Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/15/1990 W Naples, Florida, January 15, 1990 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners In and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governin~ board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. tn ~ORKSHOP SISSION In Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Max A. Hasse, Jr. VICE-CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Richard 8. Shanahan Burr L. Saunders Anne Goodnight ALSO PRESENT: El.thor M. Skinner, Recording Secretary and Hoffman, Deputy Clerk; Nail Dorrtll, County Manager~ Tom Olltff, Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cu¥1er, County Attorne¥~ MarJor~e Student, Assistant County Attorney; Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator; Bob Blanchard, Comprehensive Planning Manager; Barbara Cacchione, Project Planner; Jeff Perry, MPO D~rector; Stan Lttsinger, Growth Management Director; and William LaVsrt¥, Plarlller. ' 'O00()J' ' Page January 15, 1990 Tap~ #1 PROPOSED ZONING RE-EVALUATION ORDINANCE - TO BE HEARD BY THE CCPC AT TH~ EARLIEST ~VAILABLE DATE; WRITTEN COMMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED BY JANUARY 31, 1990 Legal not/ce having been published in the Naples Dally News on January 10, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, a public meeting was held to discuss the County's proposed Concurrency Management Ordinance and Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance aa required by the Growth Management Plan. Assistant to the County Manager Olliff said this meetin~ has been scheduled as a public workshop and the Planning Commission has been invited to discus.~ the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance and the Concurrency Ordinance. He said the entire Growth Management Plan was drafted in order that government might be able to build the infrastructure that supports development on a more balanced and planned way. He explained that Collier County has 136,000 zoned and undeve- loped residential units presently and 3,400 acres of zoned, undeve- loped commercial land. He said, based upon the zoning, Collier County cannot provide the infrastructure to meet the established levels of service, and added that growth management requires that the County attempt to balance those land uses that are there w~th the County's ability to provide the infrastructure. Ne said that the current Capital Improvement Element, in order to keep up with development, In Collier County over the next five years, will coat a m~n~mu~ of 2?6 million dollars. He noted that zoning re-evaluation ~n th~a program does not stop development and does not el~minate landowners' ability to make a profit, but asks that zoning and subsequent develop- ment comply with the Comprehensive Plan that the Board of County Commissioners adopted and establishes a certain level for quality of life. He said this community calls for Collier County to manage growth, and without some sort of a realistic re-evaluation of the zoning that ts on the ground today, the Growth Management Plan w~ll not balance and will not work. He said this program is designed to I 0000 Page 2 January 15, 1990 and bring Into balance zoning and the County's ability to provide infrastructure. Responding to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Olliff said there are 16 approved DRI's and a majority of 156 PUD's that would be exempted from the zoning re-evaluation program under this ordinance. Mr. Olliff said of the 136,000 approved residential units, 62,000 ars within DR,'s. Responding to Commissioner Volpe, Growth Management Director Litsinger said the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) is based on the land use map as it currently exists and the intent of the CIE is to provide Infrastructure within the urban designated area. He said the CIE provides enough infrastructure planning and projects to provide for 2§,000 to 30,000 development units that are planned within the next five year period. Comprehensive Planning Manager Blanchard said zoning re-evaluation has four basic steps. He said the first step after the inventory of the property is to determine if properties and zoning ars consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the second step is, if the properties and zoning are found to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, to see if they are compatible with surrounding land use patterns. He said if the properties are inconsistent and incompatible, staff takes the step of determining if the property has vested rights. He said if all these steps result in negative declara- tions, staff proceeds to determine a zoning designation to be placed on the property and to carry out the rezoning process in conformance with the re~ulations used currently with rezones. Mr. Blanchard referred to a chart outlining the Zoning Re-evaluation Program and said that, over the last five months, staff has been conducting the inventory of all existing PUD'e, all commer- cially zoned parcels, and regularly and conventionally zoned residen- tial parcels that are vacant in Collier County. He said there ars 156 approved PUD's tn Collier County and 1,425 vacant commercial parcels. He stated there are 1,864 conv~.attonally zoned residential parcels ' 00004 Pags 3 , 3anuary 15. 1990 that are RMF-6 zoning and above. He said next, staff will determine if the approved zoning on these properties As consistent with the Growth Management Plan and if it is consistent, development continues ba~ed on existing zoning. He explained if the zoning ts inconsistent, staff enters into an up-front exemption review based on criteria established in the proposed ordinance. He said after this step the actual zoning re-evaluation would begin. He said if the exemption is granted development can proceed, but if the exemption ia den~ed, staff w111 send out for all remaining properties a Notice of Rezoning planning community by planning community, notifying the developer that the property is subject to a change in zoning and what zoning category is going to be recommended and stating the developer has the oppor- tunity to apply for a vested rights determination. He said the deve- loper will be notified if he does not apply for a vested rights determination that staff will proceed to rezone the property. He said there are twelve planning communities in Collier County. Mr. Blanchard said if a developer does not choose to challenge the recommended change in zoning staff will hold workshops, planning com- munity by planning community, to explain the process and answer questions for individual property owners and then the property will go through the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. He said after the property owners receive the Notice of Rezoning there will be a period of 120 days that they can appeal the recommendation through the Growth Planning Department. He said a property owner can apply for a compatibility exception or for a posi- tive determination of vested rights. He explained that the criteria staff will use to Judge a compatibility exception ts whether the existing zoning is compatible with surrounding land uses and develop- ment. He said if staff grants a compatibility exception the existing zoning will remain and the property owner can proceed with development based on that zoning. He said if the exception Is denied at staff level there is a 30 days period when the decision can be appealed to ' 00005 Paga 4 ' January 15, 1990 the Board of County Commissioners who wi1! have an opportunity to review the compatibility exception decision and hear the argtmenta. If the compatibility exception ia denied the property will be rezoned con- sistent with the Growth Management Plan, he stated, or the zoning will remain if the exception is granted. Mr. Blanchard said the ordinance establishes a Hearing Off~csr if a property owner applies for a Positive Determination of Vested Rights and there will be a public hearing whereby there will be a deter- mination o~ whether the property meets the t~st for a Positive Determination of Vested Rights, which is a legal concept. He said the Hearing Officer will make the determination as to whether there should be vested rights or not. If vested rights are determined, the zoning remains and development proceeds based on that zoning, he explained, but if the determination is that the property is not vested that dsc~- 'sion can be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners and they make the decision. He said if the property is not vested the property is rezoned consistent with the Growth Management Plan. Responding to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Blanchard said there is nothing in the proposed ordinance to allow a person to get an early determination for his property. He said once the Board of Co~tnt¥ Commissioners has adopted the ordinance it will be clear for come in and determine whether they meet the up-front exemptions, but staff will not be able to make early determinations of exceptions or vested rights. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Blanchard said approved PUD~s there are approximately 138,000 dwelling units which includes the DRI's. Mr. Blanchard said staff has estimated within the coastal urban area on the Growth Management Plan Map there ~s approxi- mately 32,§00 vacant acres that could be developed and part of that includes the 136,000 units which are zoned and un-built. Mr. Bill Merrill, III, of Iccard-Merrill0 said he Aa working under a contract regarding the land development regulations for Collier 00006 -Page ~, Sanua~ 15, 1990 County. He said he initially went through a compliance agreement with the Board of County Commissioners and then commenced drafting the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance when he was instructed to evaluate the legal aspects of both those ordinances as well ae review any comparable ordinances throughout the Country and the State. He said the legal research has been done with ~ga'rd to vested rights, Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance and compatibility as that term is used throughout the State. He said an inventory was prepared for vested rights and worked with staff to provide them with a spread sheet that laid out the number of unite, types of development and types of permits. He said following the rial draft there was a staff public workshop with public comments and a work group was established which met repeatedly with developer representatives and four meetings were held with Community Development representatives. He said drafts were exchanged of the entire ordi- nance with specific focus on the vested rights criteria, the com- patibility exception criteria, the compatibility determination criteria and the exemptions. He explained that the exemptions are the key aspect to the ordinance and the development community felt they should be placed up-front, which was done. Mr. Merrill said regarding vested rights, agreement was reached that a vested right is an act or admission of the County that someone acts upon and the second part is that the property owner is relying in good faith and the third part is that the property owner has made a substantial change tn position or have incurred such extensive obliga- tions or expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights acquired. He explained how staff, the development community and he agreed upon the criteria, beginning with the strict letter of the law and concluding with the fairest ordinance Collier County can adopt and that the development community can agree to. Mr. Merrill said the proposed ordinance is similar to other ordi- nances around the State and Country, adding that Hillsborough County ' 00007 Page January 15, 1990 recently adopted a Zoning Conformance Ordinance that is very similar to the proposed ordinance for Collier County. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Merrill said there ara two aspects to compatibility, noting that the compatibility determination included In the exemptions up-front contains very clear standards with regard to what ts compatibility. He said it was felt that the stan- dards provided In the section under compatibility determination make any property that would fall in those standards so clearly compatible with the surrounding neighborhood that an exemption would be given up- front. He said those properties that do not satisfy the clearly defined compatibility determination will have an opportunity to come through later on after the Notice of Inconsistency and file for a com- patibility exception. He said those properties applying for com- patibility exception will come with a recommendation from the Orowth Management Department to the Board of County Commissioners whereas the compatibility determinations will be made by staff because they are so crystal clear. He said staff feels the criteria is legally defensible and staff and he have worked extensively with the development com- munity on this Item, and they have signed off on the compatibility exception criteria. Responding to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Merrill said the Orowth Management Plan indicates in its supporting documents and In the body of the Comprehensive Plan that, in essence, Collier County ham 60 years of planned growth on the books and only ten years of public facilities and staff ts trying to bring these two items into align- ment. He said the ordinance moves toward that goal but will not accomplish it entirely. Mr. Blanchard said, over the next year, staff will be dealing with urban area build-out under the new Comprehensive Plan and once staff knows what zoning re-evaluation is really doing they can come back to the Board of County Commissioners and give them a better idea of how it Is working. 00008 Page 3anuary 15, 1990' In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Merrill said that u~der the compatibility section there is a section on development agreements. He said a Development Agreement Ordinance for Collier County has not been prepared but that is part of the land development regulations that will be submitted with the Subdivision Code. Mr. Merrill referred to Page 8 where the exemptions begin noting that to a large extent the DRI's are exempt as well as certain PUD's, certain subdivisions, building permita and certain applications that have been in the process so long as a delay by the County. He said the focus of this proposed ordinance has come up to the exemption cri- teria which is extremely broad. He explained that a property owner is exempt forever, but the building permits will have to be pulled under regulations that exist at the time application is made. Commissioner Volpe suggested a tame frame be Included regarding exemptions. Mr. Merrill said there is a period of time for vested rights and each exemption expires by its own terms or by some other specified time period. Re gave as an example 2.4.1, building permits, that exemption is only good as long as the building permit is good. Commissioner Saunders asked if some of the exemptions are really vested rights issues, such as the example given, and Mr. Merrill responded affirmatively. Mr. Merrill sa~d staff included the exemp- tions where they did so a developer would not have to go through the long vested rights process. Mr. Richard Clemmer, President of the Naples Area Board of Realtors, commended staff for working with the public on the proposed ordinance. He expressed the feeling of his organization that more work needs to be done and that the definitions are too broad. He said the Board of Realtors feels the burden of proof is still on the landowner and that the County needs to accept this responsibility. He said the Board of Realtors feel there are no clear ~uidelines for existing PUD's as to whether they can continue to build, adding they should be 00009 Page 8 3anuary 15, 1990 vested from the beginning, as are the DRI's. He said hie organization feels the Hearing Officer should not be in the procese and recommended that concurrency be delayed since the public Just received the ordi- nance last week and have not given any input as yet. Mr. Garry Beyrent referred to the Naples Town Center and said the entire 40 acre center, under the new Comprehensive Plan, is not in conformance because it is not in an activity center and if this center were destroyed it could not be rebuilt. Ne said owners of property such as this should be able to go to the Board of County Comm~esioners so they could deal site specifically with properties that do not fit into the categories, and he suggested language be included in the pro- posed ordinance to deal with this problem. He referred to a piece of property he owns that falls into this category. Commissioner Saunders said Mr. Beyrent would have to apply for a rezone and a comprehensive plan change to redevelop hie property if it were non-conforming. Mr. George Keller, President of the Collier County Civic Federation, asked if the vested rights of DRI's are vested by State Statue and Mr. Merrill responded affirmatively. In response to Mr. Keller, Mr. Merrill said the vested rights of PUD's are not vested by State Statue, although it is possible for them to be, adding they fal! under Final Local Development Order Continuing in Good Faith. Mr. Keller complimented the Staff on their work on the proposed ordinance. Ne suggested Collier County start looking at how many people can be supported in the County and what it will cost for the infrastr%lcture that will be needed, adding that zoning should be t~ghtened. Mr. Larry Ingram said that the Comprehensive Plan does not address the impact that agriculture has in Collier County. He said agri- culture in Collier County uses over 90% of the potable water in Collier County but he could find nothing in the Plan to regulate agriculture. Ne suggested the Board of County Commissioners should take into consideration the largest single user of services ~n Collier ' 00010 Page 9 January 15, 1990 County, which Is agriculture. Mr. Blanchard said that the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance deals with those properties that have existing zoning that ars inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said Mr. Ingram'a points are more pertinent to the Growth Management Plan as a whole and not to this ordinance. He said the areas that are zoned for agriculture ars con- alstent with the current Plan. He said the Comprehensive Plan did address agriculture, adding the Plan has ten different elements and one ia potable water and one is housing. He said staff ts currently doing an Immokalee Master Plan that will address many of the concerns of the community that is affected In that area. He said the Regional Planning Council review found the Comprehensive Plan did address agri- culture to the extent required by State law. County Attorney Cuyler said, as far as the legal aspects of the Comprehensive Plan, staff reviewed It and It ts In compliance with the Statute and the Rules. During the ensuing discussion, Mr. Ingram made the statement that people do rely on zoning. Commissioner Goodntght said agriculture tn Collier County pays their fair share. She said the number one problem in the United States Is the quality of food being consumed, adding that foreign countries use pesticides that are outlawed In the United States. Attorney James R. Scarborough, representing krnlspertng Pines, Inc., developer of Imperial Oolf Estates, said this project, In opinion0 is an ideal example of the type of project that should be vested under the ordinance. He said there is a small amount of unde- veloped property left within the boundaries of this project but there ts no PUD or DRI for this project since there was no PUD ordinance when the project was begun. He said there ts no approved plan for the project apart from the zoning that was granted. He said he was not sure that the terminology tn the ordinance creates something his client can rely on. He said the process seems to be overly cumbersome Page 10 O0011' Sanuary 15, 1990 and in the case of his client's property there is no method for deter- mining whether the property is vested without going through the admi- nistrative hearing process. He suggested consideration be given to being able to establish a prima facie case of vesting Af the deve- loper, landowner and staff are In agreement. He said the issue that needs definition is how the property ia viewed and he asked if the staff takes the isolated undeveloped track and looks at it indivi- dually or does the staff look at the community? In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Scarborough said when there is a community that is a unified plan of development, whether or not there is a PUD Document, a DRI, or a Development Order, if the project meets the substance of the definition of a unified plan of development then, in determining consistency in the overall densities that ars permitted, they should be viewed with regard to the entire community and not on an isolated site. Mr. Merrill referred Mr. Scarborough to Page 33, noting there is a provision that allows for consideration of all the properties that are under common ownership. Tal;~ ,2 During the continuing discussion, Mr. Scarborough requested con- sideration be given to adding a sentence in the section of the ordi- nance referring to consistency with the plan and not Just vested rights. He said if by considering his client's property as a whole and its overall density, it is ccnststent wlth the densities in the plan and his client would like to take some comfort that he is in compliance through consistency and not that he has to go through a vested rights determination. Mr. Blanchard 8aid if the project was approved as a unified pro- Ject that is the way staff would address it. SeORecees: 10:45 A.M. - Reconv~ned: 11:00 A.M. at which Deputy Clerk Roffman replaced Recording Secretar~ Ski~lleree* Mr. Robert Shaffer stated that he thought today's discussion would be more specific relating to compatibility, etc., but noted that Staff · 00012 Page 11 January 15, 1990 has Indicated that the area between Naples and Marco Island, lying southeast of U.S. 41 was going to be limited in density to 3-4 units per acre. He remarked that this seems extremely arbitrary ,to him, and stated that he does not consider every piece of property in that area to be equal in any respect. Mr. Blanchard explained that this area is one that has specific limitations in the density rating system, and was approved as part of the Growth Management Plan. He indicated that this is an issue that is more appropriately addressed durlng the amendment process, but noted that there is maximum density of 4 units per acre on all new proposals that are south of the Trail, between the City and the eastern boundary of the urban area, including Marco Island. With regard to vesting, Mr. Shaffer commented that when the zoning is taken away, the taxes on those properties should be reduced pro- portionately. He indicated that he has been paying high taxes on a piece of commercial use property since 1984, and questioned whether the payment of those excessive taxes would constitute vesting of any type? Mr. Merrill replied that from a legal perspective, the payment of taxes is not an issue that a property Is necessarily vested. Ms. Rebecca Wallace stated that she owns a piece of property on which she has operated a Day Care Center since 1968. She informed that she wanted to enlarge her Center, and learned that her property was not large enough to comply with the parking requirements, noting that she purchased two lots, zoned C-4, which were south of her pro- perty. She advised that she put $40,000 down on the two lots, and has a mortgage of $1§§,000. She stated that she works 6 days a week, 12 hours per day. She explained that she has since been ~nformed that since her Center is not in an Activity Center, she may lose her zoning. She indicated that she has two options: allow the mortgage company to take back the property, and lose the $40,000, or keep the property and try to pay for it, and it will not be worth 1/2 of the · 00013 Page 12 3anuar¥ 15, 1990.~' $155,000. She noted that if she looses her zoning, it means that she has worked for 25 years, and she ts back to square one. Mr. Blanchard reported that if the two additional 10ts are used for parking requirements, etc., then they are a part of the sxketing development, and may be considered as improved property, and not inventoried. He Indicated that there are exemptions for akte develop- ment plans, and noted that Staff would have to know the partkculara before they could specifically respond. Commissioner Hesse suggested that Ms. Wallace meet with Mr. Olltff to further discuss her situation. Mrs. Elizabeth Guthrie indicated that the Goal of the Growth Management Act was designed to encourage the most appropriate uss of land, and water resources conststenk with public Interest, overcome present handicaps, and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within the total unkncor- porated are of Collier County. She stated that she hopes the Commission will adopt the proposed ordinance as lc. She ~nformed that she participated in the telephone survey last spring, and noted that 8§~ of the citizens who participated are uneasy about the pace of growth tn Collier County. Mrs. Betty Gulacsik, representing the League of Women Voters of Collier County, stated that she served on the Growth Management Citizens Advisory Committee and the committee to evaluate and select the consultants to draft the ordinances to carry out the County's Growth Management Act. She reported that 80 new ordinances and/or changes of present ordinances would be necessary to bring th~a Plan into compliance. She indicated that today's 6th draft of the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance should be accepted, pretty much as At ~s now. She stated that if one has a piece of property w~th a f~nal Development Order, and building ~s taking place, there Aa no problem, but if a piece of property was purchased 20 years ago, and ~t ks Just sitting there, it does not give an Individual the right to ea¥.