, making the presentations to the board, and we'll just go from there and try to cover as much ground as we possibly can today. So I'll turn it over to David at this point. MR. WEIGEL: Thanks, Vince. Hi, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I haven't seen some of you for a long time. Some I see with some regularity and some of you I don't know. I haven't had the pleasure. I'm Dave Weigel, the county attorney, and I am sure pleased to see you today. Although I'm not the expert in the sound field, I think I can probably answer a lot of questions and help us all out in the process here. I'll pass out also --just probably more iljustrative -- these are reports that have been created by an outside consultant. You can pass them around and take a glance. I'll be talking a little briefly about what they comprise. And it appears that you have had not only the noise ordinance, did you also get a copy of a drafted executive summary? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Good. The executive summary will go a long way to explain fairly cogently what the ordinance amendment, proposed amendment states. I would like to just mention at the outset, the county attorney, working with Page 53 April 5, 2000 Michelle in Code Enforcement, we have provided a technical legal document here that the board is going to consider. You'll see that neither staff nor the county attorney are advising adoption of this, but, as the result of board direction, which was essentially citizen driven and citizen requested, we have come up with, I think, a fairly comprehensive review of our 1990 ordinance that's been amended only slightly since that time. The board will consider and discuss what, if any, changes they may wish to have implemented. They may determine that there are none to be implemented. They will look to see. You'll note that the draft ordinance and the report that is provided deals with site testing data where they worked at six to eight different sites throughout the county, some of which were brought to their attention by staff and some of which by some of the citizen input that we, the staff, had. And in their report -- and the draft ordinance amendment itself will incorporate some methods and standards that have been utilized in other communities. There's nothing here that hasn't been utilized elsewhere or been tested in other communities. There are perhaps a couple items I'll mention, if I have the time, that may be testworthy here, or may be of contention here. But we've essentially tried to put together kind of a color-blind list of options that the board may wish to consider. If you want to follow me with the executive summary, I'll note that at the bottom of the first page, probably the more cogent things to note is Number 2 at the bottom of the page that indicates an amendment to clarify throughout the ordinance that there is a real relationship, more clearly established with this amendment than our current ordinance, relative to background or ambient noise at any particular geographic site. The idea is not to hook up any particular noise producer, whether it's commercial, recreational, music, amplified or non-amplified, without taking into account a rather close relationship with ambient noise in that specific vicinity. And, within that -- within this amendment package is in fact amendments to show that there must be a relationship between 7 and 9 decibels of background noise before you kick in with any changed standard Page 54 April 5, 2000 at a particular site. In general what we see is the kind of age-old concept of daytime decibel level from a site and a point of measurement and a nighttime standard. Those have always been different. Why have they have been different? Well, because the ambient noise at night is obviously very different in most situations than it is in the daytime with the hustle and bustle of activity and traffic, et cetera. But -- and sound carries differently at nighttime, often. These basic decibel levels are being reduced approximately five decibels, particularly at nighttime. Again, there is a clear standard and relationship to ambient noise. So if you have a particular geographic location, be it commercial or otherwise, where you find that the ambient noise is a pretty dog-gone close decibel level to the noise that's being generated, that is potentially objected to, then we will find that there may not be an ability to cite for a violation of the ordinances proposed. Moving on a little bit, on the second page, Paragraph Number 4 talks about an amendment requiring one or two downward decibels adjustments which are credited to potential violators when sounds as tested don't exceed that background noise by less than nine decibels. Few of us, including me, are sound experts, but decibels and decibel relationships are exponentially related. So when we're talking seven or nine decibels, we're talking about significant noise gradients here. Again, the idea is not to hook the unwary but to arrive at a standard that not only takes into account a certain type of, call it scientific or field imprecision and testing, but also just the fact that noise varies. Noise is somewhat a problem, depending on the beholder. And