Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/03/2000 S May 3, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 3, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in an LDC and RELATED AMENDMENTS SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRPERSON:Russell A. Budd Kenneth L. Abernathy Michael Pedone Gary Wrage Sam M. Saadeh Joyceanna J. Rautio Ron Nino, Planning Services Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page I May 3, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: We are going to call this meeting of the planning commission to order to hear land development code and related amendments. MR. NINO: I need to turn the microphones on. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Now can we call it to order? MR. NINO: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: It needs time to warm up, Mr. Chairman. It's warmed up now. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We'll call this meeting of the planning commission to order to hear the land development code and related amendments. We'll start with the roll call. Commissioner Priddy is not here. Commissioner Urbanik has resigned. Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Budd is here. Commissioner Wrage? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Bruet is not here. Commissioner Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Mr. Nino, I think you're on. MR. NINO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ron Nino, for the record. As you know, our purpose here tonight is to hold a public hearing with respect to the -- what we call the first cycle of the year 2000 dealing with land development code amendments. I'm going to go through each of the amendments and simply give you a brief explanation of what they are, because I know you-all read them, and ask if there's any discussion and then keep going. Is that satisfactory? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yep. MR. NINO: The first amendment is an -- the first proposed amendment is to Section 1.9.8, and it deals with other remedies, and it would have us correcting minimum tree sizes from caliper Page 2 May 3, 2000 dbh of 11 over two to three inches and a minimum height of -- instead of seven feet to eight feet, 14 feet and a seven foot crown, Does anybody have a problem with upping those standards? CHAIRMAN BUDD: I would also comment for members of the public that wish to address certain items, as Mr. Nino reads through, as he outlines, addresses the topic, looks for comments from the planning commission, if members of the public have issues at that point, that would be the appropriate time to address them so -- while they are current and on the floor rather than read through everything and trying to come back and find it as we can. So, just follow along with Mr. Nino and the other staff presentations, and at the conclusion of their presentation, stand and we'll recognize you and hear your comments. MR. NINO: The second amendment is a proposed amendment to the rural agricultural district, and essentially what it does is it will allow the retail sale of produce at a conditionally granted nursery. Example, the one on Pine Ridge Road is a conditionally granted approved nursery. Within that function, they want to sell produce as well as nursery products. We don't have a problem with that, and we're recommending that to you. Incidentally, it's been to the -- I'll also advise you that these things have been to the DSAC and were applicable to EAC. This staff recommendation has been reviewed by the DSAC, which is the Development Services Advisory Council. It did not go to the EAC because it was not applicable to their role, and we recommend approval. That's basically all it does. So, if there's no question on that, we'll go on to the third item, which is an amendment to a number of sections. It's an amendment to the C4 district and to the RT district, and what we are purporting to do here is to increase the setback requirement for buildings in the C4 district and the RT district from basically what is now allowed at 75 feet in the C4 district -- if you were to build a hundred foot building, ten stories high, the setback under current regulations would be 50 feet. This amendment would increase that to 75 feet in both the C4 and the RT districts. That is in response to concerns expressed by the Board of County Commissioners that we have not provided for sufficient restrictions in terms of setback on buildings that could be a hundred feet. Page 3 May 3, 2000 That plus the introduction of a floor area ratio to hotels and motels is proposed by this amendment. Currently, motels and hotels are regulated at 26 units per acre when it's in an activity center and six -- 26 units per acre. It has always been the position of staff -- and I don't know why we took this long to get around to it, that it's really not appropriate to talk about hotels in terms of dwelling units per acre. I mean, dwelling units mean people live in the things. It's more appropriate through the standard housing, and our first shift from that notion, as you'll recall, occurred with the assisted living facilities, and in regards to those, we said, yeah, it doesn't make sense to talk about dwelling units when we are talking about housing in which you end up at two units per acre and finally end up in a bed, in one room and a bed, and we adopted a .45 floor area standard, which is a regulation that tells you how big a box you can build on the property, how much square, total square floor area can be contained on that property, and depending on the market you're aiming at and the floor areas that you require per the rental units would determine the number of units per acre you're going to get, and we're not concerned with what that number is. We are simply concerned with establishing that maximum intensity that you can place on the property. Our recommendation had been four five. We took that to the Development Services Advisory Committee, and they expressed a concern that there was no assurance that the 4.5 would not, in fact, be a diminution over the number of units that you can currently get under our current system, and -- and -- and so we went -- so, we went and did a survey of the five last hotels that were built in Collier County, and Io and behold -- I don't even have that result with me. I thought I did. Lo and behold, the ratios were over 4.5 in three of the five. As a matter of fact, the Doubletree Hotel was at .51 something, and -- we then inquired with the City of Naples, and we found that the Hilton and the Staybridge were actually at .77 and .71, but in the real world, they did equate with about 47 to 45 units per acre. Now, it was our opinion that we didn't think the board would want to jump from -- because, while you say you eliminate 26 units per acre, it's always there in your mind, so it becomes a -- it becomes a silent factor. Page 4 May 3~ 2000 The upshot of that analysis is that we agreed with the Development Services Advisory Council today at about 3:30 that a more appropriate floor area ratio would be 0.6, and so to the extent -- to that extent, we're -- we're agreeing to a revision of the report that's in your packet relative to the 0.45, we're saying about to be made 0.6. I don't know if there's anybody that wants to debate that issue here. So, that is the upshot of that amendment. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Is that why on our summary sheet there's not a recommendation? MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Because you just chatted with the Development Services Advisory Committee today? MR. NINO: Thank you for pointing that out. That's correct. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Nino, what does that equate to in units per acre? MR. NINO: It will become the function of the size of the units that that motel developer thinks is what the market wants. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: You gave the example of one -- MR. NINO: There are none. There are -- I can't give you a Number. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I was just curious because you have the example of the one in the City of Naples at .45, and that equated to about 48 units per acre, and I'm just curious -- MR. NINO: No, no, no, that was .77. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Point seven seven. MR. NINO: Point seven one equated with 45 to 47 units per acre. Our -- the -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: The .6 would -- MR. NINO: -- the five that were in the County that were at higher than 4.5 all had 25 point something or 26 units per acre. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And after this discussion with DSAC, did they all agree or was there some dissension? Did you get 15 votes in favor of the point -- 0.6? MR. NINO: I didn't count the number. They all agreed. Oh, I'm sorry, one abstention because that abstent -- because he was involved with a hotel. Page 5 May 3~ 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO.' Thank you. The next amendment is to 2.2.16 1/2, which is the business park PUD district. I was hoping David Weeks was here, but what we are doing here is clarifying the uses that are industrial and those that are commercial. Remember, BP district is a hybrid industrial commercial zoning district, but its primary focus is industrial, and the concern that is reflected in this amendment is that you couldn't develop the entirety of a business park zoning district with commercial uses, and indeed, this sets the limits of 30 percent. You can't have more than 30 percent of a business park zoning district devoted to the commercial uses, which are considered accessory use -- secondary uses as opposed to principal uses. So, this amendment breaks down the uses into principal uses, which are primarily industrial in nature; secondary uses, which are commercial in nature, and establishes a percentage distribution. There was no objection to that from the DSAC. They agreed with the report as proposed by staff. The next amendment deals with the minimum yard requirement. This proposal would reduce the setback requirement for industrial districts, and the reasons, I think, are well enunciated in the reason for the change section to the staff report. For some reason, quite frankly, I'm at a loss to figure out how we ever introduced a 50 foot setback to begin with in the industrial district. It really doesn't deserve any greater setback than our commercial setback, and that 25 feet tends to bring it in line with -- with the -- with the commercial district. In addition to that, in addition to that, we are changing the side yard requirement. Currently under our ordinance, we allow a zero side yard requirement, and that has been very difficult for us to deal with, quite frankly, because one, it -- it -- it doesn't acknowledge the buffer requirement that we normally require, and there's no guarantee that the next property owner is going to offset their building a sufficient distance to create a desirable space between building relationships, and staff is convinced that that original zero lot line requirement came from a conclusion that there were going to be -- there was going to be party wall Page 6 May 3, 2000 construction, but it wasn't worded that way, and as I've said, we've always had a problem with it, and our proposal is to retain the zero lot line but to specifically require that it can only be used where there is assurance of a party wall or abutting wall condition, or on a unified site development plan where they're putting two buildings together and it's a unified ownership and perhaps, which happens from time to time, they come along and say, gee, we changed our mind, we want to replat this property, and they put a lot line right down the center of the wall, this allows that to happen. It provides more control than we had before over the previous condition, which allegedly allowed the zero lot line development in the industrial district. Is there any comment to that? I know you have some comments. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think there's a typo here. MR. NINO: A typo? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: On Page I of our summary, it says from 50 to 35 feet. MR. NINO: That is a typo. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And everything in front of it says 25. MR. NINO.' That is a typo. It should have been 50 to 25. That is a typo. As a matter of fact, Mr. Gochenaur brought that to my attention today, and I changed it on mine, but I forgot to tell you about it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's okay. I just wanted to get it in the record. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: You were right, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Making sure we were paying attention. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Sometimes I wonder if we can pay attention. MR. NINO: The next amendment, you saw this -- actually, you saw this a couple of cycles ago, and we had to pull it from the package at the last minute because the growth management plan changes were not in place to allow this amendment to go forward. This is the amendment to the PUD section that allows the introduction of neighborhood commercial facilities to serve PUDs relative to their size. There is an acreage relationship to the size of the PUD, and it also -- since the thrust of this is that Page 7 May 3, 2000 they're supposed to be convenience type commercial uses, we've listed those uses specifically that qualify as neighborhood commercial uses. If there's no discussion of that, I'll go on. The next one is the change to 2.222.20.3.3, add a requirement for site improvement plan approval for zero lot development. We have a lot of PUDs that permit zero lot lines, a zero and ten or five and five, and we're not sure -- we have difficulty in our permitting function in the sense that we're not sure that we are not issuing -- we have, it's been noted, that we have, in fact, started though the tract at zero, and all of a sudden -- or five and five, and all of a sudden, the last lot decides they want to go zero and ten, and it just doesn't work out anymore. There isn't the opportunity to assure that there's ten feet between buildings. So, this amendment is to say, look, developers, if you have a PUD that permits zero and ten and five and five, when you decide to use the zero lot line option, you give us a plan upfront that commits all the lots in that tract to the same zero and ten, zero and ten, and this -- and our assurance of getting that is, making sure that happens is to require the application with a site improvement plan. Is that right, Ross? If I'm wrong, tell me, guys. The next one takes up a lot of pages. You'll be happy to know that you really don't have that much before you when you account for the fact that the airport overlay district itself takes up about 30 pages of this packet. I think it's important -- I think this is going to be a surprise to Lisa, but can you just summarize where this comes from, the reason why we're dealing with this or do you want Don to do it? MS. LeBLANC-HUTCHINGS: It doesn't matter to me. MR. NINO: Since you're the primary author, why don't you do it. Lisa -- Lisa LeBlanc-Hutchings is with the Airport Authority. MS. LeBLANC-HUTCHINGS: Good evening. Basically, the amendment to the airport overlay district provides air space protection and land use compatibility in relation to the normal operation of the airport and the public airports within the whole county. Page 8 May 3, 2000 This came as a result of the 1996 noise compatibility study, and as a result of that, we implemented many different avenues that essentially reduced our noise contours on the airport. We have since updated the maps twice since then, and we are going through another revision right now, and the maps shrunk the contours to the point where they are almost on the airport for the 65 LDN contour. What we want to do is ensure that the old 65 contour is still intact and provide the same protection as previous. By doing that, we needed to add the zone D, which essentially is the old zone C. So, we are still protecting the same amount of land, and that protection, essentially it provides for soundproofing and residential development within the noise zone, provides some restriction if people do want to build in that area, and it also provides notification as well. This -- this amendment does have some other issues which are outlined. There are some safety issues that are included. There are some heliport zoning that was added that was never in the original ordinance. We've updated two maps, six definitions and the language to bring it into compliance with Florida Statute 333 and the Federal Aviation Regulations Chapter 77. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: It's not a big deal, but isn't runway four and two two basically closed in Immokalee, has been for some time? MS. LeBLANC-HUTCHINGS: I don't know. These amendments -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I notice -- I don't think anybody is going to read these and try to use it, but I just -- I notice all the way through all these amendments -- MS. LeBLANC-HUTCHINGS: Yeah, Mr. Jury (phonetic) did review these, but I'm not responsible for that airport, so I can't speak on his behalf. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I just bring up the point that I think that -- MR. NINO: These amendments are only for the Naples Airport. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I understand, but it's got all the rest of it in here too. MR. NINO: Those are -- those are -- that's current regulation. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Commissioner Wrage is a pilot, Page 9 May 3, 2000 and he flies out of Immokalee's airport. That's why he's interested. MR. NINO: Incidentally, these amendments have been reviewed by the DSAC, and even sometime, presentations were made to them by Airport Authority personnel, and I think the DSAC did have a grasp, firm grasp of what were the implications of these amendments, and they recommended them. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Question, so really the point of all this is to reduce noise levels in a particular area? I really must admit, I did not understand this particular set. MS. LeBLANC-HUTCHINGS: What the noise zones -- it didn't reduce it in a particular area. The noise zone, the 65 contour shrunk to the point where it was almost on the airport. We wanted to preserve the land that was previous that was the old maps. We wanted to continue to maintain that area, and that's the new zone D. MR. MURRAY: This is the old map. THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, your name? MR. MURRAY: My name is Don Murray, principal planner, and this is the old map showing the old contours for the 65 LDN noise levels, and you'll see when I put this next one on that it has actually shrunk down a little bit, especially narrowed a little bit and also taken off the other runway areas. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, that was -- MR. MURRAY: Plus the level has reduced to 60. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That was Page 52 in our handout, and we're looking at Page 53 now? MR. MURRAY: Right, the new one. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm supposed to be able to see a difference here? MR. MURRAY: That's why I put these on here. They are probably a little cleaner than what they have. This is the old one on the screen. She has one -- she has one with color isolines. If you'll give her a second, she'll put it up here. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I guess my question is, since we always hear so much about noise from the residents and all, is this going to do -- be something significant? Is it going to be effective? Are we going to stop having complaints from the people that talk about the airport noise for Naples? Page 10 May 3, 2000 MR. MURRAY: Truthfully? MS. LeBLANC-HUTCHINGS: I wish. No, I don't think this is going to reduce the complaints, but what it does is it preserves the land that was in the original documents. These maps were done in 1993. Our new noise contours have reduced, but the land that was under the old ones -- if we put the new maps in without changing them, without adding this noise zone, it would allow all that land to have different sound reduction levels. So, we wanted to keep it the same in that area. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Is that a good thing or a bad thing? MS. LeBLANC-HUTCHINGS: It's a good thing, a positive thing. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: In whose opinion? MS. LeBLANC-HUTCHINGS: In a planning -- in land use planning. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, if it's a good thing, it's good for me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: It's good for me, and the public doesn't have a concern -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm surprised that no one is here to fight it. MR. NINO: Remember that airport regulations are -- are intended to protect the integrity of the runway approach. I mean, you either -- you either do that or you're saying, let's get rid of the airport. I don't know that Lisa mentioned this, but these regulations are also prerequisites to favorable funding decisions from Federal Aviation administrator. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And that seems reasonable. I'm just surprised that with this amount of -- what appears to be impressive change to me who really doesn't have a lot of background in this, I'm surprised that there's nobody here that talks about airport noise that's here to say yes, they like it or no, they don't like it. I mean, do -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, that's why we have a second hearing. If they're not here, there's no one to address the item, I'm comfortable moving on. If somebody has an issue, there's a second hearing, and that's how the process works. I can't make Page 11 May 3, 2000 a claim for somebody that doesn't have an issue. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I guess we can't. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I have an issue in that I like airport noise but I hate boom boxes, okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I don't like those weed blower thingies (phonetic). MS. LeBLANC-HUTCHINGS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. NINO: The next item is the Santa Barbara commercial overlay district. Again, as a result of recent amendments to the growth management plan, the growth management plan provided specifically for the establishment of a Santa Barbara overlay district. If you-all recall, that's that area that lies on the east side of Santa Barbara, north of the Parkway, and in that area, we are setting up a specific commercial district with the limited range -- a more limited range of commercial activity than you normally would get in your more intensive commercial districts. This is not that far, basically, from a neighborhood -- neighbor types of business. The next amendment is to the off-street parking and loading section, and under that section where you're attempting to install an off-site parking lot which may not be zoned commercial, the current regulation, which is residential, the current regulation would require the commercial lot to have a 25 foot setback from the lot from the parking lot which would be on a residential property, and quite frankly, we always thought that that setback, the 25 foot was really meant to be a setback from a property that was really residentially used, not a parking lot that is accessory to the business. I mean, it's a parking lot and supports that business, it's always going to be a parking lot. So, we felt that 25 foot requirement was excessive, and this would reduce it to 15 feet. The next amendment is to the -- hold on, I'm going to get lost here -- is to the Section 2.3.4.11.2.C.2, and it has to do with eliminating the requirement that to have an off-site parking lot, the current requirement was that it would have to be on a lot that is zoned commercial or meets the locatiohal criteria for the growth management plan, which means that it would have to be zoned commercial for all intents and purposes. What happened here is that under the infill, commercial infill district where we Page 12 May 3, 2000 allowed -- Fred, I need help on this one here in terms of what it is. I'll have Fred explain it. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. The basic intent of this was that if a parcel proposed to be used for parking exemption could meet the commercial infill criteria, the easiest pattern wouldbe to rezone it to commercial. A parking exemption was intended for a parcel that would not meet commercial infill criteria, but through the public hearing process, the board determined that it could be used for parking for an adjacent commercial structure. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Did I hear a word that it has to be adjacent to the property though; not across the street, not across an alley, those kinds of things? MR. NINO-' No, within 300 feet. MR. REISCHL: Well, there are 14 or so criteria. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: But that would still come -- that still has to go for public review though, right? MR. REISCHL: There are some that would be administratively approved, but those are -- and this is in today's code right now -- that is non-controversial, I guess. This -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I guess that's -- I can see where a lot of those would be controversial. MR. REISCHL: Yes, and the majority of circumstances would go for a public hearing, but, again, that's in today's code. All we're doing right now is saying that you don't have to meet the FLUE criteria. MR. NINO: What happened here is we didn't realize that when we adopted the parking exemption provision, that we really made it impossible for it to apply to any property that's zoned residential, and that was not the intent, because of this one line in here thatsays for all practical purposes, it only applies to commercial or land that was intended to be commercial on the future land use map. So that, we really didn't accomplish anything the last go-round when we set up the parking exemption section, and this is to rectify that problem. The next amendment deals with -- if you recall the last time around, we had a problem with parking -- the parking of vehicles that had such an overhang to them, that for all practical purposes they eliminated the pedestrian way, and you adopted the X map on the last go-round, and Io and behold, shortly after Page 13 May 3~ 2000 that went into effect, we had some objectors, and they convinced the Development Services Advisory Council that that amendment was ill-advised, and this amendment would eliminate that amendment and go back to the original proposition, which for all practical purposes, in some vehicles with an extensive overhang, like a truck for example that backs into the space, for all practical purposes exempts the sidewalk. Let me say that staff does not support this amendment. However, we bring it to you because the DSAC had recommended approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It looks to me like it's a step backward. I think the X diagram is much more aesthetically pleasing and these problems ought to be worked out, not at the expense of the landscaping or the width of the sidewalk. MR. NINO: We entirely agree with you. This is a minority -- this -- we don't agree with this amendment, but we have to bring it to you so you can -- the next meeting you can decide which version you wish to favor. I don't see anybody else here who wants to address that. The next amendment deals with some landscaping issues. One deals with staking of trees and palms. Let me say that when this first came about, there was an iljustration attendant to this. It would have been iljustration number one. As a result of our meeting with the landscape professionals, they didn't like the idea of being tied down to a specific iljustration, so the iljustration got deleted. Consequently, we didn't have to renumber the following iljustrations so that the next two amendments which purport to change the number of the iljustration really isn't applicable -- correct, Nancy? However, one of these amendments, Amendment Number 2.4.4.17 does introduce a new iljustration which we want you to deal with. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ron, 2.4.2, Page 80. MR. NINO: Page 80 introduces an iljustration which we would like you to deal with. We have -- we feel that there are holes in our current regulations that deal with the protection of interior parking islands, and this is an attempt to strengthen the requirement for interior enclosures of landscape islands. Page 14 May 3, 2000 MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. MS. STUDENT: I have two clarification points. I've just recently completed my review of the ordinance, and I can work it out with staff, but I just want to note it for the record that on Page 30 under 2.4.3.5, it states all trees and palms shall be properly guyed, braced and/or staked according to proper nursery practice. I just need a clarification of what proper nursery practice again is. The legal concern being how to interpret that and put a property owner on notice as to what that means, and I also have a similar concern on Page 36 of my iteration -- okay, I'm trying to find the section number here. It's above 2.4.5.4. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Your pages are different than ours. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: What are you talking about? CHAIRMAN BUDD: The first item is actually Page 72 in our packet. MS. STUDENT: 2.4.5 -- I'll have to give the section number then, 2.4.5.2, and it talks about approved horticulture practice, so just some clarification on that to put the property owner on notice as to what's really being required, that's all, and I'll work that out with staff. MR. NINO: Incidentally, all of these amendments have been recommended by the LDC team. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Ron, I think our numbering is different than yours. You referred to Page 80 as far as the drawing in question. Page 80 is text for me. There's no drawing. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Page 81. MR. NINO: No, 81 is the drawing. Eighty starts it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There we go. MR. NINO: Eighty and 81 and 82 is that amendment. We are now at an amendment to Section 2.4.5.4, and that merely -- this amendment and the next amendment tie in the landscaping requirements that are in the architectural section and the automobile service station section. It references -- it references them and makes them a part of division 2.4. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. Overall on all this landscaping changing, did -- did DSAC ever set up the committee that involved the various landscaping architects and contractors and all? Was that successful in -- Page 15 May 3, 2000 MR. NINO: I'm glad you asked that question. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- in getting that task force or whatever we decided to call it? MR. NINO: It did. It did. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And they all -- MR. NINO: These were all reviewed by that subcommittee, you remember, but they report to the DSAC. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Correct. MR. NINO: Yes, Nancy met with those on two occasions, and they are agreeable; aren't they? MS. SIEMION: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: They're agreeable? MS. SIEMION: Yeah. A lot of changes were as a result of -- MR. NINO: Nancy Siemion speaking. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yeah, Nancy, you need to come to the microphone in order to enter your comments into the record. MS. SIEMION: Good evening. I'm Nancy Siemion, current planning services and landscape architect, and I just wanted to share with you that we did meet on two occasions with a landscape review committee such as the one you described, and several of the changes that we have here are an outcome of that committee. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's fantastic. Thank you. MR. NINO: They didn't like the iljustration though, the tie down iljustration. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Gee, I wonder-- I bet I can guess who that was that didn't like that. MR. NINO: The next amendment deals with special event signs. We now -- we now do not have regulations. MS. STUDENT: There was just -- in doing some legal research, came across a federal case not yet in this district, but talked about making a distinction and treating different types of non-commercial signs and political ones differently than other types of non-commercial signs. This is just to bring that in line with the case law and provide a standard that's similar to the one for political signs. That's all it is. MR. NINO: The next amendment is parking and storage of certain vehicles, and Michelle Arnold is here. This is pretty straightforward with what it says. You require a valid license plate on vehicles that are in storage. Page 16 May 3, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You're messing with an old southern tradition; aren't you? MR. NINO: Do you want to add to that, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Only if there are questions. MR. NINO: The next amendment is to our dock facility section. Let me add that this amendment is further amended by removing the section that deals with non-residential dock facilities, and that's attributable to the fact that the amendment, as prepared, did not have any standards clearly defining how we would deal with non-residential dock facilities, and Marjorie had asked that that issue be withdrawn so that in the next amendment cycle we could establish those conditions that would be to determine how non-residential dock facilities get established. Other than that, this amendment, if approved, would reduce the number of times that you're going to review dock extension permits, because it's going to establish a percentage of the waterway as opposed to a protrusion of X number of feet, and I'm going to ask Ross to explain further on that. He's our master dock man, as you all know, and I didn't want him to go home and not say a word. MR. GOCHENAUR: For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. Basically what we're doing is giving some of these people in smaller waterways a break. As it stands right now, for waterways that are under 70 feet, you can only have a five foot dock with no possibility of extension. We are extending this to allow extensions to protrude as much as 25 percent of the width of the waterway but no more than 20 feet. So -- it also closes a little glitch in the code whereby somebody with a five foot dock could legally moor a boat with a 20 foot beam. There was no limit to the extension of the dock and vessel in combination. So, by making this amendment, we are hoping to cut down a little bit on some of the petitions that we really don't feel it would be necessary to review. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: What was the origin of this change? Who noticed that it needed to be changed? MR. NINO: Ross. Page 17 May 3, 2000 MR. GOCHENAUR: It sort of came to light in reviewing some of the problems people were having on smaller canals, especially a couple of after-the-fact docks where they couldn't apply for extensions because legally that option wasn't open, and when we looked at how other counties and also how the State and South Florida Water Management looked at maintaining navigability in their canals, we found that this 25 percent criteria had cropped up fairly often, and it just seemed to be a lot fairer than what we had in the codes, so we are proposing that change. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. MR. NINO: Thank you, Ross. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Now you can go home. MR. NINO: The next amendment deals with changes to the temporary use section, primarily of a housekeeping nature; however, there is a substantive aspect to this change, and that is, as you know, we currently allow temporary sales for special events to not exceed 14 days at any one time and 28 days in a year. We thought that that was, quite frankly, unreasonable, particularly in terms of multi-tenanted buildings, and this proposal would allow a multi-tenanted building often or more businesses to have a maximum of 42 days per calendar year for temporary sales. That's the -- otherwise, it's just a housecleaning effort, and it allows the planning services director to waive the fee for nonprofit organizations. MR. REISCHL: Twice a year. MR. NINO: Twice a year? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: That's bad language right now. MR. NINO: Not if it's done legally. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Oh, okay. MR. NINO: The next item is -- deals with non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. They'll comply with the then current applicable standards adopted by the federal government. I believe this comes from Tom Palmer really, not Don Murray. Was that part of the requirement, Don, or what was it? MR. MURRAY: Yes, it's just a federal requirement. It was already in, and we're moving this section to the end of Section 2.6.35. MR. NINO: Thank you. Page t 8 May 3, 2000 The next amendment deals with a special overlay district to establish certain towers within the Alligator Alley corridor. This amendment was requested, paid for by Lodestar. Our staff report took some exception to the granting of four towers. The issue went to the Development Services Advisory Council, and they supported the four star -- four towers, and we also went with the EAC -- to the EAC on this one, and the EAC didn't have a problem with four towers, and I'd like to tell you that as a result of that, staff doesn't have a problem with four towers. So, we are prepared to support the Lodestar request. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You were convinced. MR. NINO: And if you agree with that, you're lucky because it saves you about an hour of presentation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We like it a lot. MR. NINO: The next one is -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We're real agreeable. MR. NINO: The next amendment deals with an amendment to the subdivision, preliminary subdivision section, Section -- Division 3.2 of the code and is a -- again, it's -- we get so many plats and PUDs that allow various lot sizes, and the presumption is that the developer can pick and choose whatever lot size they want to implement, and we don't have a problem with that. What we want to know is if you're going to pick the lot that calls for a single family detached house with seven and a half foot side yards, we want to see an iljustration of that on the plat. We want photo-typical iljustrations included on the plat that commits the type of house and the yard requirement you're going to apply to those lots, and that's what this amendment does. It requires the developer to submit to include on their plat these iljustrations of the various applications of building to lots, because we get -- we have too great a difficulty in dealing with the amount of latitude that is allowed in the PUD without any specification as to what housing structure type is going to go on what size lot. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think you skipped one -- MR. NINO: Oh, did we? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- at Page 111. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think I've had too much caffeine today. MR. NINO: I'm trying to get there faster, guys. Page 19 May 3, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm all for that, but -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: It must have been controversial. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: The final release of liens for -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I like that one. MR. NINO: You like that one? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I really like that one. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Is that everybody or just -- MR. NINO: And we've dealt with the next one. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Utility and roadway. MR. NINO: And now we're up to the amendment to the -- again, to the platting section dealing with final subdivision plats, and Tom, would you like to make a statement on that? MR. KUCK: For the record, Tom Kuck, engineering review manager. This proposed amendment would reduce the time frame when a developer has three years to complete the improvements to 18 months, and part of this was prompted by one of the developments. We had the Twin Eagles development where they did have three years like all the others to complete the improvements, but if you have financial problems in one, then you have contractors out there that have got building permits but they cannot get a C.O. until we get preliminary acceptance. In some cases, that could go three years before we could call on the bond to complete the project. So, we are reducing that down to an 18 month time frame, really to help the builders and everybody else, and we feel that any development should be able to be completed, all the improvements within 18 months. If not, they can reduce the size of whatever number of lots they are platting, but, again, it's to try and provide some protection to somebody that's building a new home and to get a building permit, and, again, they can't get a C.O. until we give preliminary acceptance, and if you've got somebody going into default, instead of waiting 36 months or whatever, we're compressing it down to 18 months. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Fine. Ron, I think we've skipped over the added requirement for developers to provide final release of lien. MR. NINO: I thought I just did that. Tom, do you want to talk about that? CHAIRMAN BUDD-' I thought he was doing final subdivision. Page 20 May 3, 2000 COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Yes, he did, Mr. Chairman. So, that one that we skipped initially is still skipped. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. That's what I thought because I missed it. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And that's section, Section 3.2.6.5.3, Page 111. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' You might have done it, Ron, but we all missed it, so -- MR. NINO: Tom, do you want to review it again or review it, period? MR. KUCK.' Yes. What we are requiring -- and currently, whenever they convey utilities over to the county, at the time we give preliminary acceptance, we require a waiver of lien from the contractor, we're expanding that because we feel that if they're turning not only the utilities, but say the water management system, the storm drainage, the roads and everything else, that we should also get a waiver of lien from the developer that the contractors have been paid so in the event we take over those facilities or the homeowners' association would, that they wouldn't be encumbered by a lien from a contractor, and it's, I think, providing protection to all the contractors that are working there because if they haven't been paid, I don't believe they are going to sign a waiver of lien. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Although my experience has been on a number of occasions that I was requested to sign those as the utility contractor and not be paid, and they found out pretty quickly that that didn't make any sense to me because it is a legal document. It isn't binding. So, I'm glad to see that you're strengthening this. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I agree. MR. NINO: Everybody is happy. We are on Page 116, the ability to waive the minimum planting heights. Anybody have a -- it's pretty self-explanatory. Again, next one is vegetation removal. It just corrects the name of the state agencies, and that's pretty self-explanatory. The next amendment, I'm going to ask Barbara Burgeson to deal with these next amendments. Let me point out that the EAC has dealt with these, and they recommend approval for staff, and Barbara will explain them. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Page 21 May 3, 2000 planning services. This is adding language to the preservation section of the land development code to reference an amendment that I'll be explaining towards the very end of the evening, which is adding additional protection to gopher tortoises and also to make a correction in that section to require that when there's mitigation or impact to existing native vegetation on-site, that those mitigations are the same for larger parcels as they are for the smaller parcels, which the land development code amendment about two or three years ago added to one section but it was delinquent in adding to the second at that time, and we didn't recognize it. We needed to also add that to the larger tracts for anything over 20 acres. So, that just is -- well, it's requiring that there's a consistency for mitigation size plantings on the small parcels as large parcels and cross-referencing the gopher tortoise language. So, that's on 118. On 121, this is clarifying the definition for areas of exotic vegetation removal, requiring that exotics be removed on golf courses prior to preliminary acceptance, and that's in the land development code at this time already in another section. This is just clarifying that in the exotic vegetation removal section. On 123, we are, again, correcting required minimum tree sizes. The mitigation sizes that were added to the code two or three years ago weren't cross-referenced in all the sections, and this is cleaning that up. Just want to make sure that if somebody is in violation, they are not required to plant smaller tree sizes than someone that's going through the right process and has to go through litigation. 