~t ks 0001,1 Page La 3en~a~, 15~ 1990 commercial and he will develop it in that manner. She explained that she does not believe that any additional time should be spent on redraftlng the ordinance, since any ordinance under the Growth ;', Management Plan can be amended at the next amendment cycle, and if something appears to be wrong, it can be rectified. She advised that Rule 935 allows a provision for any citizen to sue the County, if the Growth Management Act is not adhered to. She stated that the League strongly recommends the passage of good zoning ordinances, and noted that the ordinance as presented today, ts a good workable ordinance. Mrs. Charlotte Westman, representing the League of Women Voters of Collier County, stated that she echoes the comments made by Mrs. Guthrte and Mrs. Gulacstk. She questioned when the proposed ordinance will be presented to the Collier County Planning Commission? Mr. · . Olltff replied that this will depend on today's outcome, but It will i,~'! be presented as soon as possible. Mrs. Westman stated that this ordinance does give credence to the · 'i!', business of fairness, and noted that the section on exemptions may !') apply to Mrs. Wallace. She called attention to Mr. MerrIll'a state- :]i: ment, that Collier County has 10 years worth of public facilities and 60 years worth of potential development on the books, and noted that the two do not Jibe. She explained that she does not feel that any "Leaguer" could be called "anti-growth" but rather, that "managed growth" ts preferred. She indicated that the State has confined Collier County to a certain period of time, and noted that there has been sufficient opportunity for the vested interests to address them- selves. Attorney Anthony Plres, Jr., voiced concerns that this draft will be heard by the Collier County Planning Commission this coming Thursday. He noted that the drafts were made available last Friday morning. He indicated that he feels that the advertised notice regarding the public hearing before the CCPC should have contained greater specificity since it merely states that the Planning · ;;i ' [ 00015 Page 14 3anuary 15, 1990 Commission is meeting this Thursday at 8:30 A.M., to consider recommen- dations to the Board of County Commissioners for Land Development Regulations which will implement the Collier County Growth Management Plan. He suggested that the Commission may wish to have Staff recom- mend to the CCPC that the public hearing on these two very Important ordinances be continued and, tn the future, that the advertised noti- ces contain better specificity. County Attorney Cuyler advised that there is nothing tllegal about the advertisement for today's workshop, however, he indicated that the ad for Thursday's CCPC meeting could have been more specific, but taken as a whole, they do meet minimum sufficiency. Commissioner Shanahan stated that he is concerned that there ts minimum sufficiency, and said there he feels that there should be maximum sufficiency. Commissioner Volpe indicated that there seems to be a legitimate concern that the public hearing which is to take place on Thursday at the CCPC meeting has not been sufficiently advertised, and that there has not been sufficient opportunity to review the drafts. Mr. Ptres replied that he believes that there are still some aspects of the latest draft from the consultants, which needs to be fine tuned. He Indicated that the uniform plan of development concept has been discussed by members of the development community with the various consultants, but it does not appear in the latest draft. He noted that additionally, he feels that the exception provision with regard to compatibility ts too narrow. He explained that In the con- sultant's draft, a developer would have to walt an extended period of time before he could obtain a developer's agreement. He q~leattoned what the Property Appraiser's opinion is relating to the impact on the valuation of properties and the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance? Property Appraiser Coldtng informed that there is no q~lestlon tn his mind, that there Is a cloud hanging over a lot of propert~ as of 3anuary 1, 1990, that definitely affects property values. He 00016 'Page IS 3anuary 15' 1990 indicated that there is a lessening of the value of these properties. He advised that he is attempting to ascertain what kind of taxable values the County will lose. He explained that zoning and location is what creates value. He stated that the Statutes do not indicate that any properties in Collier County have to be rezoned, and noted that he sees nothing wrong with Naples today, due to the orderly growth that this Commission is dictating. He explained that ha believes that U.S. 41, Goodlette Road, Airport Road, and CR-951 ara commercial arteries, and this ts where the commercial properties should be. Mr. Coldtng referred to the "use it or lose it" philosophy, and advised that this will cause the developers and builders to build a rash of buildings, that one day will result in a complete slum, out- aide of Naples. Attorney Dudley Goodlette stated that there are significant dif- ferences between the first draft, and the most recent draft of the ordinance. He advised that this draft has been discussed with not only the developers, but the lenders, Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Council, Real Estate community, and the Collier County Builders and Contractors Association. He indicated that there ts a cross section of folks who are very interested tn this subject, and have retained his law firm, Mr. Varnadoe's law firm, and Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll& Peek's planning firm, to provide input as the best they could. Mr. Goodlette affirmed that this ts a very complex and important ordinance, noting that he has reviewed all 6 drafts of same, and it still contains provisions, the Impact of which, creates uncertainty in his mind. He stated that he has concerns relating to the exemptions, the concept of a unified plan of development, and various aspects regarding the criteria for vesting. Mr. Alan Reynolds, of Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soil & Peek, Xnc., stated that he ts trying to provide the Input of the non-legal pro- 00017 Page 16 January 15, 1990 fessional. He expressed that in his opinion, the biggest fault of the first version of the ordinance was that it was so highly legalistic and technical, it did not relate to the customary day to day practice of development review and approval in Collier County. He recounted that the various involved groups and Staff have worked together to make significant strides toward an ordinance that is more understan- dable, and relates to how the process works in Collier County. Mr. Reynolds commended Messrs. Olliff, Blanchard, and Merrill, and noted that they have been extremely cooperative, and they have agreed that there will be differences of opinions, on some of the ~aeuee. Mr. Reynolds indicated that he would like to speak to the issues of how the ordinance will treat unified plans of development, and how it will define what constitutes a commencement of construction. He stated that at the first workshop, suggestions were made to take the properties that have legitimate and reasonable expectations, and get them out of the process as early as possible. He noted that this would reduce the tremendous work load of etaff~ reduce the expenditure of consulting and legal fees that will be required to determine if there is some form of approval~ and it will help to make this understandable to the general public. He informed that tt was felt that the most important issue was to establish upfront exemptions, noting that they are not designed to relieve anyone from their obliga- tion to comply with public facilities. He indicated that the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance will be the proper mechanism to address whether or not permits will be issued and whether there ie sufficient capacity. He mentioned that the biggest deficiency in the current draft of the ordinance is how it addresses unified plane of development. Mr. Reynolds referred to a displayed chart, and went through the various steps from the time a piece of land of ia acquired, to the PUD approval process, through the Subdivision Master Plan approval pro- cess, to the construction plan and plat preparation process, to the ,. 00018 Page 1T 3anu&:r~, 15, 1990 additional clearing, earthwork, and other types of permits which leeds one to the co~encement of construct/on for Infrastructure which approximately 3 years. Commissioner Saunders questioned at what step of this process Mr. Reynolds feels that the project should be exempt from the vested rights determination? Mr. Reynolds stated that this depends on the dates that appllca- t/on was made, the dates that approval was received, and the dates that construction was commenced. Re indicated that In depending on when approval was received, anything from a final plat to a subdivision master plan approval to a PUD zoning can constitute a final local Development Order. He alleged that if construct/on ts commenced before April 1, 1990, an exemption would apply. He further noted that if an application has been filed between Januar~ 1, 1989, and January 1, 1990, and development ts commenced prior to the one year and two year windows as reflected tn the Growth Management Plan, ' one would be entitled to an exemption, but if commencement of construction does not occur within 2 years, there Is no exemption and that Individual is back tn the process. Tape #3 Mr. Merrill advised that most of the exemptions, as suggested by the developers, were included in the draft, with the exception of one or two. Mr. Reynolds stated that he hopes that the Commission will allow the continued efforts of Staff and the planning and development com- munity to resolve some of the details tn the ordinance. He related that Collier County has always stressed the value of unified plan of development, as opposed to piecemeal development. He affirmed that there are situations in unified plans of development where development tracts are surrounded by open space and, tn that instance, they may be inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan if they arm reviewed ~n Isolation. He disclosed that Mr. Blanchard pointed out that tn the 00019 Page 18. County's review of consistency, the entire project will be considered, and noted that this was the first time that ha heard thAe expressed, and he ia very glad to hear this since it will relieve a fair amount of concern. He stated that the concern still remains that a tlnifted plan of development ts something different that a piece of conven- tional zoning, and those projects should not be considered to be re-evaluated under this ordinance. In answer to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Blanchard advised that tn reviewing a unified plan of development, considerations should be given as to how tt gained County approval. Be stated that if a PUD la reviewed as a unified plan of development it will be reviewed in its entirety for consistency. He indicated that tn the case of PUD's which contain commercial development, he noted that the Plan Includes PUD commercial designation, and if the commercial portion does not meet the criteria as set forth in the Plan, it will be found incon- sistent, and the residential portion of that project may be found to be totally consistent. Commissioner Saunders questioned how long the determination for the vested rights process would take? Mr. Merrill stated that depending on the availability of Staff and a hearing officer, this would be handled on a case-by-case basis. He indicated that he feels that the actual process would take about 2 months, but noted that practically speaking, it may take longer, depending on the number of applications that need to be reviewed. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Merrill advised that compatibility issues do not go before a hearing officer, however, he noted that public input is allowed at the Board level. Commissioner Saunders questioned why there is a different proce- dure set up for the vested rights procedure? Mr. Merrill indicated that it was felt that because of the legal nature and the technicalities involved with the vested rights cri- teria, that these decisions should be made by legal counsel. 0OO20 page ', ,~. eanuary 15, 1990 Mr. Reynolds stated that the exception relating to compatibility ia only eligible for properties that are already zoned, es obvtouei¥, it ia a down-zoning issue. e,e~ Recess 12:40 P.M. - 12~55 P.M. eec Attorney Bruce Anderson remarked that one item that hag not been addressed ts the April i, 1990 deadline. He indicated that the existing Growth Management Plan language states that until a notice of inconsistency and potential rezoning is given to a property owner, "development permits shall be granted for uses permitted by the zoning classification in effect at the time of plan adoption." He noted that as a result of the Settlement Agreement with the Department of Community Affairs, that language will expire on April l, 19900 informed that the rules for determining how one becomes vested, hove not yet been determined; property owners do not know what the r~lee are, and they do not know whether to proceed with their developments, and the banks are uncertain tn loaning money since they do not know if the project wll! be vested. He explained that there are ~lbota~tial financial risks for everyone. He suggested that the County act April 1, 1990, as the deadline for filing an application for a final local development order, and if the application ie received by that individual would be under a predetermined time period in which deve- lopment would commence, and if this was not done by that dote, he would be subject to zoning re-evaluation. Commissioner Volpe stated that those same people did not know what the rules were when the Plan was adopted, and they have had all thio time to make some type of dec~elon as to whether the~ w~sh to move fo~ard. Attorney Anderson mentioned Ma. Wallace's quandry about her Day Care Center, and explained that by allowing her until April let to file for a site development plan for the expansion of the Center, she would he covered, but she would be under a time deadline tn which the expansion would have to take place, or be subject to zoning re- 00021 Page 20,, January 15, 1990 evaluation. Mr. Anderson Indicated that another item in the ordinance deals with development agreements, and he is suggesting that people come in and voluntarily rezone their properties, Instead of being forced to do this. Attorney Donald Ptckworth stated that he endorses Mr. Andereonts concept relating to applications that are tn progress at the time the ordinance takes effect. Mr. Ptckworth advised that Attorneys Anderson and Goodlette have provided him with a copy of an alternative draft of the proposed ordi- nance which ts similar to the Countyts draft In many respects, but is different in others. He suggested that the definitions of the approved and unimproved properties, as offered by Mr. Dudley's group, be adopted. He stated that this would result in many situations being taken out of the process upfront, wtthout going through the exemption process. Attorney Jim Stesky reported that his comments are directed toward what will happen after the ordinance is adopted. He stated that what will result will be those who desire to control growth on one side, and those with uncontrolled growth on the opposite side. He advised that his concern relates to language in the ordinance which indicates a negative tone toward development. *e'Recording Secretary Skinner replaced Deputy Clerk Roll.an ess Mr. Robert Duane, representing Hole, Montes and Associates, said there is no process specifically spelled out tn the ordinance where an early determination can be obtained as to whether property is com- patible if the property ts not exempt from the provisions of the ordi- nance. He said if a piece of property la In one of the twelve planning communities that may not be looked at for 12 or 18 months, under the ordinance a person cannot apply for a compatibility excep- tion until he has been notified by staff at which time another three to six months may transpire and then the Comprehensive Plan has to be 00022 Page January 15, 1990 amended which could take another year. He said people who have incon- · latent zoning with the Plan but are compatible should have an oppor- tunity earlier in the process than one, two or three years. He suggested staff broaden how Development Agreements will be used in the ordinance, and encouraged language to be included in the ordinance that would permit any person with property subject to zontng re- evaluation to be able to use a Development Agreement and go before the CCPC and Board of County Commissioners and get an early determination as to whether that property could be used consistent with the present zoning or whether the zoning needs to be modified. Mr. Merrill said staff attempted to reach a compromise by pro- riding a compatibility determination and compatibility As addressed by the staff at the time someone applies. He said with regard to vested rights determination and compatibility exception they can start after the notice has been sent regarding an inconsistency on a piece of pro- perty. He said he has no legal concern regarding someone coming in to obtain a compatibility exception ahead of time but he does not see how staff could handle the situation. i~-' of the Plan. Mr. Blanchard said staff will be processing an amendment to the Growth Management Plan during this cycle that will address when pro- perties that are found to be compatible can be considered consistent with the Plan, so each individual compatibility exception does not need to go through a plan amendment so the extra 12 months would not necessarily be added. Mr. John Farquhar, representing Ronto Development, said that the December 21, 1989 draft of the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance had pro- vided a total exemption for plats which had been approved prior to January 10, 1989 and where work had commenced and was continuing. He said the recent draft has deleted that total exemption which seemed like a fair exemption. He said there are not supposed to be any addi- tional restrictions on DRI's that were approved prior to the adoption He said the present draft ordinance adds additional 00023 Pa * 22 January 15, 1990 restrictions to DRI's which he feels are not what ts contempl&ted by Florida Statutes Chapter 163. He said only dedications or conveyances to Collier County are used tn vesting and not dedications or conveyan- ces that may have been made to the State or some other governments! body, which he felt should have the same type of dignity. Mr. Ken Reiley said the other ordinance presented ts not a develo- per's ordinance. He said a committee was formed In August consisting of bankers, realtors, developers, landowners, Chamber of Commerce mem- bers and members of the Economic Development Council which drafted the other ordinance. He said the committee has spent $80,000 on the three consultants to bring the best available people tn the community to address significant problems facing Collier County in