when you try to use technical equipment to apply it to what may be in some cases a visceral problem, we want to give the benefit to the standard that's being applied. So that's what we offer up at this point in time. Paragraph 5 mentions that we looked at the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers model sound ordinance. And some of our amendments, taking into account what they provided, do provide for reduced decibel standards at an earlier Page 55 April 5, 2000 time than our current ordinances provide, 7:00 as opposed to 10:00 p.m. The last sentence of Paragraph 5 notes that the applicable time of day periods for tourist residential and commercial sites are not being changed. I think that's very important to note. Paragraph 6 mentions something that was new to me, and that's something called octave bands. It requires -- it would require new equipment by the county in conjunction with their current sound testing equipment. And why octave bands? As a layperson I can tell you that one of the reasons they would use that as a test is it provides additional -- we'll call it stability, or constance, to the otherwise noise meter or applause meter kind of test equipment that's generally used without this other equipment used in conjunction with it. Octave bands. It has a particular set of standards which is referenced in the draft ordinance amendment. And, again, it's supposed to I think work, as it states in the middle and latter part of Paragraph 6, to assist in concerning where we have pure tone or repetitive noises. Another thing that we've come to grapple with here is the fact that our current ordinance requires there to be a constance or a duration of sound which often isn't approached by what appear to be sound violators. And it may be a very short sound and it may be occurring at unconstant, inconstant but repetitive intervals. Our current ordinance doesn't pick up on the ability to enforce against those particular type sounds, even if the decibel level is very high. We've attempted to capture some of those kind of noises here where there is inconstant duration, repetitiveness within an hour period. And, at the top of the next page, which is the very bottom of that last Paragraph 6, it talks about occurring six times or more in any hour. And there is an exclusion in there in regard to a ten decibel increase allowance. We do capture these things but, where we give a little in regard to a ten decibel increase allowance, referenced at the bottom of that Paragraph 6, on these repetitive sounds, we don't give there. That's up to the board to consider. How do we get to this particular staff project in the first Page 56 April 5, 2000 place? Well, some of you may know that there have been a group of residents. Some, if not all, from the Imperial Golf Estates subdivision that had concerns about the nearby industrial noise that came from -- I think it's Krehling Industries. And it poses interesting issues in the sense that Krehling has been there a long time. Imperial has been there a pretty long time, too. And the fact is that -- I'll bump ahead a little bit, now that I've broached this delicate subject. But Paragraph 10 in this ordinance, we're giving the board the opportunity to delete any grandfathering exemption that exists in our current noise ordinance. Grandfathering in regard to business, commercial or other activities that were in business at the time of the ordinance -- the current ordinance was adopted in 1990. The reason being, and it's a tough call. But the reason is that we believe that legally the Board of County Commissioners does have the ability under police regulatory standards for health, safety and welfare, to determine what is appropriate in the community, throughout the community. And that, by virtue of the fact that this is a nice ordinance, that they have the ability to amend that ordinance, up or down, based upon the public input that they have, and establish standards. And, if they establish these -- go the whole route and establish all these standards, they may find that they don't work. But even if they establish part of these standards, we believe that they have the legal authority to do so, and if they are challenged by a property owner that believes that they are unfairly impacted or illegally impacted, at this point our research would indicate that it probably is an appropriate vehicle for the court to determine and let the chips fall where they may, not trying to create enmity or problems with people. But the county attorney's office will be advising our board that we do think that they have the ability to exercise some prerogatives in this area. Paragraph 9 mentions music. That's another thing that's come up from time to time, and code enforcement has received questions and complaints about music. And we've taken away any distinctions between amplified and nonamplified music and just going to noise levels of music generally. And we also -- Page 57 April 5, 2000 you'll note in there, about five or six lines down, it's reducing standards for regulated music from forty-five decibels to forty decibels, when measured inside a unit in residential use or zoning, but not for units in tourist residential use