124 is just simply removing an example that was in the code that wasn't clear. It was confusing, and we wanted to just take that out. 125 is another area we're correcting, the required minimum tree sizes. 126 is Michelle's. I'll sit down and then come back for the last. MR. NINO: Yeah, the biggie. You have to wait for the biggie. Michelle, we are dealing with the estate lots. You were -- you were -- incidentally this -- wasn't this one that the DSAC had Page 22 May 3, 2000 a problem with? By a six to five vote, they disapproved it, so -- MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. We have made some modifications to the version that the Development Services Advisory Committee sought in response to their concerns. So, I have that for you right now, and I'm going to have Alex Sulecki, my environmental specialist, review for you what our purpose of this amendment is, okay? MS. SULECKI: Good evening. For the record, Alexandra Sulecki, environmental specialist and code enforcement department. The purpose of this amendment was to deal with a certain kind of clearing in a more realistic way for the property owner and also in a way that allows for more expeditious enforcement. In the estates, we often have single family owners, lot owners who attempt to do some of the work themselves, and they start clearing before they get their permits. Our current code allows for us to double the permit fees, that's if they are getting a permit pretty much, you know, close to that time they clear, but if they're clearing way in advance of permits, like a year or so, the code says that we have to require them to revegetate. Well, revegetation is extremely expensive, and in those particular circumstances where it's the acre envelope that they would be allowed to clear with their building permit, it doesn't make sense to force someone to spend a lot of money to revegetate that area when a subsequent building permit will allow it to be cleared. So -- so, this will allow for us to apply a -- double the permit fee, an average permit fee, and that's something that we changed in response to one of the concerns of the DSAC. Before, I had in there a formula based on the cost of the clearing, and we changed that to be more current with our -- the penalty that we now have under the building permit section, and that would allow us to charge double permit fee, close the case and then to track that clearing through that case through any subsequent clearings. In other words, I can't clear an acre, sell you my property and you can clear another acre. So, we would have a record of the clearing. The case would be resolved, and then that person could obtain their building permit at whatever time in the future they wanted. Page 23 May 3, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there any provision in the code that a landowner could get a clearing permit prior to application for their residential building permit? MS. SULECKI: No, sir, you could only get an exotics vegetation removal permit. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So, if someone is going to clear that one acre allowed prior to the building permit, the only way they could do it now is to do it illegally and then pay the double -- the double fee fine? MS. SULECKI.' That's right. CHAIRMAN BUDD-' So, that's an after the fact permit? MS. SULECKI-' It's kind of an after the fact fee -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: After the fact fee. MS. SULECKI: -- but it would only apply to those instances where one acre is cleared. When above an acre is cleared, that's another -- that's a violation that would remain, and we could enforce the revegetation of that, that area above the one acre. I'm not sure if I'm being clear about that. The current code says that in the estates, you can clear up to one acre with your building permit. So, this amendment would deal with only certain types of violations; only the clearing of that acre envelope and by property owners in advance of permits. A lot of the people in the estates, I find, try to do work themselves. They have relatives in the building trade, so they have their brother or brother-in-law out there clearing the lot, and there's no contractor involved who would, perhaps, know the county code and say, wait a minute, you have to have a permit. So, they really -- they don't know that they need one; at least, that's what they tell me. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I would suggest -- I think this is an appropriate plan, and I would suggest in view of the fact that now we're recognizing that we're not going to force them to replace vegetation that will be torn out again, so I think this is good -- since we're one step closer, I think it would be worthwhile for development services to consider some procedure by which someone can legally apply for a clearing permit at the site of a future home, because they can't -- they can't do that now. Page 24 May 3, 2000 MS. SULECKI: Right, because clearing is tied to use. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right. MS. SULECKI: The whole purpose is not to clear the land prior to a permit. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right, but we're effectively, if I understand this, done -- administratively changed it so that they can clear illegal -- MS. SULECKI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- but then they're going to pay an increased fee, and they're not going to revegetate. MS. SULECKI: That's correct, but then when they do develop it, they're still going to have to pull the building permit, and they can't clear more. It's still only that area that's to be cleared. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MS. STUDENT: I have a-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: I have a concern. I was just handed the revised language, and that's just where the development services director at his discretion may impose a penalty. There's no standards to guide what his discretion might be as to whether or not to impose thepenalty, and I think that we -- that's problematic when we talk about some discretion on the part of a public agency. When they're employees, you need to have standards to guide it, because they, in an unbridled fashion, could say, well, I decided not to do it. So, I don't know if that's just something that incidentally found its way in there or not, but that needs to be cleaned up. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is that something you could work out with staff in the two weeks before our next hearing? MS. STUDENT: I think so, uh-huh. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: What do we define as clearing? MS. SULECKI: Removal of any vegetation that's a ground cover, midstory and trees. Anything woody is cover. The vines are not cover. The grasses are not cover. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And the DSAC was -- voted against staff's recommendation by a vote of six to five? MS. SULECKI: Yes, sir. They had a concern -- they had two concerns. One was about the application, how the fine or the fee, how it would be Page 25 May 3, 2000 calculated, which was what we addressed in the change. The other concern was that we would be treating people differently based on the fact of them being homeowners and not developers. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Just to address your point about going closer to allowing a provision to clear without a building permit, that was something that they were concerned with. They didn't want the penalty to be so affordable that it would encourage people to clear without a -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: And that's what I'm understanding, is that although you don't have a permitting process, you've got a de facto process in that you pay a nominal fine, and you get where you want it to be. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: And you just made the comment about the difference between a private citizen and a developer that would know this or someone that would know this, and I don't know what the mechanism is for penalty, but I see they're going to -- some people are going to abuse this, it looks to me like, and I don't have a recommendation how to change it, but -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Well, now we charge twice the permit fee. The mechanism is to make it higher, three times, four times. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: How many dollars are we talking about? MS. ARNOLD: The -- the -- what we're trying to do is, the code already allows us to charge twice the permit fee, but the problem we have is what do you do with those citizens that are not planning -- they don't -- they're nowhere close to getting their building permit? They haven't gotten their plans and all of the things that you need to -- and this will allow us to charge twice the permit fee now as opposed to later. They still have to go through the permit process later on when they are closer to getting -- and they'll pay their permit fees again, plus all the additional impact fees and that type of thing. So, we're kind of addressing those property owners that are nowhere close to getting a permit. Rather than leaving our code cases open for a year, we're giving that penalty now as opposed to later. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just have a question that I'm not sure is actually related, but say, for instance, you have an estate Page 26 May 3, 2000 envelope anyway? MS. SULECKI: MS. ARNOLD: clearing. piece of property that has a whole lot of cabbage palms on it and you want to sell those, is that considered clearing if you took them off and sold them so they could be planted somewhere else because they're going to get wiped out when you do the building That's considered clearing? Yes. It doesn't matter why you're clearing, it's still COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And you individually selectively went in and took one plant, that's still -- I mean one species, that's considered clearing; fascinating. And you'll go out and look and check this out every so often out in the estates? You try to enforce this? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, there's a few million trees in the estates. They don't have resources to chase people who pull a tree as a practical matter. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No, I mean if they've taken a whole bunch off of a piece of property like two or three or four acres. MS. SULECKI: My understanding is that that's one of the reasons that this code was developed in 1991 when it was, because we had people coming over from the other coast doing exactly that. They were removing trees from property and taking them to the other coast and selling them. So, part of the vegetation protection and removal ordinance to protect all of the vegetation on a site prior to a permitted was use. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And if an activity occurs on a site that the owner has no knowledge of, what happens? MS. SULECKI: That's a different story. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's a different story. MS. SULECKI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Generally, they find out about these sites from a tip, because they, obviously, can't monitor the millions of trees in the estates. So, if somebody tips them off that there's some illegal activity here or somebody is handing out trees, then they investigate. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions, concerns, comments? Thank you. Page 27 May 3, 2000 MS. SULECKI: Thank you. MR. NINO: Let's see, where are we now? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Page 127, 3.11.2. MR. NINO: That's the biggie. MS. BURGESON: I asked if you wanted to do it. MR. NINO: No, no, that's the biggie. MS. BURGESON: Again, Barbara Burgeson, planning services. It's on Page 127. I worked on authoring this with Bill Lorenz, who's the natural resources department director, and the origin of this amendment is from the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council as a result of a few projects, basically, that have gone before them and before the predecessor board, the Environmental Advisory Board, where gopher tortoise protection was lacking, and there was a concern for the survivability of the species on the site. Most recently, I think that your board had heard the Little Palm Island presentation. That was one that drew attention to this concern. Our -- our hopes by adding this language in here is that we will -- it will allow staff the ability when there's gopher tortoise species on-site and habitat on-site, to require that that be priority in terms of protection of the uplands on that property. We are not asking that greater than the percentage of native vegetation that has to be retained be done in order to protect the tortoises or the habitat, but where that falls into that acreage that we're already requiring, that be the top priority for protecting that area. We are allowing that some of the tortoises can be retained on-site in that habitat. We are allowing that there be some consideration for some of the tortoises to be relocated. We are also allowing for the final option, and preferably in this order, the final option being that if there's not suitable habitat on the site, that the gopher tortoises could be relocated off-site, but even under that circumstance, we are hoping that if there is any ability at all for that habitat remaining, to be maintained or kept on-site, that they address that. One of the examples, maybe the easiest example to understand where that last circumstance would come into play is where we had a piece of land developed a couple of years ago Page 28 May 3, 2000 off of Vanderbilt Beach, the north aisle, Vanderbilt Drive where 30 percent of the site was wetlands. They weren't required to do any additional protection of existing native vegetation. However, they had a large number of gopher tortoises on-site, and the County, even though the State issued an incidental take permit, the County protects the tortoises. The way they addressed that was to identify some very small areas that were approximately 50 feet by a hundred feet. They penned the tortoises in. Once development is complete, we don't expect that on that particular property that there's any ability for those tortoises in that exact area to survive. So, we want to make sure that doesn't happen again in the future. So, that's where this is coming in, to make sure that there's additional direction on staff's part, if there isn't suitable habitat, and suitable habitat is defined in this ordinance, that we can require that they remove them from site. Also, it goes a little bit further than that and requires that where we are not addressing gopher tortoise protection right now except in the land development code in very general language and in the growth management plan in very vague language, we are asking in Number 7 on Page 130 that the single family homeowners on parcels where we will not catch those gopher tortoises during our review, for instance, as an example, Golden Gate Estates, we are asking that they be responsible for identifying and protecting gopher tortoises on their property. We are not overseeing that. What we are going to be doing is putting together, according to this, some guidelines. They should be fairly comfortable for the property owners in the estates to follow. We are not asking that they set aside a minimum acreage or that they relocate specifically off-site, but that they do the very best that they can to protect the tortoises on their own property, and then we're adding into this also, penalties which are identical to the penalties in the section prior that are already existing in the land development code for sea turtles in the sea turtle ordinance section. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Questions or comments? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Did you have much discussion at the DSAC committee on this? MS. BURGESON: No. We had a longer discussion in terms of explaining, for instance, that we had some consultants coming Page 29 May 3, 2000 in. We worked with them. We did some minor language adjustment. I spoke with a lot of the independent environmental consultants and a few of the people from the private sector. I expected more people to be concerned from the development community, but I got very, very little negative response from that. The comments that I received were more from the environmental community that -- that this might be a good first step, but it wasn't what they had hoped to see in terms of a final -- a final improvement to the land development code, and the Development Services Advisory Committee, in the first go-round that they heard it, approved it without any recommended changes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have comments from the public on this item? MR. NINO: Yes, we do. MS. BURGESON: Also, one other real quick comment. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. MS. BURGESON: The Environmental Advisory Council heard it this morning, that's why that's not on your summary, and approved it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Yes, ma'am? MS. PAYTON.' Good evening. My name is Nancy Payton, and I'm representing the Florida Wildlife Federation, and we are offering strengthening amendments to the proposed ordinance. I'd like to give a little background on gopher tortoises and what we are talking about and the habitat that we are going to be dealing with. Gopher tortoises are a very long-lived animal; 40, 50, 60 years. They dig burrows in sandy, dry soils, and it shares with many other species their burrows and immediate environment; insects, reptiles, amphibians and mammals. In fact, it's documented that 360 other species share the gopher tortoises' environment, and the gopher tortoise is recognized as a peace known umbrella type species for this mini ecosystem. So, we are not just talking really about gopher tortoises when we're dealing with this ordinance. We're talking about 360 other species, some of those endangered. The preferred habitat of the gopher tortoise is dry sandy soils with low growing, scrubby plants so they can eat them, and Page 30 May 3, 2000 this is the same type of habitat that's primed for development, and there are four options that are presented when dealing with gopher tortoises when their homes, their burrows are confronted with development. The first option is, and it's the best one, we protect the habitat that's on-site. The second option is to relocate tortoises to another area, but there are a couple problems that are associated with that; upper respiratory diseases that are fatal, the fact that we have limited habitat at this time to transfer them, to relocate them, and I brought with me a map that was produced by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission that identifies potential gopher tortoise habitat in Collier County, and that habitat, as you can see, is primarily in the same area that we all want to live, the coastal area, and there are not a lot of options to move those gopher tortoises at this time to other sites and areas that they would do well. Third option is that the developer can obtain an incidental take permit from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and that, in essence, is a kill permit, and since they've been issuing them in 1986, there have -- through 1999, that's the data I have, there have been 38 permits, incidental take or kill permits issued in Collier County. That's the sixth highest number in the State of Florida, and that authorized the killing of 1,254 gopher tortoises and destroyed 1,353 acres of prime gopher tortoise -- that is occupied gopher tortoise habitat. In exchange, the gopher tortoises got 327 mitigation acres someplace; yet I've been able to determine. So the tradeoff isn't very good for gopher tortoises in relocation or with the take permit, of course they're going to die. And then there's the option of the mitigation banking, and that's okay for protecting gopher tortoise habitat, but it does nothing for the individual gopher tortoises that are destroyed on-site, and they are often entombed or crushed or they wander around on the roads or they encounter children, people that want to eat them for soup, whatever. It's not a very good situation for gopher tortoises, and it also doesn't protect the habitat that's used by all these other species. I'll quickly go through the proposed changes we had. This morning at the EAC, there were a number of people that spoke, Page 31 May 3, 2000 and unfortunately, they are not here tonight. What would have been best at EAC but they didn't have time, was to allow those that were interested, Florida Wildlife and others -- there was a representative from the Conservancy, Michael Simonik spoke. Tim Durham spoke. Tim Hall, who is also a biological consultant, spoke, raising concerns about gopher tortoises. There was a professor, Dr. Norma (sic} -- Nora Demours (phonetic} from Florida Gulf Coast University that spoke about problems associated with relocation. So, there are people that are concerned about it, and they were expressed this morning, but the time frame for EAC didn't allow them to reflect on what was being discussed this morning. What would be ideal is that if Florida Wildlife's recommended changes and those others that were offered this morning could -- could -- the organizations' individuals that offered them could sit down with staff between now and your next hearing and try to work out a lot of these concerns, and maybe we can address them and strengthen them without me going through all these requests that we have at this time. That's one option, or I could proceed on, which I'd be happy to do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's a good one. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: That's a very good option, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Is someone not offering that to you? MS. PAYTON: At the EAC, that was not offered because they --their schedule was such -- not that they didn't want to do it, but their schedule was such that they couldn't do it in the time frame that was available to them is the best I can understand it, and they wanted to take those concerns and deal with them during the next cycle, but we have an opportunity through the planning commission to sit down, because there's this two week time frame. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Nino, is staff agreeable to that? MR. NINO: Let me say that we did address that this morning. I mean, unfortunately, we do have a narrow window, and I don't know that we can accomplish all that Ms. Payton wants us to accomplish in that window. I'm surprised that there's not at least some recognition that sometimes a half a loaf of bread is better than no loaf at all, and Page 32 May 3~ 2000 that this amendment, indeed, makes substantial inroads into the concern that people have for the protection of gopher tortoises, and no -- no amendment is etched in concrete. Every cycle can revisit it and make it stronger and stronger and stronger, and we are saying that that's not an unreasonable position for us to take at this late stage. After all, these amendments have been under review for the last three months, and with all respect to Nancy, this is the eleventh hour, but it doesn't close the door to achieve what Nancy and her group wants to achieve. MS. PAYTON: I don't understand the purpose of a hearing then, because that's when you bring forward your concerns. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I have a question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Saadeh. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Ms. Payton, did you have ample time to discuss that with staff as opposed to today's meeting in the EAC? MS. PAYTON: I provided our comments, as you can see on the cover, that -- the same information I -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: But that's dated yesterday? MS. PAYTON: No, it's dated Monday, but it was late Monday. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: But Mr. Nino is saying that this has been ongoing for months, and for us to make a decision now when you had ample time to discuss it with staff, I think that should have been done prior to this meeting and the EAC's meeting. MR. NINO: There is another issue at stake. We can make minor changes. However, substantive changes have to be reviewed and approved, recommended by you, and your next meeting is May the 17th. The board cannot deal with substantive changes that you have not had an opportunity to review. So, we are not talking about the board's window. We are talking about your next meeting. It's got to be done in two weeks. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: The thing -- you see, you are, under state law, the land development regulation commission, and you have quite a bit of authority under state law to supervise this process. The concern being that if there are substantive changes to this that you don't review, there's a problem with the state statute, because when you complete your review with the LDC, one -- Page 33 May 3, 2000 part of the finding is that it is indeed consistent with the comp. plan. If you never see it, it's substantive, you never get to meet, we've got a little procedural flaw there. That's the problem, and the EAC couldn't -- since they only meet once a month, they would not see the changes again until their June meeting, and then you-all would be done with it, and it would be going to the board, and that's why the idea of this is a beginning, and we'll take it up in the next amendment cycle, which does begin in July, you know, was put out there to avoid a procedural flaw that somebody can come back and attack us on later. MS. PAYTON: One comment is that I -- I pulled down the proposed ordinance on Wednesday or Thursday last week and did my changes, and I want you to know that it's different than what was distributed today. So, there were changes, and there are changes that are being made to this document, and I think it's unfortunate that there's this reluctance to, at the very least, sit down in the next two weeks and try to address some of these concerns. CHAIRMAN BUDD= Ms. Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I guess I have two comments. What was the vote for EAC to approve today, number one? Did they vote unanimous? MS. BURGESON: The vote was unanimous to -- MS. PAYTON: No, there was a dissent; Jay Richard Smith. MS. BURGESON= Right. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And then, Nancy, the process by which these get really carefully reviewed, and we're talking about every word that's written, is through the Development Services Advisory Committee, their land development regulation task force. Did you take time to go talk to them when these first came up? MS. PAYTON: No, I didn't realize they were in this land development process. They didn't have a hearing as EAC did or you're having. You know, I'm getting a little frustrated here. It's a hearing. People are supposed to come forward and bring their concerns, their recommendations, their suggestions, their comments, but what I'm hearing is, hey, don't come to a hearing unless you've discussed this with staff, got it all straightened out, and you just come to a hearing and say, yeah, we all agree. Page 34 May 3, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm having a little trouble with that concept too, other than the fact that when you go to the Development Services Advisory -- their subcommittees, I mean, they really work through all this, and that's a very good place to get a lot of things changed, because it's an easy forum to discuss within. So that even if you disagree, you can still come forward and say, we change these various things. So, in the future, for some of them that's this extensive, I would strongly suggest that representatives go to those meetings. I would highly recommend that, but in this case, you're talking about a hearing that you've provided us information, and I'm willing to look at it, but the attorney is suggesting that if it's substantive, I'm going to have a little trouble -- MS. STUDENT: If you can do it in two weeks, that's not a problem. I think staff is saying that's a -- that's a problem they have -- there's no -- because you still get to look at it and recommend something to the board, but I think that problem is one that staff is having. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Here's where I think we ought to go. I think it's very good advice, as Ms. Rautio mentioned, that if you can plug into the process quicker with the DSAC and EAC, that would be better, but those opportunities are past us now, so certainly you have every right and every expectation coming at this time that we would review the information and go through things. I think what we need to do is for staff to work with Ms. Payton, go through those things, and certainly, as staff has done many times in the past, if there are substantive changes that you cannot endorse, you'll bring them before us, and you'll say, they requested this and we don't agree. Then it is up to the planning commission if we do agree, we'll disagree with you, but certainly to whatever extent you can review these things over the next two weeks, find incidental changes that you're very amenable to, we'd like to hear about it, and those things that you object to, we'd like to hear about that too, and in two weeks when we have our second hearing, the planning commission can make its recommendation and hear everything, and then we'll pass it on to county commission for their May 31st hearing, because we have a schedule, and we can't get off the train. Page 35 May 3~ 2000 MS. BURGESON: I have no problems with that. The only concern that I have is that this ordinance originated by the EAC, and if there are substantive changes, they will not have the opportunity to hear them again. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So then we have -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So, that's what Marjorie said, that it would have to go back through the EAC. MS. STUDENT: Well, I didn't -- I didn't necessarily say that you have to go back through the EAC unless there's something in the ordinance that -- MS. BURGESON: It originated from there. MS. STUDENT: -- says that, but it just can't bypass you either, because that's a matter of state law, and when it's substantive change -- now if it's minor tweaking here and there and putting clarification language in, a lot of things that I typically do, that's not a problem, but if there's a substantive change, you know, there can be a problem. MS. PAYTON: I'm not suggesting it bypass you. I'm just asking in that two weeks -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: And we need to do that, and I would expect that if we have a substantive change and EAC has not had a chance to look at it, that that would be part of your presentation in two weeks to say, here it is, here's what was requested, we are not comfortable in recommending an endorsement of this particular issue, whatever one you come up with, and we'll take that as part of our evidence in two weeks when we hear it, and if we're also not comfortable, then we won't recommend it to the county commission. MS. BURGESON: Do it as a side sheet then? CHAIRMAN BUDD: I think so. There's a lot of issues here that were just presented, and I think a side sheet analysis would be very appropriate in those things that you feel comfortable and do not, and certainly, I think Ron made a good point, half a loaf is better than none. Everything that we're comfortable with that we think is ironclad, properly reviewed, properly approved, we want to make it go through. We don't want to undermine the entire amendment by throwing things in very late in the game, so I think we'll look at everything that's been reasonably reviewed. MS. BURGESON: How do you recommend that -- I know that these changes will address the environmental concerns, Page 36 May 3, 2000 environmental organizations. I'm concerned that then if you get in front in two weeks, you may have the other side of the group -- I need to -- I think when I meet and work with these organizations, that I need also to meet with the private consultants to make sure that these aren't things that are added in that they are unaware of. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Certainly, and anything in the two week time frame that you don't have sufficient time to hear all sides of it, I would expect you to not make a staff recommendation to endorse. We'll start with Mr. Wrage. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just a comment. I don't want to throw -- and I read this. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water by muddying this up to the point where we finally say, you know, hey, we can't address all of this, now come back in six months. I mean -- and that would -- if we -- if it's a minor change, minor change is fine, but I think we're looking at more than that, and I'm not comfortable unless EAC is comfortable with it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Saadeh. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: My suggestion is, I'm sure there are going to be substantive changes in this document, and since the other cycle is right around the corner, I would suggest that Ms. Payton and her group start working with staff for the other cycle so -- so they can have this incorporated in the other cycle, and everybody that has a say-so, including the EAC and the private sector would comment on it. I think we are trying to put too much pressure on staff to finish it in two weeks when there was ample time of three months that it could have been handled. My suggestion would be, let's have Ms. Payton and her group work with staff for the next cycle rather than putting the pressure on staff at the last minute. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Ms. Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: to each other. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, I think they can at least talk Sure. And we can come up with a, I guess you called it a side sheet. I'd like to know on one side what staff recommends and the other side what Nancy is Page 37 May 3, 2000 recommending so that we can actually make some comparison, because there may be some items here that we could trade off or agree upon pretty quickly-- MR. NINO: We'll do that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- but I do heartily want to encourage you to either, yourself or other representatives, to attend and find out when those subcommittee meetings are, because you can make a big difference. A lot of things get worked out within those committee meetings, and I gathered that the perfect example tonight was the landscaping and the buffering. We had hours worth of arguments, Nancy, about various things that sometimes didn't make sense, and it made sense to some of the people on the committee, and others it didn't because they were much more familiar. So, we got a task force of the very specific groups of people, that you had contractors and you had architects that were in the landscape business, to share their expertise, and people, apparently, listened. It took us a long time to get to that point, that we actually had more input earlier in the process to make a better product come to us, and I can see what you have here. There's a number of items that might be very worthwhile, and I encourage you to do that, please. In the next two weeks, you can talk with staff. I think that's reasonable. MS. PAYTON: Hey, I'm the one that offered it, so, of course, I want to talk with staff. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes~ sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't have a copy of our agenda for tomorrow morning, but I think our standard agenda puts a requirement on members of the public who want some written -- some document considered by us to file it, something like a week or two in advance. I'm a member of a couple of boards of organizations around town, and as often as not, people come in to a monthly meeting and plop some 10 or 15 page document down in front of you and expect you to assimilate it while they're talking, and the same thing applies here. We could well have, perhaps, done this a little better if those rules had been followed and this document filed in a timely fashion. Page 38 May 3, 2000 MS. PAYTON: Well, I didn't know there was a rule that I had to submit two weeks -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's in our monthly -- our bimonthly agendas. MS. PAYTON: But this is a planned development code hearing. It's not relating to -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: In any case, we all recognize -- MS. PAYTON: Well, please tell me what the rules are, get them in writing so the public knows what they are supposed to do. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Here's the deal. We have a schedule. MS. PAYTON: This is a hearing. I thought that's where you come and you share your information. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And you have, and what we need to do is to whatever extent is possible, staff has indicated that they would be amenable to meeting with you, discussing the issues. The things that are straightforward, we will hear in two weeks, we will most certainly approve. Those things that are too much too late, we will roll them right into the next cycle and start working on them and getting them reviewed. Without continuing to go into circles and beating this to death, we accept that presentation and expect it to come forward in two weeks and hear it in more detail. MS. PAYTON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just want to make one further comment. This type of thing happened with the sign ordinance. I was involved in lots of committee meetings before it ever got to come to a land development code change. So, this is the same type of thing. When we follow the process, you get a much better product. MS. PAYTON.' Well, I'd like to know what the process is, and I guess I'm confused. You know, I've been doing this for eight years. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Have you checked with staff about the process? MS. PAYTON.' We can talk about this afterwards, but I've been doing this for eight years, and this is the first time I've ever encountered -- well, actually the second time I've encountered today that hey, don't come to a hearing until you got it all straightened out. Page 39 May 3, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: And Ms. Payton, that summarizes it very well. We could talk about it afterwards and work among ourselves. For our purposes tonight, we've heard the issue. We'll hear it again in two weeks. We go on to the next item, Ron. MR. NINO: Yes. The next item deals with definition of changes, dock facility, establishing a definition for floor area ratio and commercial equipment and commercial vehicles. If there are any questions relative to those, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, they are pretty self-evident. Michelle is here to talk about the commercial vehicle and commercial equipment, which has its derivation in enforcement problems, a need for greater clarity. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I don't hear any questions by anyone on the board, and if that concludes your presentation, there's no further public input -- yes, Ms. Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's not public input, but I want to go back to Page 69, the off-street parking. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Me too. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Wasn't that the one that you said you disagreed with what came forward? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But the sheet that we have says approved per staff recommendations from DSAC, and I think that's just the opposite of what should be on this sheet. MR. NINO: Correct. Thank you. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, wouldn't we normally have what -- a little capsule summary of what the DSAC said they didn't like about this or they said they liked and you didn't like? MR. NINO: Do you remember what that was, Fred? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: This is the one that has to do with the off-street parking and loading. MR. NINO: My 69 is the overhang. Which one -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Yes, that's -- the parking overhang, that's correct, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Parking overhang? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Correct. That's the one that you said that we have approved it in the past, but DSAC had a problem, and they brought it back to us, and they didn't agree with your recommendation, but yet, the summary reflects Page 40 May 3, 2000 approved per staff's recommendation under DSAC's recommendation -- MR. NINO: That was an error. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- which was confusing to Commissioner Ratio and myself. MR. REISCHL: That is an error on the agenda. The staff recommendation is against approval. DSAC recommendation is for approval of the amendments. Staff recommends keeping the code the way it is today. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So, if we make a motion on the board here tonight, going with staff's recommendation, that would be against DSAC. MR. REISCHL: Against the adoption of this amendment, correct. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: MR. REISCHL: Correct. MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. And keeping it the way it is. But point of order, I don't think we are making any motion tonight. This is just the first hearing. So, we'll make sure, by you pointing that out, which is very good, staff will pay special attention so that in two weeks, it's all tied down and we can make an appropriate motion. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: They can correct the -- MR. NINO: The summary will be corrected. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And correct the summary, but if there's anything we need to know, why they were so adamant about it and why you're so adamant against it, I'd like to see those maybe as a side sheet. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being no further business. MS. STUDENT: I think Ms. Payton -- I think Ms. Payton has something to add or is it closed? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Please make your comments. MS. PAYTON: I offer this as another option, and hopefully staff will find this one as acceptable. There's a lot of controversy, there's a lot of interest in this gopher tortoise proposed ordinance. We didn't follow the rules because we didn't know what the rules were. We'll make sure we know them next time. Could I offer this, is that rather than pass a less than Page 41 May 3, 2000 adequate ordinance, one that knowingly has some weaknesses, my recommendation is that we withdraw the gopher tortoise recommended ordinance and work together, because next cycle starts in a month, and hold workshops? You can hold a workshop. The EAC can get drawn back in, because they had concerns. They -- they were struggling with what to do today, and they felt in a bind. We can bring in all those different interests that staff is concerned that they can't get together in the next two weeks, and we'll have a far better ordinance, and everybody will have worked together, and hopefully there will be consensus, and it's somewhat similar to the sign code that went the same route, but ultimately ended up a far better, happier code, and so I offer that as a possibility for the gopher tortoise. I'm willing to wait. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, that's something that could be worked out with staff, and in two weeks, we'll hear their recommendation. MS. PAYTON: I thought we could resolve it tonight. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, it's a -- no, no, we have to hear. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We do have to hear it again, Nancy. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right, we have to. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So, talk to staff, see what you can do and -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right. We'll take action in two weeks and -- MS. STUDENT: They don't take action tonight. CHAIRMAN BUDD: There being no further business, we are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:45 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRPERSON Page 42 May 3, 2000 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Dawn Breehne Page 43