zoning re-eva- luation and concurrency. He said the committee ts thankful that staff and Mr. Merrill has worked with the committee. He said the committee represents a large constituency. He welcomed the opportunity for the committee to work on the ordinance distributed last Friday. He said that funding ts one of the major issues facing the Board of County Commissioners and he suggested that the Board of County Commissioners consider formulating a committee with Mr. Keller's group alld others to look at funding issues. Mr. Blanchard said staff only received the committee's draft ordi- nance on Friday and that Mr. Merrill has not seen it. Mr. Lonnie Martin said he and associates have acquired some com- mercial property with the plan to develop it. He said because of the Growth Management Plan and the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance he has been put under pressure to move ahead and do something with the land. He said when he gets a site development plan he will have to be ready to start development by January 10, 199! which will create m difficult situation for him. He asked, once he gets the site development plan, could he come back tn and make an application to change that because of certain needs? Mr. Blanchard said after April 1, 1990, or whenever the Plan 000 4 Page · 3anua~ 15, 1990 :'~' Amendments take effect, no Development Orders may be issued that are inconsistent with the Growth Development Plan. He said the moat stringent interpretation would be that a new site development plan would still have to be cons/stent with the Growth Development Plan. Mr. Cuyler agreed with Mr. Blanchard and said whether Mr. Martin could get an amendment to his site development plan so he ts still exempt would depend on the degree to which the site development plan was amended. Mr. Martin referred to another piece of commercial property he owns and asked when he would have to apply for a s~te development plan before there is no more chance for properties outside the activity centers, which will be the only commercially approved properties? Mr. 011iff said the ordinance outlines the dates and would take effect on April 1, 1990. Mr. Merrill said that applications will be accepted through April 1, 1990, which is the anticipated date of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and they will also have to be approved by that time. Realtor Jack Conroy said that staff has not had an opportunity to sufficiently review the proposed draft ordinance prepared by the com- mittee. He expressed the opinion that the differences between that draft ordinance and staff's ordinance appear to be primarily the perspective of liberality versus a very strict construction. He said both parties agree zoning re-evaluation has to occur. He said, if the Board of County Commissioners has to make decisions that are going to hurt people.in order to get a better long range good, he asked that the Board of County Commissioners opt for decisions that hurt people /east, and to instruct staff to work diligently with the draft ordi- nances that have been presented and attempt to incorporate those more liberal attitude in the final draft of the ordinance. Mr. Olliff thanked the people who were members of the committee that drafted the second ordin~ce and he thanked staff for their work on the draft ordinance. ~sponding to Commissioner Volpe, he said -Page 24 Sanua~ 15, 1990'* staff worked this past weekend to review the committee's ordinance. He said staff went through the existing 156 PUD's and put them through both ordinances. He said in staff's ordinance after all PUD'a were exempt that would meet staff definition of improved and those that ere consistent with the Growth Management Plan, staff would only look at 59 out of the 156 PUD's. He said when thost, PUDte were reviewed by staff the density would be reduced by no more than 10~ or 15,000 tote% units of the 136,000 undeveloped units. He said when staff put the ~ 156 PUD's through the committeets ordinance an additional 50 PUDle were exempted by their definition of improved property, so a total the committee would look at in terms of PUD's would be 16. He said the total number that might be reduced under the commtttaets ordinance would be 3,700 units out of 136,000. Mr. Olltff said the problem staff has is that the infrastructures cannot be provided for the densities and intensity of zoning that exists presently that will maintain the level of service that has been established, so the density must be reduced. Responding to Commissioner Hesse, Mr. Olliff said if he ts asked to weaken this draft ordinance he would submit it to the Board of County Commissioners but he would not recommend it to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Olliff said the second ma~or difference between etaffte ordi- nance and the committeets ordinance is that outside of the 120 exempted PUDts there are also 405 subdivisions and an undetermined number of straight multi-family units that are exempted. He ee~d they are exempted from zoning re-evaluation, concurrency management and the entire Growth Management Plan. He said the 405 subdivisions includes the entire Golden Gate City and Marco Island. He e&td the committee has developed a program to bring zoned and undeveloped property into conformance with the Growth Management Plan by submitting an ordinance that is designed to exempt 98.4~ of the vacant, zoned PUD properties that currently exists. He said he did not think this wes a compromise 000 6 Page 25 January 18, 1990 but that staff's ordinance is a compromise. Mr. Olliff said the question is, can Collier County afford the cost of the infrastructure for the densities and Intensities of the existing zoning, adding he thought the answer was that the County can- not afford lt. He said there ts no benefit to density greater than the roads can handle. Responding to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Blanchard said under the proposed ordinance the vacant properties that are on Marco Xsland that are zoned for mu/ti-family and consistent with the Growth Management Plan would be re-evaluated. He said those parcels at the south end of Marco Island zoned RMF-16 would go through a re-evaluation and also go through the exemption process. He said those are mostly isolated par- cels that have developed parcels in-between and it is likely those would fall out under an exemption. Responding to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Merrill observed that the proposed ordinance ts Immeasurably fair. He said this ordinance, as a result of the structure that has been set forth in the compliance agreement with DCA and the original Growth Management Plan, is compli- cated. He said the only other ordinance as complicated as this one in the State of Florida Is the Hillsborough County ordinance. Commissioner Shanahan suggested setting February 8, 1990 for the CCPC hearing on the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance and have February 1H, 1990 for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Volpe said he was comfortable with the draft ordi- nance. He repeated his request that staff look at a mechanism to allow for an early determination. He a~ked if there was a lethod whereby an affected property owner could be involved in colpatiblltty exception? He said he was comfortable with allowing the ordinanca to go forward for CCPC review. Commissioner Saunders agreed the CCPC should hear this ordinance sometime other than the coming Thursday. He suggested if there ara any recommended changes from the development community oF proper~ 00027 Page 26 JanuarF 15, 1990 owners, that a cut-off period be established for those to be submitted tn writing. He said he wanted the County Attorney to review Chapter 120 hearing procedure. He said, regarding POD's, there is a potential that actual construction of infrastructure could occur prior to the issuance of any building permits. He said he did not suggest that a project be vested simply because of Infrastructure but that he would like information from the staff as to how many PUDts might be affected if there was a determination that construction of tnfr&stl~lct~re ae opposed to commencement of construction pursuant to a building permit was the cut-off period for the exemption. He said if there was com- mencement of construction of Infrastructure and if there was good faith continuance of development of the project, he thought that might be a reasonable point to consider that an exemption would apply. He said another area of concern ts the whole concept of a unified plan of development and he requested more debate on that issue. Commissioner Goodntght said the ordinance should be advertised for a hearing before the CCPC at the first available date. During the ensuing discussion, the possibility that the CCPC might have a special meeting only for the hearing on this ordinance was suggested. Mr. Olliff suggested that staff work with the CCPC to work out a hearing date during the week of February 4 through lO, 1990. Commissioner Saunders requested that any Interested parties be advised that their comments be submitted in writing by JanuaFy al, 1990. He said people could still make oral statements at the CCPC meeting on the ordinance. Commissioner Hesse said he was satisfied with what has been pre- sented on this ordinance. He requested more Input on Chapter 120. Mr. Olltff said if he was not able to get & CCPC hearing date for the week of February 4, 1990, he would set the hearing for Fsbrual-! 