or zoning. That includes the hotels and things of that nature. Measured inside a unit. If there's music from outside a unit, whether it's a condo unit or a home -- those are units -- if you're hearing music from some source outside the unit that's higher than currently forty-five, but we would be reducing it to forty decibels, then it's an actionable item. That's what the idea is, that people should have the opportunity to have relative quiet within their home. And that's what the intent and purpose is of that. I mentioned the deletion of the grandfathering exemption in Paragraph 10. And Paragraph 11 mentions the delayed effective date because there are some homework that would have to be taken care of if the board were to go forward with this ordinance, because it would involve potentially purchasing some new equipment, as well as some training and certification of staff to adequately enforce it in the time ahead. The figures that we have proffered to us in this regard is three octave band or sound instruments, and costs approximately $4,300 apiece, putting that around 13,5, or so. And one estimate of training and certification at $12,500, for a total cost that the board may consider of around 26 or 26,5. Michelle, forward thinking, has mentioned that there may be an opportunity for some economies of scale where possibly the cities, Naples, Marco, might want to come in and take advantage of the certification, that, if we go forward and they do so, too, and share some of our costs in regards to training. MS. ARNOLD: As well as the sheriff's office. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Michelle. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Pardon me. One of the reasons we're going for the next date is because the board's been looking for this for some time. We just got the final finishing touches of data from our consultants, reaching hard to meet our advertising requirements, which we have met. One of our consultants comes from Chicago, and they are slated to be Page 58 April 5, 2000 here on Tuesday. The board doesn't necessarily have to finish its work on Tuesday, but I think we do have an opportunity, if all five commissioners are there, it would be great if they could hear it, even if potentially they didn't have your ultimate comments in that regard. But if I can facilitate you in any way here, I'd like to. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Longo? MR. LONGO: I would like to make a couple comments. I extremely have a hard time with the grandfathering deletion. I'm sure Hank Krehling and a few like him would -- I don't disagree with your legal perceptions, because I'm not an attorney, but I think you have some problems with that. I also have a -- I would ask that, if the complaint came from the neighborhood in Imperial Golf Estates, did the county staff go up there and measure the noise coming from Krehling's plant or did we just start initiating a change to the noise ordinance because a small group of people decided again that they are going to make a, for a lack of words, a loud noise, in order to affect the rest of the community?. And, no disrespect, but you're talking about taking grandfathering away from -- I can't even figure out how many businesses we're talking about. And I just think this is not good, aside from the technical aspects I don't understand being presented to me here today on a point by point issue. I wouldn't want to be in the same room with Hank, given just him. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I appreciate all your comments there. This is for the board to consider, both the pros and cons in regard to that. And we're not advocating removing the grandfathering but they to have -- this is calling for an opportunity for their consideration of that and the legal ability to do so. One thing that we'll note is that -- and part of your question had to be, are they violating a standard right now or not? They have been tested in the past by county code enforcement based upon a complaint driven process and found not to be in violation. However, in the testing -- my understanding is, in the testing process that was done by these outside consultants with their equipment, the rumor has it they are in violation of even the Page 59 April 5, 2000 current ordinance, let alone the change that might occur. But they haven't been cited for that prior to the testing '- MR. LONGO: Again, no offense, but I don't always have confidence in the new testing that comes out by consultants that all of a sudden gets us the answers that we need in order to move forward on an amendment to a '- MR. WEIGEL: We're not saying that these are answers that anyone needs. We're just trying to provide some data and site testing information for the board. Is there another question I didn't address? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: David, on Section 3 on Page 4, the vibrations part where we're adding vibrations to the noise ordinance? MR. WEIGEL: That's true. MR, ANDERSON: Don't you think we need to put some sort of exemption in there to recognize somebody who might have gotten a blasting permit in cases where they're authorized to blast at certain intervals and levels, but I think we need to have something that recognizes that? MS. ARNOLD: I think there are guidelines for that that are in another ordinance, and it's governed under that permit, that '- and there are guidelines that they have to meet. And I think it's outside of this ordinance. MR. WEIGEL: Let me take note of that, Bruce, to make sure that it's covered, in any event, because we don't want to not address an issue, if it's not there. But I think Michelle is correct, that we had in mind in the course of this that the idea was that that which is properly permitted otherwise is not supposed to fall afoul of this. But I'll make sure that we follow up on that. MR. PEEPLES: Does it say that, because, even though it's properly permitted, it could still violate this ordinance? MR. WEIGEL: I want to make sure it's there. I can't cite it to you right at this moment. That's a very good point. MR. ANDERSON: Next question, Paragraph Number 6 at the bottom of Page 6 of the ordinance. Page 60 April 5, 2000 MR. WEIGEL: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: It talks about music emanating from a nonenclosed area located within a residential or tourist residential use or zone and such music exceeds any of the standards of subsection 2 immediately above. Is that intended to apply this to somebody's home that may be playing their radio out by their pool? MR. WEIGEL: I believe so. MR. ANDERSON: And is that the case today; are those people subject to regulations today? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. That's part of it. MR. ANDERSON: But the permissible sound level is changing, is it not, and it's being lowered? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. MR. ANDERSON: One more. Just to follow-up on Dino's comment, Section 2 where we're removing the grandfathering, sure you can litigate that and the county can spend some money on behalf of the people of Imperial Golf Estates, maybe they ought to fund that themselves. There's a principle of law called coming to the nuisance, where if you know that something is in existence and you build your home near there, you shouldn't be allowed to complain about it later, and I think we ought to honor that. MR. SAVAGE: Thank you for saying that. That's about what I was going to say about Krehling. You know, all of a sudden we're going to have a cemetery here in Collier County, no noise, no nothing. I think of right now these little young people that go with these whatever you call them in the water, you know, and people are complaining about it on Marco Island in the condominiums, yet, on the ground, every morning "burr, burr", you have all these noisy things going on, blowing the weeds from one end to the other. They don't say anything about that, you see. But, because there are young people out there having a little fun, they are going to make a fuss about that. I'm glad to hear what you're saying about Krehling, because I think -- MR. WEIGEL: And we're certainly not unaware of that. What Page 61 April 5, 2000 we have learned is that the Krehling operations have changed, some would say significantly in recent years, with the strong construction industry where they are going six or seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, and they used to quit at midnight or so and then start up in the morning. And now it's all night. I made a site visit myself February 18th, an off site visit, I'll say, at Krehling. But it's significant. But '- MR. SAVAGE: What I wanted to ask you, in the very -- as an architect talking about zoning boards and variances, a Krehling could come and say we want a variance from this ordinance for our operation. Is there such a thing as that? MR. WEIGEL: There is, and also a Krehling conceivably at '- well, depending on one's point of view, as modest, nominal or some expense, could take some noise reduction methods on site, arguably. They, in fact, have a PUD which came in -- they have been in existence for a long time. But they came before the board with a PUD, actually just subsequent, if my recollection is correct, to Imperial Golf Estates. And there is the argument that a PUD kind of creates a new ball game, you get a new recognition of zoning, things you can do on site. And there is some language in the PUD which talks about taking care of noise issues, as practical. So, it's a little bit complicated here. And, again, we're kind of giving the board the plate and saying we do have issues here. We will try to respond as best we can on that. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Brian, I see that you had a question? MR. JONES: Yeah. On the vibration issue I was just concerned -- and I think it may have been addressed, like with driving a piling, it's properly permitted, and jackhammers and so forth. MR. SAVAGE: Permitted. MR. JONES: Construction, they would most likely be in violation. Is that taken into consideration? MR. LONGO: Vibratory rollers? MR. WEIGEL: It's supposed to be and I would be surprised if it's not. I'm afraid that I can't cite you to the place and say that it's not. It's a very important point that you've brought up and we're not looking to play double jeopardy on this. Page 62 April 5, 2000 MR. JONES: Other than this Krehling issue, is there something that -- is there a problem with the existing ordinance that was deemed ineffective or that needed to be revised or '- MR. WEIGEL: Maybe, Michelle, do you know from the '- MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the question. MR. WEIGEL: He was asking, other than the Krehling and the citizen input in regard to that, and clearly that got the board's attention, but were there some other issues also that led to the board's direction for yours and our staff to provide this kind of overall review? MS. ARNOLD: The Krehling concern was what initiated it and I know of one other concern within the community that's not an industrial use, it's residential to residential, that has been a very big concern of late. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Which is '- MS. ARNOLD: In Pelican Bay, the Marbelle condominium. They have got air conditioning units placed on the ground, and the residents of the adjacent condominiums are concerned with the noise that's emanating from those chiller units up into their homes. MR. LONGO: An after the fact type thing. I have one question. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Dino had a question and then we'll get to Bruce. MR. LONGO: How do you define tourist residential; where is that definition? Is it in the land development code? MS. ARNOLD: That would be hotels and those types of things. MR. LONGO: Under the definition tourist residential, it says hotels? MR. PEEPLES: Yes. MR. SAVAGE: It ain't easy. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Bruce, you had another question? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. A question and a statement. Am I correct that this ordinance is being amended to get at something that isn't a violation today, in the case of Krehling and the Marbelle? Okay. Page 63 April 5, 2000 I have to declare a conflict. I was contacted this afternoon about a letter that was received from Code Enforcement by the Marbelle people. So I've asked Vince to provide me a conflict of interest form and I'll have to abstain from voting on this. It stinks to high heaven. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Okay. Very good. MR. PEEPLES: And further comments, right? MR. ANDERSON: No. I can still talk. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And we welcome your input. MR. SAVAGE: I know you can, but may you? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Other comments? Mr. Masters. MR. MASTERS: Just a question as to really what's expected of us. I guess we can't quite approve this in a blanket form because they are going to pick and choose the elements out of it that they probably like or don't like, or are you looking for recommendation to approve it but not approve portions of it? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'm not really looking for a recommendation necessarily at all. But Vince '- MR. CAUTERO: I'm looking for any recommendation that you care to give the Board of County Commissioners about the ordinance, the components of it, in its entirety, a combination thereof, so that they have as much information as they can get prior to their deliberations. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: A comment, if I may, just in relation to this. We have been very displeased with things being dropped on the table in an afternoon and expected to make a decision on it without review, or make a comment on it without review. I'm uncomfortable not having read this very thoroughly. MR. WEIGEL: Sure. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Making any sort of a recommendation that we go forward to the Board of County Commissioners. That's me personally. I think some of the levels that are in here, in my personal understanding of them, lead us to some potential conflicts, particularly at nighttime with my neighbors' air conditioning compressor running beside my house. The noise levels are higher than you're going to allow in the evening. I Page 64 April 5, 2000 know they are. So, without completely understanding this and fully having an opportunity to fully read it this afternoon, I think that that's an unfair thing to ask us to do. And, beyond that, I think there's an awful lot of legitimate concerns and comments here. So, with that '- MR. JONES: My comments, there's two complaints that seem to be spurring this, one of an industrial nature and one condominium in Pelican Bay, and we're totally rewriting a code. We've got bigger and better things to do than re-write the book. MS. ARNOLD: This was board directed. It wasn't staff initiated. Please understand that. MR. JONES: Thank goodness. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We understand that, but I think that comment applies not only to staff but I think -- well, one of the other comments that I had here was, you're talking about noise levels. You made a comment about twenty-four hours a day. And I recall just recently in the newspapers about roads construction, the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners proposing that roads be constructed twenty-four hours a day. MR. WEIGEL: Right. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: So what does that do to a guy that's living behind where all of this road construction is happening? MR. WEIGEL: The facts are the facts, and I don't argue with the facts in that regard. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: It seems silly. MR. JONES: This is going to rock the boat from the standpoint of people who are in compliance, as the band at the bar, and all these types of things. A, we turned it to three, and that's what was okay. Now you call the police and now we've got to turn it down again. And that's the typical complaint that they probably get more of. You open that whole can of worms back up. MR. ESPINAR: I'll go one step further. I know I'll probably get in trouble for this, but I have a problem doing an ordinance to accommodate somebody who lives here for three or four months, Page 65 April 5, 2000 when you have Krehling trying to pump out and work twenty-four hours a day to meet our socioeconomic needs of this county. And, for a person to come in and sit there and say, it's going to interrupt my tee-off time, I don't care. And, I mean, I'll get in trouble for that, but I think we're all in agreement. We're creating a mountain out of a molehill out of this. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And to expand on Hank Krehling, what happens when his plant out on the East Trail has a bunch of people that are moved in next to it? MR. ESPINAR: I can tell you right now, Naples Lumber is four months behind on trusses. If you tell Naples Lumber now that they cannot work in the evening, you're going to see this county '- MR. LONGO: Shut down. MR. ESPINAR: -- shut down. They are four months behind, and that's working practically twenty-four hours a day. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, that's the reason I said we're going to have a cemetery. Okay? That's what we're going to have, if we follow all sorts of controls about sound. MR. ANDERSON: Well, these folks are just doing what the board directed. MR. ESPINAR: I know. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Hopefully you can take some of these comments and assimilate them back to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. WEIGEL: Very much so. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And I for one will be happy to be there to express my comments regarding this. MR. LONGO: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Mr. Longo. MR. LONGO: Based on the conversations today, I would make the motion that we not accept this ordinance for recommendation to go to the county board for approval, based on the considerations we've already talked about. And I think that needs to be reiterated at the county commission so they are not thinking that we are just blanketing a refusal of an ordinance but that they need to understand our concerns behind the ordinance Page 66 April 5, 2000 as well. So my base motion is to not accept this as it stands and to not make the recommendation to the county commission that they accept it, and to make the recommendation that -- Vince make the recommendation that this be tabled for further discussion at the appropriate committee level. MR. PEEPLES: I second, and then a question. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: There is a second. MR. PEEPLES: This is going before the Board of County Commissioners regardless. All we can do is make a motion to recommend disapproval; is that correct? MR. CAUTERO: Yes. It's going to the board. You can make a recommendation that they not approve it, delay it, a combination thereof. I think I've heard the motion loud and clear that you recommend that the board not approve it on Tuesday. MR. JONES: We strongly recommend not approving it, with an exclamation point, if that's '- CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Other comments? Mr. Savage? MR. SAVAGE: I've always said the user needs to get involved, you see. Here we are, lawyers, architects, engineers and so forth. And twelve decibels versus six, how loud is twelve decibels? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: It's pretty quiet. MR. SAVAGE: The point is, how do we know what twelve decibels is compared to six, unless you have equipment? I was in a court case one time where they sued Deltona because the equipment room down below made so much noise the lady upstairs couldn't sleep. So the judge says -- they had the testing equipment people, pro and con, the one that was suing, the ones being sued. They each had a piece of equipment. The judge says, don't say anything. Would you turn on your equipment, both of you? What rating have we got in this room right now? And they tested it. And they read what the sound was, without anybody saying anything. And it was hardly any different than what that lady was hearing in her condominium. So, you know what the court ruling was, you see. We all think that it's loud, Page 6 7 April 5, 2000 but like what you said earlier about it's above the standard. MR. WEIGEL: That's right. We tried to put some protection in there rather than just willy-nilly shoot a dart and get it. I understand that these consultants are going to have some sound equipment there. They have done site testing at six or eight different sites, and those are -- well, they are listed in these books a couple pages in. And I expect that they are going to play some of those tapes, which will show the ambient noise and then the noise beyond ambient noise, if it's like a beating or a thumping or a shriek or whatever the commercial or other noise may be. Again, I appreciate very much the opportunity to talk with you and '- MR. LONGO: One more question. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We'll call the question. MR. LONGO: What was the consulting fee to do this study; how much was it? MR. CAUTERO: Approximately 14,000. MR. LONGO: $14,000 for two singular complaints. MR. WEIGEL: No. No. No. It's really not that simple. The board had a hearing at one of the Board meetings last year in regard to particular petitioners. But, at the same time, Michelle, code enforcement, reported other issues to the board in regard to sound. They made the directive and then we just tried to follow it. And what this purports to be is just a sampling of data at representative places around the county, and it tells what the ambient noise is as well as certain other noises that occur at these sites. So the board, and hopefully the public, will understand and be able to make an intelligent determination if they want to up the standard or not. We're not a protagonist behind the change, we just wanted to give the board the vehicle to look at it. MR. MASTERS: I just want to make a comment and go on the record. I think this goes in the right direction. I'm not in favor of all of it and I think it definitely warrants quite a bit more study. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: We have a motion and a second on the Page 68 April 5, 2000 floor. I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion, which was to not make a recommendation to forward to the BCC, say aye, please. MR. LONGO: The motion was to '- MR. ESPINAR: For denial. MR. LONGO: -- disapprove. MR. SAVAGE: Changing the ordinance, yeah. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Disapprove. Pardon me. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. All those opposed? (No response.) None. MR. ANDERSON: For the record, I abstain. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And Mr. Anderson abstains. Thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Thanks for having us. And, Mr. Savage, I just have something as a postscript. We have been working throughout this period over many months with Mr. Krehling, and particularly through his Attorney Ken Cuyler (phonetic), and we have been faxing everything that we have as it comes forward. And we haven't had any comment from them for a long time now. MR. SAVAGE: From Krehling? MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. We expect we will very soon. Thank yOU · CHAIRMAN DISNEY: They are trying to be quiet. MR. WEIGEL: For the moment. MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Tindale had a quick announcement on a typo. MR. TINDALE: There is a typo I need to point out in the back-up data in your packages, but I'm afraid if I don't point it out it may cause some confusion. Mr. Jones pointed this out and he's correct. On the first page of the EMS impact fee report, the section entitled Executive Summary, in the last bullet item it refers to the new EMS impact rate for the mid-sized single family home as being $237.74. That is incorrect. The correct amount is $103.59, Page 69 April 5, 2000 so there's a difference. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you. MR. TINDALE: The amount in the fee schedule is correct, which is 103.59, but I wanted to make sure that there's no discrepancy between the paragraph and the table. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I had that underlined in red. MR. JONES: There are two of these, one we can have or do we need one of the sound ordinance? MR. WEIGEL: I gave you two. If I could have one back? CHAIRMAN DISNEY: I think it would be great if -- MR. SAVAGE: It would be good to have. MR. WEIGEL: You're among the first to get them. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: Thank you very much. Our final item in this marathon meeting is member comments, if we have any. If we can dispense with that item -- MR. JONES: Motion to adjourn. MR. ESPINAR: Second. CHAIRMAN DISNEY: And a second. All those in favor, say aye. Any opposed? (No response.} There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:10 p.m. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COM M ITTEE DALAS DISNEY, CHAIRPERSON Page 70 April 5, 2000 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY: ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 71 -. A~__I)ERSON ROBERT 1.670 Crayton Road CITY Naples OATE O~ WH~-"~ VOTE occunn~ -- POR 8e EUO ANDU OF VOTING __ COONTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHFR LOCAL' PUBLIC OFFICERS BRUCE ~ OF ~' ~'~ ~I~8~N. ~qMORIw, OR C~I~E~ _Development Services Advisory Co~ittee C~N~ O ~ ~ O OTHER Collier ~o~m~~ Collier County April 5, 2000 WHO MUST FIlE FORM 8B Th;$ form is for use by any person serving at the. coonty, city, cr other local ~evel of government om an appointed or elec~e~l boatit, council, l commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members ef ad¥;,scry and non-advisory bodies ~ho are presented with a votin9 i conflict o! lnleree~ uriclet Section 112.3 ~ 43, Florida Statutes. Your lesponsibilities un.