15, 1990. In response to Commissioner Hesse, Mr. 011iff said the hearing for the ordinance would come before the Board o~ County Commissioners on February 27, 1990. Page 27 , Commissioner Saunders said the written comments should be dtrectad~ ~ ' .:. ' to the draft ordinance that staff has presented. ~$e~a: 2:25 P.M. - Reconvened: 2:50 P.M. at which t~ Deputy Clerk Hoff~an replac.~d Recording SecretarF SkAnne~ ese Growth Management Director Litstnger advised that the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and the process which will lead to a determination of concurrency is the keystone of the Growth Management Plan structure. He explained that this ensures the coordination of land use decisions with the availability of public facilities. Mr. Lttstnger called attention to Chapter 163 F.S. which atatea #A local government shall not issue a development order or permit which results In a reduction in the Levels of Service for affected public facilities adopted in the Growth Management Plan or the CIE". He noted that this ordinance constitutes the County's Concurrency Management System as ca/led for in its Plan and State Statutes. He related that it Is a two part system: a monitoring and management , .i. program which calls for the preparation of an Annual Update and Inven- '~!i:i.~'tory Report (AUIR), of public facilities by April 1st of each year. He explained that the available capacity of the existing Categoz~, mA" type facilities are summarized in this report: Water, Sewer, Drainage, Parks, Solid Waste, and Transportation. He indicated that future capacity is forcasted based on the Capital Improvement Element approved projects. Mr. Litsinger stated that as a result of the analysis, Staff ~.!.reports the deficiencies or potential deficiencies to the Board of County Commissioners, and upon being notified of these deficlenclae, the Commission may take a number of actions: establish areas of st~nificant influence around potentially deficient or deficient roada~ approve additional public facilities projects to eliminate deficien- cies; approve deferral of Development Order issuance in the affected areas, pending lowering the Levels of Service by a ~rowth Management Plan amendment; Inclusion of necessary public facilities projects An 3anuat~ 15, 1990 ,~ adopted annual budget and annua! CIE update~ approval'of new o= ~ncreaeed revenue sources for the needed public facilit~es projects by the Board= or pending funding by the State Legislature or approval b~ the County voters. :..... Mr. Lttsinger indicated that once the AUIR ie adopted, an annua! determination of concurrency has been made, and the remain~ng capac~tF of all facilities tm known. He stated that it Is at th~a t~me, that Part 2 of the Concurrency Management System, the regulatory progt'am, takes place. He explained that the property owner~ or someone w~sh~ng to develop a parcel of property applies to the County for a deter- mination of concurrency and the issuance of certificate of adeq~tate public facilities. He called attention to the flow chart, enclosed 'w~th today's material which indicates the flow of the process. He remarked that the first situation that occurs is the exemptions from the determination of adequate public facilities, and noted that there are seven categories of exemptions in the proposed ordinance: DRive with any development conditions; any unexpired valid building permits= all public facilities which are consistent with the Growth Management Plan~ Temporary Use permits; temporary construction and development permits and renewals not to exceed an accumulative total of one year~ all replacement and construction permits= and Growth Management D~rector determination. ' Mr. Lltstnger stated that if it is determined that an applicant ~s not exempt, the next process is that an application for certificate ~s required prior to the earliest occurrence of a f~na! subdivision plat approval, final site development plan approval, final building permit issuance, or at any time that a property owner requeets a certificate determ~nation. He noted that if the applicat~on is complete and suf- ficient, the next step relates to the remaining capacity of the facilities. He informed of two possible scenarios: ~f the raq%l~rad Category "A" facilities are funded in the CIE, based on the annual AUIR analysis, and the Commission has agreed to fund these fac~l~tias to maintain concurrency at the adopted Levels of Service for the next' year, a certificate of adequate public facilities will be tssued~ Af for whatever reason, the County ts unable to fund the necessar~ pro- Jects to maintain concurrency at the Levels of Service as identified in the AUIR analysis, it will be a situation where the remaining facilities capacity a/locations and the areas of significant influence have been identified and are operative, would result in a deter- aination by Staff, and certification would be required as to the remaining capacities. He advised that if adequate capacity available, the development's capacity will be subtracted from available inventory in the Concurrency Management System, and certificate will be issued. He noted that on the other side of the coin, if a determination is made on one or more facilities that ade- quate remaining capacity is not available, Staff will issue a denial of a Certificate of adequate public facilities, and at that point, the applicant may either accept that decision, or appeal to the Board of Cowry Co~issioners. Co~issioner Saunders questioned on what basis the would approve the issuance of a certificate, if the Director has determined tha~ there are not adequate facilities? Mr. LiteAnger advised that the ordinance spells out the condi~ions under which the Board would overturn a dec~sAon, which As essentially a finding that the ~alysis and ~he data are ~ncorrect, and that there are in feet ads.ate facfltttes. Co~ssioner Saunders stated that Staff will be presenting the ~alysis to the Commission, and noted tha~ this is an issue where either the capacity is there, or tt is not. He suggested that if an appeal is to be made, it may be better for it to be filed with the Courts, or possibly to a technical committee that could be appointe~ by the Co~ission, rather than appealing to the Board of Cowry Co~issAoners. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Litsinger replied that the . 00031 3anuary 15, Certificates are good for three years from the time of issuance, and if all building permits have not been issued during that t/me, the ,.;certificate will expire. '"'~ Hr. Herr/il referred to Sect/on 8 3.4.4 of the ordinance, "Appeal ..' ' to Board ~f County Commissioners", and indicated that thim tm merely '.' safety valve for the applicant, in the event that he beltevem that he. Ii.~ was given a wrong decision by the Growth Management Director or his desi~nee. He indicated that he does not know if he would suggest that an appeal be made to a technical body, unless it were technicians from County Staff, and in-house review took place. Commissioner Saunders stated that he would prefer not to have the language regarding an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners in the ordinance at the time of the public hearing for adoption. He suggested that other language be put together that would reflect that option. Mr. Merrill indicated that possibly the Commission desires to have a reconsideration by the Growth Management Director, the MPO Director, and a few other pertinent Staff established, rather than an appeal. Commissioner Volpe revealed that the reason the County is in the position that it is in today, is because impacts were not measured until building permits were issued. He alleged that from a planning perspective, it seems that there should be an earlier point in t/me, in terms of using up the allocation, and a time line should be placed on them. Mr. Herrill advised that Commissioner Volpets suggestion ts cer- tainly legal, but noted that those who worked on the ordinance took the position to provide Collier County with flexibility in how much should be reserved In capacity. He disclosed that one of the biggest problems that local governments are facing today in adopting the ade- quate public facilities ordinances is that they are finding that they are issuing a determination, and saying that they will reserve .amount of capacity for a development. He indicated that they are Page ooo32-'., doing this at the rezoning stage, and holding the capacity open for five years, and there ia no development. He noted that sewer lines and water lines are remaining empty, which is not good, since they are designed to hold a certain amount of flow. He stated that if capacity is reserved, and a Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy is desired, the impact fees are paid at the time Commissioner Saunders questioned what the advantage would be to the County by having the certificate issued at the rezone stage? Mr. O//iff stated that the only advantage is in terms of the Capital Projects planning, and noted that if it is known that "x" a~oth, tt of capacity is needed at the time the rezones come through, there lea longer window to plan what water plan improvements are needed 5 years down the road. He advised that by looking at the actual development that is occurring, the Capita/ Projects planning has to be done within (-a shorter window. Mr. Merrill stated that in most instances, roads seem to be the most crucial aspect, and that is why they have been treated as required by the Growth Management Plan and specifically, the Capital Improvement Element of the Plan. He Indicated that it ia an unusual treatment, and noted that he believes that Collier County has more flexibility in its concurrency regulations than any other County that he has reviewed thus far. Attorney Dudley Goodlette stated that he has had no discussions relating to this ordinance with Staff. He indicated that he understood that the November 1 draft of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance was to be substantially revised and there would be an tuntty to provide input to that revision. He Informed that there was a re-draft of this ordinance on January 8th, and anothaF draft of January llth ts being discussed today. He advised that ha feels that this ordinance is Just as tmpactful as the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance, which has had several drafts. Mr. Goodlette explained that he believes that of the 6 facilities 3anUary 35~'1990 ".*that this ordinance addresses, the most important and potentially .. tmpactful on the quality of life relate to road facilities. Re called attent/on to Section 4.30 of the ordinance which defines potentially deficient road segments, which are currently operating at a Level of Service "C" or "D". He noted that this As Just about every road segment In Collier County. He indicated that he is not sure whether or not a Level of Service "D", 30th day, 30th hour is a better quality i'.~ of life or a worse quality of life than Level of Service "C", 100th day, 100th hour. Mr. Merrill explained that most of the requirements in th/e ordi- nance, including the defintt/ons, have been taken from the Growth Management Plan which states that roads will operate at Level of Service "D", and Af they drop below that level for two years, no addi- tional trips can be put on that road. He Indicated that it a/so pro- vides for setting up an Area Of S/grill/cant Influence (ASI), prior to that time, An order to help plan for that deficiency. He stated that as 1/beral of a vlew as possible has been taken on this issue to minA- mtze the impacts and the number of ASI's to keep Collier County away from any type of moratorium. Mr. Merrill stated that the potentially deficient road segments are the "yellow 1/ghts" which cautions Staff to look at them to deter- mine if financing is needed or if an '/mprovement As required before development is permitted on those properties. Mr. Litslnger reported that tn the AUIR analysis, if one or more road segments are identified as potentially deficient, and it ie anti- c/Dated that they may go to a deficient status, the necessary improve- ments will be tdentlf/ed in an AURI report to the Board of County . Commissioners. L:...Tape e5 ****-*' Attorney Goodlette noted another concern which should be discueae~ further is the life of the certificates of 3 years. He indicated that he feels that some appeal of the Growth Management Director's dsc/a/on Page 33 000:34 January 15, 1990 on the determination of who receives these certificates ia an Impor- tant step that needs to be taken. He stated that he has not had an opportunity to discuss his concerns or the contents of the proposed ordinance with Staff, and noted that he looks forward to doing so. County Attorney Cuyler called attention to the Item relating to an appeal, and suggested that the Board,s direction to Mr. Merr~ll be the inclusion of language regarding a technical committee for recon- sideration of the initial determination. Attorney John Farquhar, representing Ronto Development, expressed concerns that the proposed ordinance has not received the same type of discussion and review that the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance has received. He indicated that he believes that there are potential problems in the proposed ordinance, as presently drafted. He called attention to Page 37, Section 8.3.§.6.1, which provides for develop- ment outside of designated area of significant influence or where no ASI exists, and indicates that the road component shall be granted ~f proposed development generates less than 350 average daily trips on the major road network system. He advised that if any type of major development is being done, there will be more than 350 daily trips on the major road system. He alleged that there are a number of things in the proposed ordinance that have very drastic results. Ha Indi- cated that if there is a deficient road segment in the northern part of Collier County and there ts a development on Marco Island which will put one trip on that road, the development cannot be done. Mr. Farquhar further noted that there are no provisions for vested rights in the ordinance, nor any type of action plans to overcome the deficiency. He stated that if an individual obtained hie building permit and started building, and a facility that was relied upon when obtaining the certificate was removed, the building permit will also be removed. He informed that it wtl! be impossible to obtain financing from any responsible lender, Mr. Merrill advised that the language relating to the percentage in the northern part of the County would not prohibit m development in the south part of the County, assuming that it is not a road that is regularly traveled, i.e., SR With regard to the vested rights provisions, Mr. Merrill stated that the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance outlines the vested rights that are available, and does indicate which projects are vested. Mr. Perry reported that several techniques were reviewed in attempting to determine which areas may be subject to a building per- mit moratorium or deferral of permits. He noted that one techniq~le ia the use of a computer model which simulates traffic moving around the highway system. He explained that the determination of how traffic is to be kept from Impacting that particular roadway will rest upon the Commission when they are presented the information regarding the capacity of the roadway. Mr. Farquhar stated that he feels that there are many th~ngs re,sting to the Area of Significant Influence that need to be worked out. Mr. Merrill advised that Rule 9J5 prohibits the adopted Level of Service to be reduced at the development stage. He noted that if Mr. Farquhar has any suggestions, he encourages him to submit his ideas in writing. Mr. Farquhar commented that his understanding of Chapter 163 F.S. is that the standards for vesting or not stopping development of a project are supposed to be the same for any element, whether its con- sistency or concurrency. He noted that there are substantial d~f- ferences in the treatment of vesting between the two ordinances. He stated that he does not believe that this complies with Chapter and added that if one is exempt from consistency, they also should be exempt from concurrency. Mr. Merrill advised that the Declaratory Statements from DCA indi- cate that concurrency may be treated differently than consistency, al~d January '~': '"'of trips onto new roads came directly from the Comp Plan a~d there la'.' ,"~ no flexibility to work with that. He explained that a deficient road Page 35 ,L · lopment. latency may be treated differently than other aspects of the dave In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Olltff stated that one of the agenda items for the Lee/Collier meeting on January 29th will be a discussion relating to Interlocal Agreements on how concurrency will be handled as It relates to Impacts tn other counties. Mr. Merrill Informed that anything near, or at the border of two counties wouldrequtre approval from the various local governments which are affected. Mr. Olltff stated that attempts were made In the drafting of this ordinance to simplify concurrency as much as possible. Ha noted that an annual review will be conducted and the budget and the CIE*s will be presented to the Commission so that the two can mesh together. He : indicated that he believes this ordinance ts something that will work for Collier County. Commissioner Hasse thanked Messrs. Olltff and Merrill and the Staff for their valuable input. It was the consensus of the Commission that the a~ ech~lm be · dopt~d for th~ Ad--lusts Public Facilities Ordinance, u that which ~ mdopted for the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 4:15 P.M. Page 36