~er lhe law v~,en faced with votinG, on a measure in whi=h you have a ~onfrmt of ;ateres! will very greatly depending on whether you held an elective or appo!n!Jve po~ilion. Fc.r ~his re.on, please pay close at~entioP, to the i~strt;ctions on this Iorm before octopisUng the reyes'so side and Ifilrig the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3145, FLORIDA STATUTES A person ho!ding elect~¢e ~; acpolntive county, municipa!, cr other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which ;nur~s to his or her spec;~t~. private gairt o~ loss. Each elected ~ ~ppointed IDeal officer al~;o f~ proh.:bited from k~owingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the speciEll gain or toss of a p;incipal (olher than a government agency) by whom he or she is ,'etain~d 0nctuding ,'he oareat o'ganizaiion o~ $ubstd~a,'y of a corporate pdncipa! by whi~ he or she is retained,; ',o Ihe spareel private gain or loss ot a ~elalive: or (o the special private ~ein or lass of a business eeocciasa. Commissioners c.f community redevelopment agenci~ under Sec. 163.~56 or ~63.357. F.$,, and cfficer.J of independent sp~[a! tax d,'stdcts elected o.'4 ~ on~-ecre. one-vo',e basis are not prahibited from volroe in that capacity. For purposes ol this law, a '~elative" includes only the officer's father, mo[he~, son, da~lhter. husband. wife. brother. si~ter. t~ther-in.law, mother-in-iaw. son-in-Jaw, and daughter-!n-law, A 'business a~ociate' means any person or entity engaged in or carrying o,q a business emerp;ise ~th ~he officer as a pa~.ner, jo'~,t venturer, coowear of profab', or corporate"~%sreholder [w~her~ t:,~e shares of the coq'~oratJon a~e no{ lis~ed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abe{sEeing from voling in the situations d~crk)ed above, you mu~t disclose ~he conflic;: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING 7AKEN by publiCty stating to the assembly the nature o! yo[ir into?eat ~n the measure on whlct~ you are eb~tainin~ from voting; and WITEIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form w;'th the persc~, respons;b:e for rocoreros. the mi~- urea oi t~e meettnD, who shoul~ incorpora[e lhe form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Allh,:~Jgh you must abstain from ¥o,'ing in t13e situations descalled above, you olhern4se may p~rlic~pate in these matters. ;-towever, you must disclose the nature of the conflict be!ore mariani any at~er~p[ to influence the decisio~'~, w~ethet orally o~ in wd[ing and whether mede b/yot~ or at your di,*ection. IF YOU It,TEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUC-NCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETIN~ AT WHICH THE VOTE WiLL BE TAKEN: You mu~[ complete end file thi~; form (b.Hofe making any nttem~.t to influence the decision) with the person re.'-2on~ible for rocordial] minute= ot ihe ~1eetlng. who will incorpnfate the Ion-n in the rainurea, (Continued on other side) FORM .,t.3 · REV. 119,,. PAGE 1 RPr-06-00 81%46P~ APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) - A copy ol the form must be provided {mmedialely to the other members of the agency. · T/~e form mus[ be read publicly at the next meefJng alta(the fo~m is IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING/ · You must dL~clo.~e otalt~, the nature o~ your con.~tic! in the measure belove particlpatir, g. ° You must comp~et~ the to~m and f~e Jt within ~5 days after lhe vote cccur~ with l.~e pe,'~on responsible tot recording the minut=s of the meeting, who must incorporate the I'Dtin l~, t~e minutes. ^ c=py of the form must be provided immediately to the other mernt:.er~ of the agency, and ~e form mus', be read pub!icly at the next meeting after the {orm {s filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S iNTEREST I: R. Bruce Anderson .. , hereby ~'~clo~ [hat on_ April 5_,. ,~.~._0~ (a) A measure came ~ will ccme before rr~y s~;ency which !check one) ~ inured to my speci~l private gain or loss; ~ inured to the Special gain. or loss ol my cueing= associate ~ inured to the special gain or loss ot my relative. ~ inured to the special gain or los= of WCI Communities, Inc. .. who~ I a;n retained; or ~ inured to the special ga'm or ~oss o~ is the p~'~t organization or 6ubsidiary of a principal which has retained me. ~b) The measure before my a@ency and the nature of my conflicting l~!eres! in the measure is as foilowe: which The Development Services Advisory Committee was requested to make a recommendation on amendments to the County Noise Ordinance and one of the amendments may have an impact on WCI Communities, Inc. responsibilities to make modifications to an air conditioner serving the Marbella condominium in order to reduce noise levels. Sigr~ture NOTICE: UNDER PROV!SIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §1~2.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY ~EQUIRED DISCLOSUFiE CONST1TOTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE POLLEWING: I~MPEACHMENT; REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION iN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 8B - RF.,V. I~8