Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/29/2002 S (LDC Amendments)May 29, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING Naples, Florida, May 29, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County the County Commission Meeting Room, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: JIM COLETTA DONNA FIALA FRED COYLE TOM HENNING JAMES D. CARTER, Ph.D. ALSO PRESENT: Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator Susan Murray, Interim Director Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Jim Mudd, Deputy County Manager Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA May 29, 2002 5:05 p.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF 1 May 29, 2002 CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. AGENDA A. An Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 91-102, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the Comprehensive Regulations for the Unincorporated Area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Article 2, Zoning, District 2.1. General; Division 2.2. Zoning Districts, Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses, Dimensional Standards including Revisions to the C-1 through C-5 and Industrial Zoning Districts List of Permitted and Conditional Uses; Division 2.4 Landscaping and Buffering; Division 2.6 Supplemental District Regulations; Division 2.7 Zoning Administration and Procedures; Division 3.2 Subdivisions; Division 3.3 Site Development Plans; Division 3.13 Coastal Construction Setback Line Variance; Division 3.15 Adequate Public Facilities; Article 6, Definitions Division 6.3 including but not limited to the Definition for the Term Hotel Suite; Section Five, Adoption of Amended Zoning Atlas Map; Section Seven, Conflict and Severability; Section Eight, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Nine, Effective Date. 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 May 29, 2002 Item #2A May 29, 2002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91- 102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - CONTINUED TO JUNE 19~ 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the LDC Public Hearing, May 29th, 2002. Mr. Schmitt, are you leading off?. MR. SCHMITT: Ms. Susan Murray. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Thereupon, The Pledge of Allegiance commenced.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jim Carter, I'm glad that you're with us today to bring us around for the Pledge of Allegiance, which we almost forgot for the first time in the history of the Collier County Commission. MR. SCHMITT: Well, good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Mr. Joe Schmitt, Administrator of Community Development and Environmental Services. This is our first public hearing for the Board of the Spring Cycle of the Land Development Code Amendments. And our plan tonight is to go through the various codes. We'll point out where the recommendations were made by both the Environmental Advisory Council or by three -- actually three Boards that we've vetted these through, the Deac Act, E-A-C and then the Planning Commission. And we'll point out where the issues were and help you guide through this process. And to do that, Ms. Susan Murray, Interim Planning Services Director, will go through each of these, and we'll entertain any of your questions. MS. MURRAY: Good evening. Susan Murray, Interim Planning Services Director. Just a few housekeeping items to hopefully make the meeting run smoothly. This is the first of two Page 2 May 29, 2002 required hearings for the Land Development Code Amendments. This is the first cycle; we call it the Spring Cycle of 2002. The final hearing in front of you will be on June 19th at 5:05 in this room. That is the hearing upon which you will take your final vote. Tonight is basically for us to present the amendments to you. You all then take public speakers and ask your questions or give us feedback. We can amend the amendments accordingly based on the direction that you give to us, and then we would bring back the final version to you on the 19th of June. The way the packet is structured, your executive summary, if you flip after the first page, you'll see that we have the summary sheets and they have typewritten numbers on them. The summary sheets are an outline of each amendment. There's a brief description of it. And then you'll see the recommendations by the EAC, DSAC Subcommittee, the DSAC and the Planning Commission and all those outlined with their recommendations with their votes. You'll see two blank spaces for your recommendation and vote that we'll fill in accordingly. This is the guide that we kind of work off of, and this is normally the order we proceed in. However, in the past you have taken issues that have public speakers attached to them first. If you so desire, we can do that as well. I have a number of staff here, as well as there is staff here from other departments that will be gettingup and explaining amendments as necessary. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many people are registered to speak at this time? MR. SCHMITT: I have four registered speakers for the Farm Market Overlay and one registered speaker right now for the PUD Sunset. And probably to make this run as coherent as possible, we'll take public speakers after each issue. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That sounds fine. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Page 3 May 29,2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if for some reason if you'd like to speak on an issue and you don't have a slip up there at this time, please feel free to fill one out naming the issue that you wish to speak on. And if you wish to speak on several issues, that's fine, too. MS. MURRAY: And one more item, Commissioners, we work off the page numbers that are handwritten that are in the center of your page. So if I refer to page 15, if you would look to the handwritten number, which are in the center and go to there. Because when we jump around like that, I'll need to give you the page number. So if you wish to hear the Farm Market Overlay first, that would be on page 38. Essentially this amendment -- and this is again to the Farm Market Overlay Subdistrict in Immokalee. This amendment would allow, as a permitted use in this Overlay, Petroleum and Petroleum products' wholesalers, except bulk stations and terminals. And basically what this allows is gasoline buying in bulk and selling to farmers wholesale only. That is what this Amendment restricts this allowable use to. And believe it or not, our Standard Industrial Classification Codes actually all out that exact use, "Selling to farmers wholesale only." What we discovered when we did the overlay was that this was the use that was very important to this District in that it functioned to assist and further the purpose and intent of the District, but it was left out of consideration when the overlay was adopted. This is actually an amendment that is being brought forward by applicants, and they are registered to speak. They paid for the amendment. And with that, if you have any questions of staff at this point? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Hold on, Mr. Chairman. It seems like a very logical request. I don't have any difficulty with it. MS. MURRAY: I will tell you, the Planning Commission recommended that this be a conditional use. Just for your Page 4 May 29, 2002 information, they were concerned over some of the hazards associated with dealing with chemicals and fuels. I thinkour position is that you have Federal and State permits that are required as part of the development of this use, and that should coverit. Ed Riley from the Fire Department gave a pretty good explanation to the Planning Commission. I'm not sure if he's here tonight. But if you have questions of that nature, if he's not here, I may get him here for the next meeting if you wish. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Generally, let's get a feeling from the Commission. And they'll have the speakers come up that wish to speak while they fill out -- of course, we're not taking a formal vote. COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. My point is, Mr. Chairman, is that I think it a reasonable request. It is conditional. The safeguards were there through the State and Federal regulations. It services a farming community. It just appears simple logic drives this for me to say it should be there. So I'm not going to have any problems with it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think gasolene should be closer to the farms too, so they can get to it for their farm equipment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No objection at this time. I'm looking forward to hearing from the speakers if they wish to speak. Commission Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see where it couldn't be a permitted use as long as a farming market is not located within so much area of residential. I think that's where it might cause a problem. MR. SCHMITT: I think one of the problems here was the division of a large bulk storage and that is not the case. And I think Page 5 May 29, 2002 the speakers will be able to clarify what quantities they're going to be dealing with here. But this was meant to be a service available for farm equipment that was going to be serviced out of the market area. And that was the purpose. And, of course, it would be covered. But I think the speakers will cover that portion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm familiar with the area and the residential areas. It's removed quite a distance from there. MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So you're recommending a permitted use, and we don't feel a conditional use is necessary? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm all right with that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if we could just put language in there with, you know, so many feet from residential, then I'll have -- from a conditional use. MS. MURRAY: Are you saying you'd like to just put in here as a permitted use, but have a restriction in terms of the location requirements? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That was the only trouble the Planning Commission had with it was location to residential? MR. SCHMITT: No. No. The Planning Commission was concerned frankly with the quantities and the storage of bulk petroleum materials in and around the market area. But this was deemed as just a temporary type of storage. It would be -- come on site and dispence and then leave. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At any point in time it's always going to have a volume of fuel there? Page 6 May 29, 2002 MR. SCHMITT: Right. There will be a volume of fuel. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So then it's not temporary; it's an ongoing process? MR. SCHMITT: Well, yes. But it would not be a large fixed container. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. In other words, we're not talking about a -- MR. SCHMITT: Well, right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- bulk storage round tank which is going to hold a hundred thousand gallons or something? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's go to the speakers and then we'll see if there's any further discussion or if we want to go from there. MR. SCHMITT: First speaker is Leonard Lewis followed by Clayton Miller. MR. LEWIS: Good evening, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen. Just for the record, my name is Leonard Lewis. I'm employed by Mansonry Surveying. I'm here with our Engineering Manager, Clayton Miller, and the owner, Mr. Izaguirre, and his son. What brought this entire request around, to give you a little quick background, is Mr. Izaguirre owns and operates the Farm Market on 225 Flea Market Road here in Immokalee. He's been there since, I think, 1999 or maybe a little earlier before as a permitted use. It is zoned C-5. He's got an overlay, agricultural overlay, on the farm market. He's got his own trucks. Right now he's got one truck that he hauls fuel in. He came to me last year, I think in March, to -- for a request to install two twelve thousand gallon diesel storage tanks on his site. We did this. We made application to the County and the people refuted and it was permitted. He built it. However, he's just never Page 7 May 29, 2002 used it. We all overlooked the fact that he was going to carry the fuel to the farmers and sale it to them, which wasn't permitted in this zoning district. With long work with Susan and the staff, this was the recommendation and the best use that we could figure out how to rectify this situation was to ask for the conditional amendment. We did ask for a permitted use, not conditional use in the request. If it's a permitted use, just like the site plan that we presented before, it does go before the review members of the Building and Zoning and Ed Riley with the Fire Department. And they look at them pretty good. They do meet all the setbacks from the wells, from the residential districts and everything like that. So you do have a permitted site plan. And therefore, that's the reason we ask for a permitted use. If it's a conditional use, they have to go back to rezoning. Other than that- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let ask you a question or two, sir. MR. LEWIS: Sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is already in place, this tank; correct? MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA' And this tank was put in how many years ago? MR. LEWIS: Last year. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, last year. And all the safety requirements were done as far as the containment walls? MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Leo Rodgers over there at the Fire Marshals has okay'd it? MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir. Absolutely. The only thing he just never put it in operation, because he's been able to get a CC, because Page 8 May 29, 2002 he wants to sell the fuel to the farmers and not just for his own use as CHAIRMAN COLETTA' Question, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm a little confused here. How does this tank differ from a bulk storage facility? MR. LEWIS: Well, it really is bulk storage. It's two aboveground, 12,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're asking us not to approve this change? MR. LEWIS: Oh, yes. We're asking it to be approved. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the change says, "Accepts bulk storage." Am I reading something incorrectly here? This change -- MR. LEWIS: Well, the fuel dispensing. Maybe I'm using the bulk storage wrong. COMMISSIONER COYLE: This change prohibits bulk stations and terminals. And as it was described to us just a few moments ago, it appears to me that it permits mobile petroleum and petroleum product wholesalers. MR. LEWIS: This is diesel aboveground storage. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. But that's clearly not what this particular change is permitting. At least my understanding is. MR. LEWIS: It has strong language. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MS. MURRAY: This says, "Establishments primarily engaged in the wholesale distribution of petroleum and petroleum products except those with bulk liquid storage facilities. Included are packaged and bottled petroleum product distributors, truck jobbers and other marketing petroleum and its products at wholesale, but without bulk liquid storage facilities." Then it goes on to say, "For gasoline, buying in bulk and selling to farmers wholesale." Page 9 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Gasoline and diesel, one in the same? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the way it's written right now, it would not permit them to use the storage facility they've already constructed? MS. MURRAY: That is roughly the possibility. I think probably buying in bulk was interpreted to mean storage. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I would read this as a mobile capability of product description the way it's written right now. And I'm not sure what the intent was, whether it was intended to permit them to use the storage tank that they currently have or to restrict them only to providing mobile description. MS. MURRAY: I think when I read both of these SIC codes, there's a distinction between bulk stations and terminals and buying in bulk and selling to farmers. And I think that's what needs to happen, as I think this amendment still needs to go through is with 517. But we should perhaps be including 5171 if there's bulk storage needed. I think that -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: How would that affect the Planning Commission's recommendation? MS. MURRAY: My guess is it probably wouldn't change because our discussion is centered around bulk storage of the fuel on site. Would we have a member of the Planning Commission here? Could we get their opinion on this? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We could if he's willing to get give it. Mr. Strain, are you available? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, he comes up on the summary sheet under Proposed Amendment. I think it's stated very clearly. It becomes confusing over here. Page 10 May 29, 2002 MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. This issue was clearly-- had to do with long -- first of all, it prohibits commercial sale. It's only for marketing to farmers. It's not for commercial type sale of automobiles of that type of activity. The other issue was the storage, and I'll let Mark kind of, if he wants to. MR. STRAIN: For the record, Mark Strain. We did hear this. I can't recall the applicant for the individuals that are here tonight speaking in front of the CCBC on it. Our concern centered around the distance that the facility would be located from nearby residential or other commercial uses where there would be a lot of people and the bulk issue was another one. The reason we listed it as a conditional use, we thought that at that time it would give some criteria on site planning as it came through the system, meaning if they position something too close to other uses that were incompatible with that or that were more dangerous to the public by a conditional use, you could better analyze it. And the public hearing process would be open to anybody to speak that might be concerned about it. And it would just give us some more latitude. And I think that's why we went the way we did. Does that answer your concern? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure. You're saying that you would approve the bulk storage facility that has been constructed there as long as it was under a conditional? MR. STRAIN: Yes. So we'd have the opportunity to make sure it was placed accordingly. At the time this was presented, I don't recall being told that there was a facility already constructed there. It was being put through as something that could be applied in the future. And if it was, we wanted to make sure that at any possible moment, if it was in the wrong location, there was additional public scrutiny to, at least, get the input needed. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I ask a question? MR. STRAIN: That's why we presented that. Page 11 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe you might be able to help, Mr. Strain. Can this be written specifically for the very area this tank exists rather than having it for the whole overlay area? MS. MURRAY: Erin, are you here? Can you respond to that? You know the overlay district just a little bit better than me. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And these are two tanks, right, two tanks? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But it's one location. What we're doing is we're opening it up by doing this for the whole district, that whole overlay. MR. BLAIR: For the record, Erin Blair. Yeah, it can be written just for that overlay. And I think the overlay they're talking about isn't that big of a part of Immokalee. It's the Farmer's Market. It's just a small section on New Market Road. I'm pretty sure that's where their site is also. So it's not going to affect like the whole Immokalee area. It's just the -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I realize that. Could we put the overlay on the viewer? MR. SCHMITT: And just to reiterate, the Planning Commission, if I can follow with what Mr. Strain said, the Planning Commission's concerns were, in most instances, it would be an approval process or come in and be recognized as such. But what they want to do is allow the public to be able to comment each time these requests came in or were raised. Erin, go ahead. MR. BLAIR: This is the Farmer's Market overlay right here. So this is New Market Road right here. So you can see it's just basically the properties that are right on New Market with the exception of the farm, the market, the actual market. So it's not going to affect that many properties. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I understand. But I heard what Mr. Strain said. And it's not the question so much of this Page 12 May 29, 2002 particular tank, it's what can come in afterwards. I'm just trying to think of how to make it as easy as possible for the petitioner. Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: I have a thought. If there are some measurements that you have from the existing site, from either New Market Street or from some fixed boundary like that, if you put some location, you know, with this type of east adding X amount of feet from New Market Road to the whatever it is, north, south of it and some things, then that would make it specific and it wouldn't be able to go any place else. And it might alleviate the need to bring through the conditional use, because you write the regulation for what's there right now. And it can't be -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. MS. STUDENT: Nothing else could go in unless you amended the code. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would feel more comfortable with that myself. I don't know how the rest of you feel. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that workable, Susan, to get some distances like that and put that in? MS. MURRAY: I think it would be -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would recommend that we coordinate that with Ed Riley and the Fire Department as well so we get what their criteria is so that we have that in sync with what their requirements are. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I still need a clarification. However, is this tank or are these thanks considered bulk stations since they're obviously storing fuel in bulk? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then our change would not permit these? Page 13 May 29, 2002 MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if you wanted to permit these, we have to change the language that is proposed? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what was the intent of staff, to permit these or not to permit them? MS. MURRAY: To permit them. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So the language has to be rearranged then; right? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then the site's specific? MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does the Commission agree with that? Sir, we thank you. Are there any other questions of the petitioner? MR. BLAIR: I have some small -- that's from the 17th site plan that has been approved, if you would like me to pass them out you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine, sir. Why don't you pass them out to us so we have them in our possession. MR. SCHMITT: Next speaker is Clayton Miller followed by Armondo Suarez. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask a question here. I more than welcome everyone to come up and speak. But if it's on the same subject matter, unless new matter's shining on that, right at this point in time we've already agreed to go forward with it with those few stipulations that do nothing more than limit it to your particular operation. Page 14 May 29, 2002 MR. MILLER: For the record, I'm Clayton Miller, with Aim Engineering & Surveying. We prepared the site plan for this, and we thank you for your approval. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Next speaker? MS. STUDENT: If I might just ask Ms. Murray. I'm making notes on the ordinance. Is 5171 going to be included then? MS. MURRAY: Yes. MS. STUDENT: Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Armondo, do you waive? I have two slips in here from Armondo. I'm assuming they're both from you? MR. SUAREZ: My son. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, your son. Okay. Armondo and Armondo, Jr. MR. SUAREZ: My name is Armondo Suarez, Sr. and I just want to explain a little bit on where the tanks are, the two tanks that were permitted. And they're -- we went with the codes that they told us, move them this way, move them that way from the street, fire hydrant, everything. And the entrance for my fuel truck to pick up the fuel would be from -- coming in from Immokalee Road and then it would come out of Jefferson in the back. And it would go -- it would load the fuel and go to the farms for farm use only and it would maybe -- the most it would make would be three trips a day. That would be the maximum. The tank or the tanks and the fuel, it may come in once a week, twice a week to deliver, to fill up. It could be done at night. Boards are open at night. So traffic wise, it's not going to make hazard for people traveling on Immokalee Road or Jefferson, because it's just -- there's not more -- that much traffic on the operation that we're going to have. A truck filling up going to the farm. And it's going to take three hours to unload. So that's -- I just want to kind of clip so y'all can understand it. It's not going to be like ten trucks, one behind the other waiting on Immokalee Road to try to Page 15 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: the best of luck. turn into our place. It's not going to be that kind of operation. It's like the operation that Davis has right there. You know, he just got his place, two trucks in, fill up, they go. And you don't see them for three, four hours. I just want to clarify that. That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We appreciate that, sir. MS. FIALA: Could I just ask a question. It's so unique. Does anybody else ever go out and take fuel out to the farms to fill up their equipment? I think that's a great idea. MR. SUAREZ: Well, Davis is the one that the oil company has. It's the only one, and it carries fuel to the farmers, because the farm-- you know, the -- and most of the farmers now have diesel pick up. And now they have storage tanks and what happens is road diesel and off-road diesel. And so Immokalee is growing a lot, and there's a lot of room for everybody. And that's all. Hopefully it can be done sometime. We thank you, sir, and we wish you well this. MR. SUAREZ: Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Armondo Suarez, do you want to speak as or does that cover everything? MR. SUAREZ: It covers everything. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. That concludes the public speakers for CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I believe we all gave a nod. Are there any other comments that you'd like to make on a particular item? If not, we'll move on to the next item. MS. MURRAY: The next-- MR. SCHMITT: When we come back for the second hearing, we'll make sure we clarify in detail and define what the bulk storage is. Page 16 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I feel much more comfortable, because that's a pretty big area. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If the whole thing turned into bulk storage, it would really disrupt the commerce of that area. MS. MURRAY: The next item would be on page 53. And we have one speaker for that item. I just need to preface this by saying, this item has to do with the PUD Sunsetting. And it was heard by the Planning Commission. They have only had one hearing on it so far. And they are scheduled to hear it for the second time and take their final vote on June 10th. So on the 19th of June, we will have their recommendation to you for your consideration when you take your final vote. This came about really as a result of our last workshop, I believe. And basically if you recall, it was your opinion that PUD's that had failed to commence for the sunsetting criteria established in the LDC should be subject to amendment or the Board should have the right to initiate a rezoning action. And it was your opinion that some of the older PUD's with greater potential for inconsistency with amended regulations should not be permitted to be extended, and so what we did here was we took that. And for PUD's subject to the five-year sunset provisions, you would have two options. And this was, again, per your direction, to require the owner to submit an amended PUD or to direct staff to initiate proceedings to rezone the unapproved portions of the original PUD. And we removed the option of an extension. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: One of the other things we discussed at that time was some flexibility to accommodate the petitioner of the PUD in the event they were not able to proceed through reasons over which they had no control, the inability to begin Page 17 May 29, 2002 construction perhaps because of a moratorium, inability to get the permits in time, perhaps even a lawsuit that might challenge their development. I think we discussed and agreed at that time that we wanted to provide some flexibility to compensate for actions beyond the control of the developer. Is there any place here or elsewhere that would provide that flexibility? MS. MURRAY: It was my understanding he wanted that criteria for the three-year sunsets, but the five-year sunsets, you had pretty much dismissed it as being too old for that type of option. If that's your desire, then I would suggest that we would probably have to remove this amendment, because I've got staff working on developing criteria as you've discussed. But it's not something we could accomplish in this cycle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The reason I asked the question, and I have some correspondence that addresses a couple of specific items, there's one development that this cannot proceed because East/West Livingston Road has not been constructed. And that's one that's certainly over five years. We are responsible for constructing Livingston Road. They gave us the property, the right-of-way, on which to construct it. I think it is probably unfair that we penalize them, because we haven't built the road. Now, I don't want to get carried away with that. But it seems to me that there are some circumstances where people should be entitled to fair treatment if we are the ones who are the cause of their inability to proceed. MS. MURRAY: If you wish, Commissioner, we could bring this back to you kind of with our wholesale PUD changes later this year so you could look at the whole thing comprehensively. That might be -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any way that we might be able to be specific on which ones we would like make exceptions, for Page 18 May 29, 2002 the simple reason that they weren't able to go forward was because of inaction on the part of Government? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly what I had in mind. I didn't want to have a blanket permission. But if we had the flexibility to make that determination and we had the flexibility to look at those PUD's and say, "Okay. This one has not proceeded because a developer hasn't done what they would do." And then we could require that it be rezoned or they can resubmit a new PUD request. But this one clearly has made an attempt or has been unable to proceed because of events beyond their control. So we would have the flexibility then to extend that one. I wouldn't want to provide any blanket. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. I wouldn't want to rule out all the PUD's saying they're all exempt now because of the fact that we can't determine which ones have been influenced by the inaction of Government and those that haven't. But if we could go ahead and single out the ones that we think-- in other words, go through. There's not that many of them. If we can go through them on a case-by-case basis, if need be, would that be possible? MS. MURRAY: Let me make sure I understand what you're asking. And, Marjorie, I may need your assistance on this. I think what I hear you saying is I understand you want to develop criteria in cases where PUD's, for one reason or another, might have a very legitimate reason why they weren't able to proceed with development. But I guess I didn't understand the second part if you wanted to -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I wouldn't say that. I don't think I really agree with that. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Legitimate reasons might be the fact that somebody in the family might decide to get divorced or maybe Page 19 May 29, 2002 they got bankruptcy somewhere along the line and they decide to just sit on the darn thing and see what they can do on a speculative basis. That's a whole different story. I'm saying that it would be due only to our inaction. In other words, if we fail to do what we said we would do at that point in time, why should these people have to bare the burden of our inaction? MS. MURRAY: Yes. We can draw the criteria, those standards up. And that's exactly what we are working on now. This -- I guess, I misunderstood your direction. But that's fine. We could bring it back as a wholesale change with all that criteria so you could look at it in total. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning and then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought where we're going is put the burden on the person who owns property about vesting. And I think that's what we're talking about, is it vested because of a dedication of property to the Board of Commissioners for roads and that type of thing? I think that's what it's talking about. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. Don't think we've dismissed everything you've given us direction to do. This was just one of parts of the puzzle we thought we could bring forth right away based on the direction we thought we got. And there's many other pieces of the puzzle that are coming forward, including, just as you pointed out, Commissioner, inaction of the Government, determining what's vested and what's not, that sort of thing. So this was just a piece we thought we could forward quickly. But if it's not comprehensive enough, we can take it back and bring it all at one time. MR. SCHMITT: When we had the two workshops, one of the pieces we discussed was at the five-year PUD that we would bring them all back and that the petitioner would then explain to you Page 20 May 29, 2002 whether or not it was, for whatever reason, and due to the Government it could have been whatever for whatever reason, a road as you said, Livingston Road, or it could be awaiting decisions from the Corp of Engineers for a permit or those type of things that were basically caused by external forces other than the petitioner themselves and based on that guidance. But we also had to go back and address the LDC. Because when we amended it, we took out the language, if I recall, for the three- year" or for the five-year PUD. So we had to come back and put this language back in to cover the five-year with those PUD's that are still covered with the five-year rule. And at that time it was -- at least we were understanding your guidance was to have all of them come back, and then they would explain it to you and then the Board -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have the ability to be able to pick that -- MR. SCHMITT: You would be -- you would then vote. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're already there? Commissioner Fiala? MS. FIALA: Yeah. But I thought this was going to give us the opportunity that we've all been looking for to more fully manage our growth by readdressing these things, each and every one of them as they came forward to us. And some of the rules that were in place five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago really should not be in place today. And this was going to allow us to bring these old PUD's into more concurrency- MS. MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Into a concurrency. And I thought that was where we were going at. Page 21 May 29, 2002 MS. MURRAY: And you still are. We still have our 14 to 16 PUD's that we're planning on bringing before you in June. And these are all five-year sunset and older PUD's. MS. FIALA: But can we then tweak them so that when they bring them -- MR. SCHMITT: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, true, they should have the right to build. They've had the property and so forth. But I would like to bring them up to today's level of concurrency rather than what it was 20 years ago. MS. MURRAY: Yes. The code says your options will be to require an amendment or to give an extension and to request staff initiated rezoning. Those will be your three choices. What this amendment does in your packet is it eliminates the one choice of an extension and only allows you the choice of requiring an amendment for directing staff to initiate proceedings to rezone. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- yes. All I'm asking for is the flexibility under the five-year provision to grant an extension if there are circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. But that does not mean that we can't exercise our right to bring it up to current standards. Every time we grant an extension, we have the ability to establish requirements for that extension. And if we do grant an extension, we can say that these changes have to be made in the PUD itself to bring it up to current conditions and be compatible with current circumstances. So, yes, I think all I'm asking for is a flexibility -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is it already there though? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's not under the five-year sunset provision. But I think staff has said that it's easy to do; right? Page 22 May 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: The question as I understood it and you can bring the puzzle together at one time or do you have to bring the pieces? What I'm hearing is you're going to have to bring some pieces with the flexibility where in instances Government has not fulfilled what we said we would do, which causes the developer not to be able to go ahead or whatever other criteria you want to establish. But we're going to have to look at two pieces. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then again- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Criteria in each one. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then again, we get to make the final call. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's right. We don't confuse the people out there. I think it's got to be clear. It's got to be concise CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Um-hum. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- guidelines so that it doesn't leave them room to say -- well, they can always say I didn't understand. But if we do it right, it would be a pretty weak argument. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we do this, why don't we go to the speakers now that can shed some light on the problem that exists the way it's presently written. MR. SCHMITT: We have one registered speaker, Bruce Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon or evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Bruce Anderson. And if you leave things as they are written today, you have the authority to grant an extension and place conditions on that extension. The proposal that you have before you today would take away that authority for the old PUD's, PUD's that are subject to the five-year review period. So. If you just leave things as they are written now, Page 23 May 29, 2002 you're going to still retain that authority to exercise discretion and attach conditions if specific circumstances warrant that. The only other change that, based on the discussion you all were having about people that couldn't go forward because of a moratorium or something of that nature, there is language that was added this last amendment cycle that you all approved. And I'll read it you. It says, "If in the event of a moratorium or other action of Government that prevents the approval of any final development order, the duration of the suspension of the approval shall not be counted towards the three- year sunset provision. That means that that exclusion for moratoriums only applies to new PUD's that become subject to the three-year sunset window. I would suggest to you that if you -- that to be -- treat all PUD's fairly and equally, you ought to remove the reference to three year and have it apply equally to all PUD's. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you're getting there. I see heads nodding up and down. MR. ANDERSON: And I'll be glad to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? MS. FIALA: With due respect, I just hope that we can tighten these things up to a point where when we're finished with this cycle, we can all be proud of what we've done. I mean, that's what we're moving forward to and I want to make sure to do that and as much as we can, tighten these things up and give us a leg to stand on. MR. ANDERSON: Because you can. I mean, it's happened in the past. I've had personal experience where an extension was granted, but it was conditioned on and the property owner had to agree that if they went ahead and constructed under the PUD that was extended that, nonetheless, they would construct the project in accordance with current LDC requirements. And that was a condition of the extension. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? Page 24 May 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. I just want to try to summarize to make sure I understand what we're saying here. You're saying that if we are going to give PUD's that are subject to the three- year provision the right to get relief if something beyond their control delays them, we're granting that relief for people with the three-year sunset provision. But we're not granting it for the people with a five- year sunset provision, and you're recommending that we provide the that relief for both; is that correct? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. That one change, plus not adopt the particular amendment that is before you as well that would cut off your ability to grant an extension for an old PUD. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I think the staff disagreed. MS. MURRAY: I concur that that's the proper assessment and that will accomplish that objective if that is your objective. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It will not diminish our ability to control PUD's, will it? MR. SCHMITT: Well, one of the things we wanted to do as part of this process was those five-year PUD's to get them back before you so we can make them three-year PUD's. So that way they would face this every three years rather perpetuate this five-year PUD CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's still intact? MS. MURRAY: Yes. Yes. We have older PUD's. So what Bruce is saying is that you have the ability now to grant an extension to a five-year PUD. And what we thought we heard you say was you don't want the ability to grant an extension to a five-year PUD anymore. You only want them to be amended or you want the property to be rezoned. And if they are amended, then they go to the three-year sunset provision, because all the amendments will come in under the new rules, and they'll all be subject to a three-year sunset provision. And Page 25 May 29, 2002 then you said, "Well, three years is tight," because we all know that by the time you get your zoning approval and you go through the various permitting agencies and then you go through site plan approval from staff, you're looking at probably three years before you start turning dirt. So then we thought -- you all said, "Well, if there's a moratorium or an inaction of Government, perhaps we should have some flexibility in the code to allow an extension for the three years." And that's part of language that's in there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand that. Let me try to address the five-year PUD's. I think we're in agreement that our objective is to try to clean out some of those things and get them current. If the Board were to have the flexibility to take a look at those PUD's that are in the five-year sunset provisions and actually make an assessment as to which ones are going to be rezoned or which ones will have to come in with a new PUD and which ones might get some relief because of inaction by Government, then we can actually move them all into the three-year category. But we would have had the flexibility to review them on a case-by-case basis and determine which ones deserve some relief because of inactions of Government and which ones did not. Would that work? MS. MURRAY: And you will have that ability when we bring these 14, 16 -- COMMISSIONER COYLE' Okay. MS. MURRAY: -- up to you in June. The code will allow you, as it's written now, the ability to either require an amendment. And if you require an amendment, then any amendment will automatically subject them to three year once it's adopted-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right. MS. MURRAY: -- or you can give them an extension. And they'll be in front of you explaining why they need an extension. Page 26 May29,2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Um-hum. MS. MURRAY: Or you can direct staff to initiate a reason. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But right now as it's written, those under the five-year sunsetting provisions, we don't have the option of granting and extension. So if you would add that language to this. MS. MURRAY: You do have the option. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We do? MS. MURRAY: That's what we're trying to do. MR. SCHMITT: As the current code is written. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I was talking about what we're taking a look at today. MS. MURRAY: Yes. What you're taking a look at today will eliminate your option to grant an extension. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're talking about and would agree if we put that option back in here, we would not hamper our ability to clean out some of those old PUD's? MS. MURRAY: Absolutely not. It would be your decision. COMMISSIONER COYLE: CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I being site specific to Government COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. like the word limited option. inaction. Yeah, that's right. We're CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want me to bring Mark Strain up? Mr. Strain, we have some questions for the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER CARTER: There's only one representative that I can mention, and I respect his opinion. But I am not going to base my decision on one Planning Commission member's opinion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can understand that. We're just asking for an interpretation and what he sees. MR. STRAIN: I wasn't going to offer any opinion of the Planning Commission. I wasn't even attempting to do that. Mark Page 27 May 29, 2002 Strain, by the way, for the record. The only issue I have to comment on is that there are some PUD's out just like Mr. Coyle said that have been in place for a while. And they cannot move forward because actions committed by the County in order to give up lands from those PUD's on a free basis never were instituted and never have been completed on those PUD's. But I think there may only be two that I know of that are sitting there waiting for roads. They're too small to pay for the whole roads themselves. And a 75-acre PUD can't pay for a six-lane road. So until the infrastructure catches up, they're kind of stymied. And at the same time, they had to give up a considerable amount of valuable property to get to that point. And the other point I'd like to make, I disagree that this was heard from the Planning Commission. While I was sitting in those seats, like you are today, a piece of paper was handed out to us. I challenged that with the County Attorney and suggested that this hadn't properly noticed. We haven't time to review the ramifications. I didn't even know if it was advertised correctly and the advertising was supposed to be checked. As the meeting went on, towards the end of the meeting, it was stated what the purpose of that handout was supposed to be. At no time did the Planning Commission take action on it. I was there. I usually don't fall asleep during those meetings, and I know it didn't occur. So I don't think that was a valid first reading, especially when this does affect a lot of people in the County. And there may have been people who, through a proper notification, may have wanted to be there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Student, would you comment on that? MS. STUDENT: Yes, I can. If this is part of Division T7, and Division T7 was part of the title of the ordinance that was advertised, and I do understand that, you know, this came out at a later point in Page 28 May 29, 2002 time. But we've had situations in the past where we haven't -- it's been aware. But we had a situation come up where we've had a scheduled board meeting and we still haven't had a final recommendation of the Planning Commission. And we have run them consecutively so long as by the time you're ready to vote, you do have a Planning Commission recommendation. MS. MURRAY: They haven't taken final action, because their meeting is scheduled on June 10th -- MS. STUDENT: Right. MS. MURRAY: -- to take the final action. MS. STUDENT: And if we were to do that, we would be holding up the other amendments. And on a rare occasion that this happens, then we might have to go in other cycles or put it off to the next cycle. And as long as you don't vote and you wait until you have a Planning Commission recommendation vote, I don't think that there's a legal problem there. MR. STRAIN: No. I was just trying to make it clear as a Planning Commission member. I certainly wasn't aware that we were even reviewing that that evening. It's more of a question as to why it was put in front of us with no notice and how could the public have possibly realized that it was going to be there. I understand your blanket advertisement may cover that, but this is an issue that probably would have got more publicity. MS. STUDENT: Well, what happens, Mark, by putting Division T7 up there and its title, what the titles are supposed to do is put the public on in clear notice. And then they call staff if they have a question, and staff gives them greater particulars. That's the idea. You can't write the whole ordinance obviously in the title. MR. STRAIN: Oh, since we didn't get the particulars until the minutes before we review it, it would seem appropriate. Anybody else would know that? Page 29 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate your comments. And I assure you that you will get these things in a little sooner time fashion in the future. MR. STRAIN: I just want to make sure it's straight. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate your pointing that out to us, Mr. Strain. MR. STRAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I really do. MS. MURRAY: If I hear you correctly, Commissioners, it sounds like you really don't want to proceed with this amendment anyway and we can take it out. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I don't think we said that. MS. MURRAY: Okay. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think if you gave us the option of an extension for the five-year PUD's, I think that would solve all of our problems. It would give us a chance to review the five-year PUD's, eliminate those that we thought hadn't made a good faith effort and consider those that were -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Careful the language, "good faith." We want to be cite specific. And the reason why the only way we'll ever allow this to be rejected or allow the time to be expanded would be because of Government inaction. If we get it too broad, then the next thing you know, any reason in the world could be accepted. MR. SCHMITT: Based on the guidance, we're going to go back, take this and pair it with the current language as written based on your guidance. And from what we've just heard, we look at this and come back with the proper language. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we're very close. I don't think -- Page 30 May 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one question though, extension, does that mean -- with the extension, we can certainly improve or bring that up-to-date? COMMISSIONER COYLE: extensions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: COMMISSIONER COYLE: You place conditions on the All right. Right? MS. MURRAY: You can place a time frame on it, but you can't amend the PUD through an extension. You actually have to go through the PUD amendment process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's the problem. Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: New area is the problem. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a problem. MR. MUDD: For the record, Jim Mudd, Deputy County Manager. Commissioners, at one time you wanted to get all the PUD's that's for years. And you get -- and on this dais, there was a lot of conversation and communication and dialogue that talked about how come we get existing PUD's. And I'm talking about when Commissioner McKia was still here. Okay. And I want to go back a little bit farther, because I remember it distinctly that night. You talk about how you get the PUD's moving, because we had a lot of PUD's that were just sitting there. And they were just turning over, and people were using them as speculative tools for investment and things like that. And that's how you came up with the three-year PUD. And there was a real wish on the dais to try to get -- if you could have changed that night and made all five-year PUD's three-year PUD's, you would have done it, because there was some very specific things on a three-year PUD about how much percent of infrastructure you'll have done the first year, what you'll have the second year and what you'll have the third year. In a five-year PUD document, you don't have those same Page 31 May 29, 2002 specifics. So if you go to an extension, to a five-year PUD, you extend it, the five-year PUD that exists today. You don't get all that tweaking you'd like to get into that PUD document in order to change it to get it more in concert with the three-year PUD type specifics that you have in your ordinance. Now, Susan, you tell me if I'm wrong here? So by taking the renewal option out, they have to come back to you with an amendment to their PUD that puts them in that three-year time frame. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Excuse me just a minute. I just want to go over a couple small points. MR. MUDD: Sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The reason this Government process is so long and why we have to keep going through the process over and over again is certain facts don't always come out the first time we hear it. At the point in time that we seem to be positively going in the direction of removing the five-year PUD's, we wouldn't have known at this point that there was - the inaction of Government caused some of these things to reach that point where they were no longer viable. And that's the concern that's here today is to come with a balance that's fair. I don't want to lose the option to be able to tweak some of these things that have been around forever. I don't want these people having access to the major thoroughfares without tying into somebody else's road. I don't want them to be able to put in certain commercial uses that were acceptable ten years ago and no longer acceptable now. MR. STRAIN: Sir, we're just trying to -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got to find a way around this whole thing. What's the answer? Commissioner Coyle, we'll go to yOU. Page 32 May 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE' I think I've got an answer. If we've got a five-year sunset provision and we've got a PUD that's been sitting out there for 15 years, it sunsets; right? So their option is that the PUD goes away or they come in with a new PUD. Or if we wish to and we think there are specific extenuating circumstances, we can grant an extension, provided they are willing to agree to modify the PUD in accordance with our wishes. Now, is anyone going to tell me we can't do that? Because the PUD really is a negotiated process between the petitioner and the County Commission. And if they're faced with the possibility of the PUD expiring or having to come in with an entirely new PUD, it seems to me that most of them would be willing to work with us on bringing the PUD up to current standards in exchange for an extension. I -- would you -- okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. MS. MURRAY: Well, I was going to say, the PUD sunset process is not one in which you're doing a very comprehensive review of the whole PUD. COMMISSIONER COYLE' Urn-hum. MS. MURRAY: You're basically going - staff will get up and say, "This PUD sunsetted on such and such a date. We've done a cursory review of the PUD, and we find that there may be some issues associated with transportation or land use, what have you." We recommend to you that you do a PUD amendment, which is what's probably the likely scenario. And so you're not going to be evaluating the petition as you do in a rezoning process. That process will just be for you to say, either amend the PUD, staff initiate a rezoning in the PUD or you will be able to give the individual an extension as the codes are currently written. I don't want you to think that during this PUD sunset hearing you're going to be doing a very comprehensive overview of the cut Page 33 May 29, 2002 and be able to attach specific conditions. It's not a rezoning hearing. It's just a hearing at which you direct staff to take future action. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It has to be driven by the Land Development Codes. You cannot arbitrarily, as a Board of County Commissioners, create your criteria on the fly. MS. MURRAY: Exactly. COMMISSIONER CARTER: You know, you can't do that. Now, when you have a new piece of dirt, you can put conditions around it. This is one that's already there. It's a tight process. I think I hear what we're trying to struggle to get to, and I'm not sure we're going to answer it out here tonight. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning and then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I see is we need to do this amendment to stay in tune. For what we want to do is to get some of those interconnections, community character, and things like that. Let it sunset, or like you said, let them come in with an amendment so that we can do it. Now, I think during this process that they, the landowner, might say that, "Well, we're vested," because there's certain agreements between County and the landowner; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: Um-hum. Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we don't do that, we're going to lose some options and bring it into the three-year window and get some of the things that we wanted to on the land. You with me? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we're probably swimming with it as well. Yeah. So in other words, what Jim Mudd was saying was the three-year PUD's are a little more strict, and that's what you're saying is to bring them in there. Is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't know-- Page 34 May 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's where I'm going. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if they're stricter. I think they're more -- MR. SCHMITT: They have more -- there's specificity within the LDC that says they have to meet certain criteria at a certain phase or certain time. MS. MURRAY: MR. SCHMITT: MS. MURRAY: And it's more restrictive -- More restricted. -- than the criteria for the five-year PUD. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that what you were saying, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Correct. That was the whole purpose of last year's amendment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Right. That's the way I understood it as well. COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: So we -- Mr. Chairman, if you want to take a census of the Board, which direction that we want to go, maybe we could get by this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. What I would like to do first is to see if we can have a recap of where you think we're supposed to be, and then we'll go down the line. Could you do that, Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: Certainly. I'm sorry. Based on the direction I understood from the last workshop, you-all wanted to tighten up the five-year PUD's by eliminating the option to grant an extension. And right now the LDC allowsyou to grant an extension of up to two years. And granting an extension means you essentially grant -- you extend the life of that PUD for up to an additional two years. And the applicant doesn't have to do anything during those two years. But at the end of those two years, the PUD would again be subject to sunset review. It would have come back before you again, Page 35 May 29, 2002 and you would have the option of granting another extension requiring an amendment or requiring staff to initiate a rezone. What I heard you say was you wanted to eliminate that option for the five-year PUD's, because you felt that all the five-year PUD's needed to be prereviewed in light of the many changes we have made to the LDC over the last year and a half and in light of the new criteria for the three-year sunsetting provisions, which was more restrictive than the five year and also limit PUD's -- all PUD's to a three-year life if they were amended or if they were new. The amendment before you will accomplish that objective. If you wish to retain the option of having granted an extension, and there's no criteria in the current language, but the applicant certainly will get up and state their case before you, I can assure you during the hearing, and there will be a hearing for that, you may judge whether or not an extension is warranted based on the information that they present to you. There's no criteria in the code that says you have to consider certain things. It just says you may -- that's one of your options. So if you wish to retain that option for PUD's, you would not want to adopt this amendment tonight. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner-- well, let's start down at the end. Commissioner Carter, any comments? COMMISSIONER CARTER: If I'm hearing this right, the greatest flexibility that I'd have is take five years, three years, same criteria as we're putting against the three year. Eventually the five years will either be developed or melt down of a longer process. All new PUD's will be three years. And it's a longer process to go that way versus the enthusiasm for the passion the Board had for, "Oh, three years sounds great." But we didn't look at all of the particular circumstances surrounding that. And we did not have that information. Page 36 May 29, 2002 And perhaps we would not have gone that direction, but it developed a dual track. And I guess what I'm hearing tonight is dual track. And I don't want to change my flexibility under five years. Although I'm a short termer, I'm talking as a citizen of Collier County as a Commissioner. I want that flexibility, and I want the criteria that was outlined by Commissioner Coyle. And if we can accomplish that, then I'm okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if we granted an extension to a five-year PUD, can we grant it then making it adhere to the three- year PUD criteria? Or being that you grant an extension, they get the flexibility of what they had 15 years ago? MS. MURRAY: Correct. The -- if you grant an extension to a five-year PUD, all the regulations pertaining to that PUD that were adopted at the time will remain in place. And the criteria under which that PUD has to be developed, because it is a five-year PUD, is less restrictive than that which you adopted last year for the three- year provision. And that will stay in place as well. So that PUD will always be matched against that lessor criteria to determine whether or not it is going to sunset. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, that is where I was going. That's the direction I thought we were taking. So if you were looking for a nod, that's where I'm going -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner, Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- with the new order. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we retain the right to grant an extension, we're not losing anything. We can still let it sunset. We can still require that they come in under the three-year provisions. Page 37 May 29, 2002 The only reason that I'm arguing for us retaining our option to grant an extension is if there is a valid reason for the extension. And even then the extension would only last two years and then it would have to come under the three-year provisions, which means that we would get it updated at this point in time. So it doesn't mean that we will not be able to get it updated. It means that under those rare circumstances where there is a good reason for extending it, it might be under the five-year provisions, merely for two more years, and then it would come under the three- year provisions. But -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that really the case, the -- MR. SCHMITT: So if I understand you correctly, you're talking to a one-time extension-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: -- to allow for that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean that's what I was talking about. Remember, we're looking at, what, 15 really old PUD's under the five-year provisions? MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are, perhaps, two there that might qualify even for any kind of exemption whatsoever. So we're clearing out about 13 of these. And only maybe, maybe, and I say maybe, permitting a couple of them to extend for another two years and then proceed with- COMMISSIONER CARTER: And your Land Development Code's on traffic, landscaping, they're not grandfathered in the old PUD's. They have got to come up to the new standards. What goes inside the box, the density issues, what you can put in there, that's there because it's an agreement. But you still have some -- and I think Commissioner Fiala is concerned that you're not going to be able to change anything. Well, Page 38 May 29, 2002 you change what goes on around it, what it looks like as you see it from your landscaping roads and that type of thing. So you do have some controls. MS. MURRAY: Yes. And let me just make it clear that if the PUD has silenced -- well, I don't want to get into that. This is going to start a -- essentially what you're -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Go ahead and finish what you were going to say. MS. MURRAY: Yes. The PUD has certain standards spelled out to them. And where they're silent on other standards, the LDC provisions apply. So if the LDC provisions have been updated and changed, you're still going to be applying those standards. I'm not meaning to say that all PUD's are silent to certain standards. I'm certain there are PUD's that are sunsetting that you're not going to like the standards that are in there, and you're going to want to change them. But the only time you're going to have an opportunity to do that is if you require an amendment to the PUD. The other thing I wanted to bring up was the extension ability is for a period of time up to two years. You don't have to grant two years. You could grant a month if you wanted or six months or a year. And again, if it's tied to a road project that the County -- or the Government hasn't completed, you may have a schedule at this point in time and be able to evaluate and say, "Well, at this time we think the road project will be complete or there will be sufficient enough work for the applicant," and then grant an extension based on that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what Susan is saying is that it's not silent to let's say having a connection between an alternative road and a collector road with a gate in between it. We've lost that opportunity to have that interconnection with the supplying road or another collector road. I'm going to stay consistent in wanting these Page 39 May 29, 2002 old PUD's to sunset so we do have the ability to bring in smart growth, interconnectivity, community character, so on and so forth. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to agree with that. I think that's what we're trying to do here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we still left our option open to be able to deal with that extraordinary circumstance of Government inaction? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. MS. MURRAY: Not with this amendment that's before you. With the current language, you missed that option. So if you wish to retain that option, you should tell us to get rid of this amendment. If you do not wish to retain that option, you should tell us this is acceptable to you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you have this in this Land Development Code Amendment process, it needs to be a 4 to 1 vote; correct? MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what I hear is we're split on this? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have some very serious disagreements. It doesn't mean that -- I'd like to see us come up with something -- I don't know how close we are. What you're saying is it's impossible to do this particular amendment and be able to allow for extraordinary circumstances where Government failed to act in a proper manner to be able to meet the needs of the person who was putting the PUD down? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. You would use our flexibility. MR. SCHMITT: How about I recommend when we get this back before the Planning Commission, we get their guidance. Because at the next meeting, I'm sure that we're going to probably get Page 40 May 29, 2002 some clear guidance from them as well. We'll get some of the concerns that Bruce has raised and others and we'll relook at this language and come back again at our next hearing and bore into this in a little more depth. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just one more thing, if there's a way while you're doing this to protect those people's property rights who had no choice in not building and yet make them more stringent, like the three-year PUD, maybe that's something they can do so they still have their property rights and yet they have to meet what the three-year PUD now says to have to do. So would that accomplish both? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that's what we're saying on dual track, Commissioner. You apply the same standards we've always had. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you could, just put your hand up and I'll recognize everybody in due fashion. COMMISSIONER CARTER: All right, sir. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- Mr. Anderson to come to the microphone. Mr. Anderson, if your client had the option of having your PUD expire or having to submit a completely new PUD or third, we would extend your PUD because of extenuating circumstances if you would provide things like interconnectivity and/or road access. Would you agree to that? MR. ANDERSON: You hit the nail on the head. Yes, sir, that's the key. Conditioning the extension on, perhaps subjecting themselves to the three-year standards. Page 41 May 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Some interconnectivity. Those would be conditions for extension if the property owner wasn't willing to agree to it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then we let it expire and you get a new PUD? That's what I was getting at earlier, because I think-- and the attorney's probably going to tell me I can't do that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: She might. Let's find out. Go ahead. MS. STUDENT: The problem with that is that the hearing that we have to extend the PUD or decide what we're going to do with it is not the usual reason process. I have a concern that if we had a hearing on the extension and started putting conditions, that would look an awful lot like amending the PUD without amending the PUD. And we haven't gone through the proper channels, that being a Planning Commission Hearing and the case of environmental issues, an EAC hearing, if there's a PUD that has environmental concerns in it. And then back to the Board for a regularly advertised quasi judicial public hearing. And that's my problem. What-- that's the legal problem. What could happen, because that's really acting like amending the PUD without amending it. And that in effect, it's really like asking for a PUD amendment to come back for all those things that you want to condition the extension. And that's the legal problem. I'm not trying to be difficult, but we have stringent requirements for public hearings on quasi judicial matters. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But is there any reason you couldn't go through those procedures? MS. STUDENT: Yeah. Then they'd have to bring back an amended PUD. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're talking about a sign that's only a limited number of units out there that we're going to be doing this to; is that correct? Page 42 May 29, 2002 MS. STUDENT: I understand. But they are all quasi judicial matters that have to go through the process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So what your saying is we can't get from A to B the way we're trying to do it? MS. STUDENT: You could -- what it would really be is it would be a limited PUD Amendment. It wouldn't be a full blown PUD Amendment. But it would be a limited PUD Amendment directing them to bring back an amended PUD with the things that you're looking for in them. Without that, I don't know how you would enforce it either, because it really wouldn't be in the ordinance you're saying you get your extension if you do interconnectivity, if you do, you know, updated architecture standards and so forth. But you wouldn't have any specific criteria in the PUD document that's an ordinance to enforce. So if they didn't do it, it would be hard to enforce it. And it has to go through this process to get there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So let me see if I can clarify this so that we get down to the simplest terms. We all agree that we want to see some controls put on these PUD's out there that have been sitting around forever. We're being told that we can't really make exceptions and be able to single out certain ones for any particular reason. If they want to come back to us, it would have to be through a reapply for the for that. MS. STUDENT: Or you could direct what you would like to see. That's fine. It just has to go through the process. That's why I guess I'm inventing almost a new one called a limited- an extension with limited PUD Amendment. But to get to where you want to go, you certainly want to see them do it and enforce it, and have it be enforceable and see what you want, it has to go back through that process. So it would be a limited PUD Amendment really. Page 43 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But we are in total agreement that we do want to have these back to us or be sunsetted where necessary. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Could we hear from Mr. Anderson again, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We certainly can. MR. ANDERSON: I would like to respectfully ask Marjorie to reconsider, based on precedent that has already occurred. And I want to give you an example. When the County adopted new architectural guidelines, it was applied to all existing PUD's. It was part of a general advertised Land Development Code Amendment adopted at a public hearing, and it was applied to all PUD's without having you to go through a formal amendment process for each and every PUD. What I am proposing is no different than that. MS. STUDENT: He's proposing-- what Bruce talks about is a substantive standard. And that was made specifically applicable to PUD's, and that's a substantive standard. And it went through a hearing. And our code already says that unless the PUD specifically modifies or waives the provision of the land code, it is subject to the provisions of the land code. And that's a substantive matter. This is procedural and where you would be trying to avoid a procedure. And I don't know how you would make it enforceable. I see them differently, because one's processed and one's substance. MR. ANDERSON: But if you adopt an interconnectivity requirement, like you did the architectural guidelines, it will apply unless a PUD, you know, says specifically that it won't interconnect or there's some physical impossibility. So you have a lot of the authority already to do some of the things you want to do. And you don't necessarily have to go in and amend the PUD's, specific PUD's, to do that. I mean, you've done it with landscaping, with architectural guidelines. Those are the two most prominent to come to mind. Page 44 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we're at a point where we need to fish or cut bait. MR. MUDD: Let me help. Mr. Commissioner, let me try one other time just to help a little bit. I don't want to stir the pot. Mr. Anderson had originally came out and he was brilliant, okay, where he basically said there's a clause right now in your three-year section and it happens before you get into the five-year PUD thing that says, "In the event of a moratorium or other action of Government, not building a road, whatever you'd like to put in there, that prevents the approval of any final development order, the duration of the suspension of the approval shall not be counted toward." And right now it says, "The three-year sunset, just lying through the three-year sunset," and just say, "Towards the sunset provision." And in this particular case, if you have two PUD's that are out there, because the East/West Livingston hasn't been there or whatever, that would be covered in that process. And all we have to do is line through the three-year period of time. And it gives you the flexibility that I think you're looking for opportunities where the Government hasn't been fair to the particular developer that owns the PUD. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right, Jim, but I think we've been told we can't do that. MS. MURRAY: No. I-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We can do that? MS. MURRAY: Certainly you can amend that section, and it would be applicable. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then let's nod our heads up and down and move on. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE- Yes. Page 45 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. There we go. Thank you very much. How come it took so long to get to that point? What are we doing wrong here? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know. I thought we started doubt there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that we should have took a five-minute break, and we could have got there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that mean you want one now? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Five-minute break. (A recess was had and the hearing continued as follows:) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We are in session. The mikes are alive. MS. MURRAY: Okay, we can start from page one. Again, your handwritten page numbers after the executive summary. Commissioner, how would you like to handle this? Normally I just kind of give a brief overview. And then if you have questions, you can just stop me. We don't have anymore registered speakers. I do have some staff here. If you have detailed questions they can stand up and ask or would you like a presentation? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Let's go with the overview. 75 MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then we'll ask questions as we see fit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're on number one; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: Okay. We're on handwritten page one. And very quickly, this will be a little confusing, but it's not really. You requested last cycle that where the code states in commercial and Page 46 May 29, 2002 industrial zoning districts, if you remember, we had the catchall language that says, "Any other use which the planning services director deems compatible." That was struck out and -- well, I'm sorry. It wasn't struck out. It was replaced with a section that said, "If an applicant is applying that section, they have to come through a formal interpretation process." And your direction to us was, "Strike out the words in the commercial industrial zoning districts that allow the Zoning/Planning Services Director to make a determination and make it a conditional use." And at the time it was the last-minute change and we couldn't meet the deadlines any other way than to do it this way by making it an official interpretation. So we're following through with your former direction. And you'll see in the C-1 through C-5 in industrial zoning districts we have struck out the language in this amendment cycle that allows the planning service's director to make the determination. And we're also striking out through the official interpretation process. And it would be a conditional use. If the use is not listed specifically as a permitted use in the district, you would have to come back before this Board through the conditional use public hearing process. And you-all would make the determination about whether or not the use was comparable and compatible. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm okay with that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we got it. MS. MURRAY: The next, starting from page two, we are striking out any RMF-16 and RMF-12 zoning districts, the wedding cake setback measurement rule. COMMISSIONER COYLE' I have a question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. MS. MURRAY: All right. Starting on page four-- Page 47 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait, slow down. Slow down. Question on the-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: On the wedding cake thing, I have a question concerning the first finished floor. What happens if we have parking on the first floor? MS. MURRAY: The parking on the first floor would not count, the finished floor. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we could have a wedding cake with a garage on the bottom floor and a much taller building setback less than half the height of the building? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. And that's consistent with the way we measure height now. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I guess it would be a platform building, I mean, if you had a garage underneath it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Yeah. You're trying to eliminate that wedding cake thing, right? MS. MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if the first floor is a garage, parking, it's parking. And if it's not considered a finished floor, you could have the wedding cake design with a rather tall building; is that not true? MR. SCHMITT: That's a very good observation, because you could do the parking garage and the facade could look like the outside of the building. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it wouldn't be considered a finished floor? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there another way of phrasing that so we can eliminate this wedding cake situation? MS. MURRAY: We'll work on that and get it back to you. MR. SCHMITT: Excellent thought. Page 48 May 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let's take cake out of the whole thing. MS. MURRAY: Page four starts a rather long amendment to the C-1 through C-5 zoning districts. And let me just preface and tell you what we did here. Last cycle you had directed us to amend the purpose and intent of the districts and you did that and approved that. This cycle we've taken the list of permitted and conditional uses and we've analyzed them to insure that they are consistent with the newly adopted purpose and intent of each district. We wanted to make sure that there's no conflict there. And where they weren't consistent, we either removed them or relocated them to another district. What we did not address was we didn't look at accessory uses. We didn't look at heights or setbacks in commercial. This is something we will be bringing before you in terms of our furore workshop. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Question about two things. In the commercial, professional and general office district, one of conditional uses is homeless shelters. Is that an appropriate zoning category for homeless shelters? MS. MURRAY: Michelle, do you want to comment. Michelle Mosca has worked on a lot of these amendments. And we actually handed out the analysis to you. It's a staff working sheet, but we thought it might assist you before our next meeting in understanding why certain uses were moved or removed. MS. MOSCA: Again for the record, Michelle Mosca. Your question pertaining to homeless shelter, that was C-1, conditional use? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that's right. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Basically what we do is we look at compatibility. And we look at issues such as traffic generation, odor, Page 49 May 29, 2002 noise and so forth. And generally speaking, a homeless shelter, it is a conditional use, would not have like an adverse effect on neighboring property. But since it is in a conditional use section, it does give you an option to look at that in the placement of that particular use. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just wondering, you know, we've got accounting, auditing, bookkeeping services, child day-care, engineering, architectural, health services and then we've got homeless shelters. That doesn't seem to be a compatible use to me. And I'm wondering, we do have homeless shelters identified as conditional uses in almost every other commercial zoning category. I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to identify one or more commercial zoning categories where homeless shelters would be appropriate and perhaps determine that in certain commercial zoning areas homeless shelters are not appropriate, and just a question. I'm not sure I've got a good answer for that. MS. MOSCA: I believe the purpose and intent statement talks about C-1 or transitional type of uses, and that would be a similar land use type. And I think that's why we left it in the conditional use on the C- 1. MS. STUDENT: IfI may? Commissioner Coyle, this is something that's already in there. And I believe when these were added to the code, I worked on provisions under the Fair Housing Act about group care facilities. And when the homeless shelters went in, there was another person working on them. What they do, homeless individuals under some case law-- it's been a while that I've looked at it-- but do enjoy some kind of protection under Federal law. And so before we would just wholesalely touch any of these sections, I think we would need to do -- well, not a study, but I think we would need to do some extended legal review as to our ability as Page 50 May 29, 2002 to what we could do with them and where we could allow them because of their status that they enjoy -- that status of homelessness enjoys under Federal law. I would not want to run a foul of any Fair Housing Act Amendments or any other parts of Federal law, because as I said, I am aware of case law out there that protects the status of homelessness. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? And then I want to have the floor, too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much for bringing this up with something that we had to deal with. I happen to live within a couple of blocks of a homeless shelter and the effects on the whole neighborhood and the children walking to school. We have quite a problem. And we didn't have a way to combat it, because the zoning wasn't proper. And so I'm so glad you brought that up. And I'm glad you'll be looking into the legality. I don't think anything else would -- you know, I think there are appropriate places, and we almost had it in there, where the close to working environment and so forth instead of in a residential children. MS. STUDENT: This is something we will not be able to accomplish in this cycle. And the only reason the homeless shelter showed up in here, I -- well, maybe Michelle looked at all the uses. But there was some renumbering going on because of some things that were coming in and going out. But this is already in the code. And it's going to require -- right now we just don't have the resources between now and the next hearing to -- it's going to require protracted legal review. So it's something that we can look at for the next cycle that -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile, it is conditional, so it can be refused. I'm kind of concerned that we're opening the door where a C-2, or whatever, may be appropriate on one C-2 at one end of town where it wouldn't be at the next end. That's why you got the Page 51 May 29, 2002 conditional use. And the Commissioners can call it as they see fit at that time. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. And compatibility is -- it does have to go through a review. It's not just automatic. It has to go through the conditional use review. And there are the four criteria that have to do with ingress and egress, noise, odor, glare effects on the surrounding neighborhood, compatibility and those things. So it isn't like it's just automatic. It goes through a review that comes through the Planning Commission and this Board sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we're playing a fire on this one. We're playing a fire. I would just leave it alone, make it conditional. You got too many Federal funds that we applied for and other activities we're doing. Let's not put something in there that's going to raise a red flag that Collier County Code is unkind to the homeless. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, will zoning do that? Will the changing -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's conditional. MS. STUDENT: It's not -- it's already in the code. What you see that's underlined is new. MS. MURRAY: Let me preface that just by explaining to you that we listed all the uses that are presently written into the code and adopted by the code. Where they are struck out, those are being removed. Where they're underlined, those are being added. But anything that's already in existence that you don't see a strike through or underline, was already adopted. MS. STUDENT: That's already there. MS. MURRAY: And that's how homeless shelters appear. MS. STUDENT: That's already in the code, and it was put in as conditional use many years ago. Page 52 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? Would it help to do that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, this is it. We strike health services as a conditional use and we retained homeless shelters. It makes no sense to me. And I- MS. MURRAY: If I may, Commissioner Coyle. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Health services actually, as a conditional use, is a duplication of the permitted use for health services. Health services is located -- that was one of the changes, because it was, in fact, a duplication. If you look on page 5, Item Number 9, health services is located under the permitted. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can I draw your attention to Item Number 7 under permitted use as we've taken out churches and other places of worship. And we haven't placed that in a conditional use, but we do retain homeless shelters as a conditional use. I would suggest to you that churches and other places of worship are far more compatible in this category than are homeless shelters in any use. But nevertheless, my next question relates to height. I know you said, Joe, that you hadn't dealt with height yet. This one says that conditional use of increasing height to a maximum of 50 feet. I'm just asking that you take a look at overall height. I don't know what height requirement is in C-1 District, but -- MR. SCHMITT: These are the current LDC's. What we said was that the upcoming workshop we're going to talk about variances, we're going to talk about the height. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's just that I don't know what the height -- what the permitted height is in C-l, but I know what the conditional use height is. And if it's not important now, we can move on in the interest of time. But just when it comes back, I'd like to understand it. Page 53 May 29, 2002 MS. MURRAY: Certainly. We'll be reviewing all the heights in all the districts for you and setbacks as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I don't know. Maybe there's not enough support on the Board to do this, but I would say that we are to spend the time to get an answer on this issue, because it can have a major effect on neighborhoods and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which one is that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Homeless shelters. MS. STUDENT: Well, Commissioner, I can tell you because I did extensive work on other types of adult living facilities. And there are certain categories of group care facilities, for example, care to the mentally ill, people that are rehabing from alcohol and so forth that, under Federal law, are considered a disability, if you will, and they're defined that way. And the Courts have said that, in other words, the types of-- if you have a multifamily district and you're going to have that many rooms in a home for people that were recovering from alcohol abuse or drug abuse, you could not distinguish between them and a regular person in a multifamily zoning district, and they could not be conditional uses. So we say like RMF-12 or RMF-16, they have to be permitted. And it was a facility where they can live in a house then, and it would -- and it was just a house. It was just a difference as to who was living in it. You couldn't make that distinction in your code, because the United States Supreme Court, I believe it was City of Shearborn versus someone, where they had for mentally ill people a conditional use for a facility for the mentally ill. It wasn't a hospital, but it was like a group care house. The Courts threw that out and said the local government couldn't do it. And so that's why we need to do some legal research on this and see what the status of that type of facility is for purposes of the zoning code. Page 54 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile we need to go ahead where we are now or else this whole thing's going to come to an end. MS. STUDENT: And another aspect of this too is this was just a renumbering here. In order to look at this, we would need to take it back to our Planning Commission, because they just looked at it as a renumbering. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Well, I just wanted to point out to Commissioner Coyle, sir, churches is added -- was added a conditional use. And the reason was and I think Michelle can highlight on that, the sizes of the churches and the campuses and those kind of things that would be - that would be something that would come back before the Board as a conditional use. And that's why it was moved from a permitted use to a conditional use under C- 1, because of the associated other structures that normally accompany churches today. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead and move on, please. MS. MURRAY: Would you like me to -- again, I can just kind of pause for questions if you like. Anything else under C-1 or we can move on to C-2. It's basically the same thing. We analyze the purpose and intent and made changes where we thought necessary. Any questions on C-2 or C-37 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: C-3 and C-4 have one similar provision down here that's going to raise a real problem for me as a property owner. And I'll have to -- at the time we come to vote, I'll have to exempt myself from voting on it. It has to do with overnight parking of business related vehicles. And I talked to Ms. Student, and she said I can go ahead and discuss it at this point in time. But I will have to refrain from voting on the issue. I personally own a property on 40th Terrace. And the idea of overnight parking of Page 55 May 29, 2002 business related vehicles, which is permitted now on both C-3 and C- 4, to require them to be stored inside of the building, it will never work. My former rental equipment business building is leased to a plumbing supply company who has the total inside of the building set up for offices and storage or shelves. They couldn't possibly fit their vehicles in. Their fencing goes all the way around the building. It would be made opaque so no one would be able to see it. But if they have to move their vehicles off premise, I can guarantee you they're going to find a reason to break the lease. And I'm sure you're going to have a problem with every single one of those buildings all the way down 40th Terrace. MS. MURRAY: That is the new -- and I didn't mean to blow by that, but that is the new provision that we're adding here for property, commercial properties that are adjacent to residentially zoned properties. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It would be an economical disaster for myself and I'm sure with other people that are property owners to say suddenly you can no longer have commercial vehicles on the premises. MS. MURRAY: One thing that might give you a little bit more comfort is we did amend the code last cycle to require walls to be placed up between commercial and residential land uses in terms of as part of the landscape buffer requirement. And that might be sufficient enough for you if you're uncomfortable with this amendment because you feel it's too restrictive. I did want to remind you that we did adopt that last year and that may achieve the separation of-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When you're saying walls, you're talking about fences that are opaque? MS. MURRAY: We're talking about like a concrete block wall or opaque, yes, structure. Page 56 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, opaque being? MS. MURRAY: You can't see through it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can't see through it. MS. MURRAY: Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But a wall not being a concrete structure, it could be a regular cyclone fence that has the opaque strips in it? MS. MURRAY: I think we adopted the walls -- Carolina, are you -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Murray, maybe we can clear this up with our conversation that we had earlier. Would you explain what adjacent means in this language? MS. MURRAY: Sure. Adjacent would mean where property boundaries are touching each other. So in other words, if you had a shared property boundary between a commercially zoned property and a residentially zoned property, this regulation would apply to that commercial. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So it wouldn't apply if the residential was across the street? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then I wouldn't have an objection. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I have another question? I don't see where Commissioner Coletta would have to abstain from this, because it's an overall effect of the commercial district. And if we do that, then if we try to tweak the residential district, all of us would have to abstain, because we all live in houses. MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, this does not meet the criteria for extension under the ethics law, because it is not a special, Page 57 May 29, 2002 private gain or loss, because his representation in the total population is not sufficient to meet -- COMMISSIONER CLARK: Oh, I've been there, sir. I understand that in spades. But let me tell you, that may not exempt anybody from this Board from the perception -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- out there who would think that anytime something like this is past that, you know, they're backing up a truck full of gold in your yard. I can say what the hell I want now. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You short timers can get away with those types of things, can't you? Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT: The Chairman spoke with me at the beginning of the hearing on this. And I spoke with Mr. Manalich in our office, and on questions like this, there's always the appearance of impropriety. And we tend to take the conservative view, and there is some. Again, I was asked the question right before the meeting and there are cases that if you own property that could be touched, and then it deals with percentages and so forth, that there could be an issue. And so we probably want to look at it a little harder. But there's always that appearance of impropriety issue if the Commissioner does not feel comfortable, they can conflict out upon. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll take this issue up with you MS. STUDENT: Yes, we will. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- in the next week or two and we'll go over it. But if this doesn't directly effect the property I own, then there wouldn't be any conflict. MS. STUDENT: But I believe that you stated that you did own some property -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do own property. Page 58 May 29, 2002 MS. STUDENT: -- that was zoned in that district. And as I recall, there are issues about how much of the land is zoned that way and how much you own. And that's what-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then we have a real problem, because we have two people that own C-5 property, which means that we won't be able to come up with the four people it takes to be able to pass the amendment, if that's true. MS. STUDENT: I understand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But we were going to explore this to great depth before we proceed, before it comes back to us. I suggest we go forward, myself. Commissioner Henning? MS. STUDENT: Yes. We're not voting tonight. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I realize that. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to snap. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one request, if we could put that in the definition of what the word means in this case so that all the land planners could understand that. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: And we do have to clarify the that issue we talked about whether or it was the alleyways, an alleyway considered COMMISSIONER COYLE: Adjoining. MR. SCHMITT: -- adjoining if it was an alleyway next to a residential, because it's not really a street. So we'll have to clarify that from a legal perspective as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Somehow we got to find a way to be able to deal with C-5 property. So we're not going to be able to enhance it. MR. SCHMITT: I'll have to request that. COMMISSIONER CLARK: We're going to go to reclusive months. Page 59 May 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or we go to residential, and we won't be able to make any decisions at all. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course, I could put that property in my wife's name and that would probably solve the whole problem. COMMISSIONER CLARK: Oh, no. No. No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't go there. Commissioner Carter, I appreciate your advice on that. MS. MURRAY: Any other questions about C-4 or C-5 in terms of the uses that we've changed? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have no other questions. Anyone else on the Commission have any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, are we ready to proceed with that and nods of heads? MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Next item we'll be dealing with is on page 30, and this is the change to the industrial zoning district. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no questions. MS. MURRAY: Anybody else have any questions? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions? Hearing none, proceed. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Page 32, this is basically to require the applicants when they're applying for a planned unit development or PUD to specifically identify those proposed modifications to the Land Development Code requirements in the application for PUD and then the PUD document itself. Basically what this more clearly states and put in a very distinct area within the PUD and within their application where they're asking for modifications to the standards of the Land Development Code so that when it comes before public hearing, you will all very-- able to very clearly understand what modifications they're seeking, and so will the public as well when Page 60 May 29, 2002 they read the documents. A lot of times I think these things tend to be a little hidden and I think it just needs to be clear to you-all. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a good idea. MS. MURRAY: And the public where those modifications are being requested. COMMISSIONER FIALA: This again tightens it up just a little bit more. MS. MURRAY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Not all land uses -- well, let me say, not all land is one-fits-all type of thing. And I would like to give our staff some flexibility when a PUD comes before the Board of Commissioners to say, "Yes, that fits the content of the Land Development Code," or, "This fits the community character," or things like that. Because what we have now, Commissioners, is certain criteria that doesn't fit the Land Development Code. But the community would be happy to have it or this is the direction that we're trying to go with community character or smart growth. And just give them some flexibility on input, whether they say it doesn't fit the code, but we do agree with it, it's good land planning, blah, blah, blah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's an important component is smart growth that you're doing right now. And I think that should help to shape for the future. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a recommendation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's a great recommendation, too. And I think maybe on our executive summaries, we can deal with that. We have, on our executive summaries, a requirement that staff address things like environmental or archaeological impacts. It might be a good idea to put a smart Page 61 May 29, 2002 growth category there and have the staff express an opinion as to whether or not it conforms to some of the smart growth principles, and that might be a good place to do it, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: A new category. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And just have a new category of evaluation. But I think it's a good idea. MS. MURRAY: Marjorie, I don't know if smart growth principles aren't necessarily adopted by our code. I guess for -- would it be okay to do that if we didn't have standards adopted, or would it be okay to just mention the smart growth principles that they're generally accepted by the planning professionals and just give kind of a outline of where we think this may or may not comply. MS. STUDENT: And we may wish to define it further in the definition section. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It doesn't have to be binding if you're concerned with some legal issue. But I mean, it would just be advisory in nature. MS. MURRAY: Advisory? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MS. STUDENT: Yeah. MS. MURRAY: The next item on page 33 is to delete a reference to a reduced right-of-way buffer within ten feet within the Goodlette/Frank corridor management overlay district. And this is basically a housekeeping issue. And this is to be consistent with the width required by the minimum landscape code, which is 15 feet. On page 34, I'm going -- let me just give you a summary of this: It will allow the development services director to administratively approve special treatment or ST permits for sites which have been previously cleared for expansion of existing communication towers or where conditional use approvals have already been granted by the Page 62 May 29, 2002 Board of Zoning Appeals and increase the site alteration for single family, principle structures, which can be administratively approved. Basically, this change will save time in preparing ST permits where site plans have already been approved through the conditional use process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in other words, for communication towers, we would be out of the mix for consideration? It would be -- become a permitted use? MS. MURRAY: Stephen, will you come and- I don't want to misspeak. I want to make sure you understand what we're doing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know on some occasions where people have got a little bit excited about communication towers. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Development Services, Planning Services Department. As far as communication towers, this just will alleviate our -- they will not require us to go through the ST permit process. It has nothing to do with the conditional use process. They'll still have to follow that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't think so. I just, you know, you're going to gain speed and efficiency without sacrificing community character or negating what the public input might be? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Page 36, this change will allow -- or permit, and this is again with the Immokalee Overlay District. This will permit murals depicting the history, cultural or natural environment of Immokalee on walls within the Immokalee overlay district. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You going to put your picture up there; is that what it's about? Page 63 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. There's not a building big enough. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't know. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You got a point there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, you meant just my face? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, we could do it. Next will be on page 39, and Marjorie Student MS. MURRAY: will go over that. MS. STUDENT: Yes. Good evening. For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. And I passed out a handout this evening that amended the language a little bit from what we had earlier based on some discussions with Bruce Anderson. And to give you just a little history, and I'm sure you're aware of a lot of it having to do with the final order of the Governor in Cabinet on our year-base amendments from 1997, but final order prohibited certain uses in the rural lands and permitted certain uses in the NRPA areas. And the map I passed out shows you the general rural land area with the NRPAs, just in case you have any questions, which I'm sure you may or may not, because we've gone through those amendments right now through our comp plan. But, anyway, what this does is really a housekeeping issue, because the drop-dead date was June 22nd, 2002, and that date is rapidly approaching. So this merely extends the duration of the city moratoria until the comp plan amendments and if necessary implementing land development regulations become legally effective. And that's all it is is housekeeping. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Next item is on page 41. This is, if you recall, you directed staff to rewrite and simplify the section dealing with Page 64 May 29, 2002 vehicle parking in conjunction with residential structures. This was adopted in the second LDC amendment cycle of 2001. And, again, as you recall, your direction to us was to come back and rework what you adopted so it would be easier to understand. There really aren't any substantive changes in the regulation. There's some clarification we added in terms of, "Vehicles shall be located in a specific and designated area of the lot which shall be treated with stabilized surfaces made of," and we put in, "concrete, crushed stone, asphalt or pavers." So it's very clear what the stabilized surface is. But they needed to be clearly designated in the plan, and then they need to be treated with a specific surface. The remainder, with the exception of, and I'm working from page 42 on E, and this was at the advice of the Code Enforcement Department relative to ask us and we added E here that, "Access to any lot shall only be made from a driveway having an approved right- of-way permit. No access is allowed through or across another lot whether the lot is improved or unimproved." And that was added. So, essentially, the regulations stayed the same with some clarification about the designated area and then the addition of this language about access across unimproved lots. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this applies to the whole County? MS. MURRAY: No, this applies to, again- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The urban area? MS. MURRAY: Yes, the urban area. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Actually probably what, 951 to the west? MS. MURRAY: This would be the mixed use, urban residential area, which are zoned or used for residential uses. So it would exclude the Estates, and it would exclude areas outside the urban Page 65 May 29, 2002 areas. So as you know, the urban boundary is approximately a mile east of 951 -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. Commissioner-- MS. MURRAY: -- out a mile. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page 42 would be a continuation of paragraph 1-D. What does that mean? MS. MURRAY: You're asking l-B, what does that mean? COMMISSIONER COYLE: MS. MURRAY: D, delta? COMMISSIONER COYLE: D, delta. Uh-huh. MS. MURRAY: What that means is if you apply the regulations, the 40 percent rule in this case and that results in a maximum allowable width of the treated surface area to be less than 20 feet, you may build to 20 feet. You don't have to. What we're saying is you can. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it can be the larger of 40 percent or 20 feet? MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Would that be an easy way to say it? Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to say -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: His fingers are going like this. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He wasn't using that finger. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We won't go there, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, did you want to reword that? Page 66 May 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would be good if we could reword it, because I had a little difficulty understanding it. So just -- it can be -- MR. SCHMITT: Maybe constructed to the larger of 40 percent or 20 feet? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. If the applicability results in something less than 20 feet. MR. SCHMITT: It makes sense. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we need to get into the discussion of comer lots. MS. MURRAY: Comer? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Comer lots, because I had some correspondence of-- in comer lots we have two front yards. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And how does this apply to it? MR. SCHMITT: I think paragraph E should cover that. That's - - there would only be one right-of-away permitted driveway or one permitted driveway access for that lot in most cases unless there -- now, yeah, I look at your face and I can say there could be two. It could be a circular driveway, and I would have to defer to transportation to help me or engineering. Do we permit two accesses? Have we in the past? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good evening, Stan Chrzanowski with Development Services. We permit two accesses off lots that aren't comer lots. In Golden Gate estates -- or Golden Gate City it happens quite a bit. They have ten-foot wide driveway that comes in and goes out, horseshoe shape. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. So the possibility -- and I don't have a problem with a horseshoe shaped driveway. What I do have a problem is creating conditions on comer lots where you have two front yards and being able to approve it up to 40 percent Page 67 May 29, 2002 and putting two dozen vehicles on it. That's what I have a problem with. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I would guess the way it's worded you could-- although I'd have to sit down and actually draw a picture of. You could probably pick up a couple of more cars that way, yeah. MS. MURRAY: Yeah, I concur. Technically you would have a larger front yard area, and 40 percent of the larger area is more parking. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Can we get some examples on what that would look like to the maximum so we can -- and maybe some kind of language too prohibiting that. MR. SCHMITT: Do you want some kind of exhibit that shows a comer lot of say 80 by 80 or 120 by 120, typical setbacks and drawn up with driveway and how many cars are on it? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think 90 by 120. MR. SCHMITT: 90 by 120. Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then if it's, you know, not applicable or if this isn't what the Board wants to do, then maybe something that we can put into this to prohibit the intensity of the property. MS. MURRAY: We can come back to you with a drawing and analysis of it in a scenario like this what might result and then come back with some recommended language for you-all to consider at a hearing in order to accomplish the objectives, which I think is obviously the limits, the number of vehicles parked. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And not let them calculate two front yards. MS. MURRAY: MR. SCHMITT: Right. That's what I hear you saying. Page 68 May 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. We just want -- I think the intent of the Board is to bring back-- take the neighborhood back and give it to the neighbor for the neighborhood. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Working from page 45, and this is a change to section 2.4. Specifically it's just a housekeeping issue to correct the spelling of ficus microcarpa and include other plant names that it is known by. I'm working from page 46 now and this is section 2.6.9.1 and 2.6.9.2, which has to deal with wells and also includes some amendments for parks. I think probably the overriding just to hear might be the wells. Tom Wheat is here and his staff if you want to hear a presentation or if you have comments or questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: it. I don't have a problem with MS. MURRAY: Now, working from page 50, the amendment to this section will basically require -- and this has to do with Alligator Alley communication towers and the landscaping requirements. And it will require the same minimum landscaping for communication towers located along Alligator Alley, the same as other communication towers in the County. Now, working from page 51 - COMMISSIONER HENNING: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Latouche, could you stick around. We're going to get to fire hydrants, and I might have come some questions for you. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Now, working from page 51, LDC section 2.7 relative to the number of hearings required before the Collier County Planning Commission for amendments to the Land Development Code. Statutorily there really are not requirements for the CCPC to Page 69 May 29, 2002 have two evening meetings for the purpose of reviewing and advising the Board of County Commissioners relative to LDC amendments. So our current regulations basically go beyond the statutory requirements. And I think basically what it comes down to is it increases the amount of time it takes to get through the LDC process. I do not want to dismiss in this amendment whether the Board to dismiss the importance of the Planning Commission. And nine times out of the ten, two hearings are vitally important to reviewing these LDC Amendments. The first hearing, as you're finding out, is generally to flush out issues, flush out your questions and help staff formulate, clarify and change. It gives, obviously, the public the opportunity the first look at it to speak. And we're not trying to change that to any great degree. I think what we're trying to do here is where two hearings may not be necessary and in the interest of time and expediting, if you-all, it would be a decision that you-all would make but staff would bring to you as an option and then you- all would vote and decide whether or not two hearings are necessary. And we would bring you the backup materials and the reasons why we thought maybe two hearings weren't necessary. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Um-hum. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it a decision that would more logically be made by the Planning Commission? They understand the workload and the amount of detail they're likely to have to go through probably better than we would at that point in time since it would not have come before us? Do you think that might be more appropriate to take it to the Planning Commission and let them have that flexibility and make that determination? You're not really, you know, as you said, you're not prohibiting a twice, you're not only saying that we're removing the requirement that it be done twice. But if someone wishes to do it twice because the workload is such that it is necessary to do it that way, they have Page 70 May 29, 2002 the flexibility to do it. Now, the question is whether it should be the Board of County Commissioners that makes that decision or whether it should be the Planning Commission. MS. MURRAY: I would submit that if the Planning Commission could make that decision legally that that would be -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would be better, because you'd have to bring something to the Board, get it approved about how many times they're going to meet on a specific issue. That's going to delay you, quite frankly. MR. SCHMITT: Good point. And the purpose for this is if there was maybe one amendment in a special cycle where it just doesn't make sense to have a meeting, hear it twice, because the Planning Commission would convene and you could spend all night covering that one issue and get over with it. And that was the purpose. But I think we'll defer the legal opinion on that. And think that would make sense, because they would make the determination whether or not they would have to see it twice. MS. STUDENT: There's no problem with that. That's fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: That's good. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? MR. SCHMITT: Because the Planning Commission was uncomfortable with that and then that would put it in their hands. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think it's written-- COMMISSIONER CARTER: The power of the Commission. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only concern I have with that is if the Board has a concern with one of the amendments and wants to do some radical changes, I think it's only appropriate to go back to the Planning Commission. What we might want to do is direct staff to ask the Planning Commission, "Planning Commissioners, do you feel that you should have another hearing on Page 71 May 29, 2002 these items so that we can make recommendations to the Board on whether you want to hear these or not?" Something in that order. MR. SCHMITT: I think you already have that option. You can send us back to the Planning Commission anytime -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- to have something relooked at. So I don't think that needs to be in this amendment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The Planning Commission has served as a great asset to the Commission- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- by the fact that they get to take these items and flush them out, fill out the public. When it gets to us, it's usually addressed out. So we're talking about sending it to them at the first part where we're discussing it? MR. SCHMITT: Where we're discussing it. Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: But as Commissioner Henning said, as if there was a need to go from the Board-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right-- MR. SCHMITT: -- to send it back again, you already have that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Now, I'm working from page 55. And this is an amendment to clarify the intention and standards for pedestrian walkways and to require the same minimum landscape buffer within Division 2.8 that's specified in Division 24. I know this isn't helping you. When sidewalks are incorporated in landscape buffers, generally, this clarifies the requirement for pedestrian ways between parking areas and buildings. There was some vague language in there, and we wanted to clarify to insure that we were reviewing our site plans to insure that there was safe pedestrian access between parking lots and buildings Page 72 May 29, 2002 so that rather than people just walking around park lots, they would have designated sidewalks or striped area of pavement to go to that they could safely access the front of the building or the side of the building and not have to walk through parking lots to any great extent. And that would advise the drivers as well and provide some buffering between the parking lot and the building itself. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One question on that if I may. This would be on new construction? MS. MURRAY: Right. Our code talks about where you make the changes to existing structures to a certain percentage, then you have to bring the building up to certain standards based on the percentage. So I don't want to say it totally applies to new construction, but there may be cases where people are making significant changes. This would have to apply. And page 56 now on to section 3.2 concerning buffer areas. This amendment will restore the requirements that landscape buffers be plotted as separate tracks or easements on plats. This is basically a reinstatement of a previously LDC provision that recognizes that the dedication of landscape buffer easements establishes an ownership interest in the same entity that will have the responsibility for maintenance of the required buffer area so that the entity is able to lawfully access the buffer areas and perform all required maintenance. Page 58, this is LDC Section 3.2 dealing with fire hydrants. I don't know if Ed Riley's in the group, but I'll just read. I'm not an expert in this area, but I'll read the changes to revise the safety requirements for fire hydrants to be consistent with the NFPA regulations. Ed was aware of this meeting tonight. I guess he got held up. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you have any issues? Commissioner Henning? Page 73 May 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I didn't. My deal with the residential and commercial, we're talking about two different diameters of pipes, I believe, in -- MS. MURRAY: Tom Cook or perhaps -- misc: For the record, Paul Matos. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The NFP is written by, you know, union, fire unions. And I know here in Collier County that we got miles of hose. And I guess my concern is on when we're trying to get more affordable housing in here and we're putting more and more requirements on it, that might not be needed. Of course, we do want to address the safety issue. But a fire hydrant is not cheap. I know that -- Paul, let me try to find -- we have two different requirements for commercial and residential as far as diameter of pipe. Somebody sees that -- is that a standard -- MR. MATOS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- what we're doing now? MR. MATOS: Yes. There are standards, and it's based on fire plodes calculated-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MATOS: -- hydraulic capability of providing water to a pipe. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Okay. And again, I guess my only concern, Commissioners, is the affordability of houses keeps going up, and is this really a necessary amendment, or is it a prior union trying to -- MR. SCHMITT: As you can see, the space was increased in residential, but it decreased for commercial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So does that mean -- MR. SCHMITT: You would have fewer hydrants in residential. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the cost would come down? Page 74 May 29, 2002 MR. SCHMITT: The cost would come down, but it's more hydrants in commercial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That makes sense. So I misread it. Thank you for that clarification. MR. SCHMITT: And that was -- I think we -- as you look at the strikeout, as I recall, it was not properly -- it was not corrected. That's why the amendment was -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was only going to ask a question concerning the new sprinkler requirements in high-rise buildings. But I don't think we have any in Collier County that qualify to a great extent that there are new codes concerning the requirements for sprinklers and buildings of a certain number of stories. Although our Land Development Code permits those buildings, I'm not sure how many we have that fall into that category that have not been retrofitted. MR. SCHMITT: Are you talking about after market -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Retrofitting older buildings that did not have the sprinkler systems installed. MR. SCHMITT: We'd probably have to bring Ed back to talk specifically about that, because the other issue, of course, was the installation of after-market storm shutters. And now the requirement to sprinkle the lanai- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Yes. MR. SCHMITT: -- and treat it as an interior if there are after- market storm shutters installed and which is a significant issue. But again, I have to defer to the fire -- you know, Ed Riley, the fire official and fire chiefs, because those are their rules. They got that -- they own that football. Page 75 May 29, 2002 COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only -- yeah. The only reason I raised that is to try to get Commissioner Henning's concern. We've actually reduced the spacing for commercial, industrial, single family with structures in excess of 5,000 square feet. We've reduced the spacing of fire hydrants. But it seems to me that those buildings have to be protected by sprinklers. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So is it necessary to reduce the spacing of fire hydrants when we have sprinklers as well as connections to those buildings for connecting hoses, don't we? MR. SCHMITT: Tom, do you want to -- MR. COOK: Yeah. For the record Tom Cook, Development Services. I think what we need to do is have Ed Riley here, because he's updated on, you know, what the fire requirements are and everything else. I think he would be in a better position to answer those specific questions, because he was the one that furnished this information. I understand, you know, the hydrant spacing. But when you get into some of the other technical details, those are all reviewed by Ed's department. And I think my recommendation is we'll have to hear him at the next meeting. MR. SCHMITT: At the next meeting we'll bring Ed, make sure Ed here's and we'll cover this. MR. COOK: And I'll alert him to some of the questions asked so he'll be prepared to answer them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you think they might be able to arrange a meeting with Commissioner Coyle ahead of time so that he can flush out some of these issues? MR. COOK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning is more qualified to do that than I am. Page 76 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, meet with both of them. Schedule an hour and a half meeting for each one. That would be appreciated. MR. COOK: I'll get the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then be at the meeting. MR. COOK: We'll be at the meeting. We'll take care of that. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Now working from page 60, amending section 3.3.7. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no questions. MS. MURRAY: Requiring a right-of-way permit at the time of site development plan instead of building permits. I believe we're up to the last amendment, page 61. I do want to call your attention very quickly to a typo in the change description at the top. It doesn't effect the amendment. The amendment language is as proposed. But there's some language in here that references permitting the use of pavers, deck shell and lawn. The C word is a CCSL. That's been removed. The only amendment for consideration at this point is the addition of a two hundred foot minimum separation between dune walkovers, which are allowed with a coastal construction setback line permit. And the reason to do this is to limit the number of dune walkovers per parcel allowed administratively. So you'll see that the minimum separation of two hundred feet between dune walkovers when two or more walkovers are proposed on a single parcel is the main addition here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: One question and that has to do with item 3.13.8.2.1, which is on page 62, second paragraph from the top, sand use must be compatible in color and grain size to existing sand. We have not been able to do that in our replenishment process Page 77 May 29, 2002 on the Naples Beach. Are we requiring that people do something that we can't do? MS. MURRAY: That is the current regulation, and it's not subject to change. Steve, do you have any comments on that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we just put in there, no lime rock. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That would be reasonably compatible. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That might be better. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Turtle safe. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's some flexibility, I guess, here, because if this had applied, I think some people could have argued that the sand we put on Naples Beach was not compatible in color or size. MR. SCHMITT: I understand what you're saying, yes. We generally want some compatibility and the DEP also specifies compatibility of sand for the beach. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do they? And they issue a permit for that based upon the sample of sand; right? MR. SCHMITT: I believe so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if it would be subject to DEP approval in the permit, then I think you're in good shape. Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we want to state that in the ordinance just to make it clear so that we don't -- MR. SCHMITT: I think I got to ask my legal on that, because reasonable wins itself to subjectivity, and then we're -- MS. STUDENT: Yes, in order to have a valid delegation of authority to staff or to put the public on appropriate notice, it has to, you know, have some specificity to it. I think I'd like the option of subject to the DEP. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's it. Yeah. That's it. Page 78 May 29, 2002 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We go it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let Rocky deal with them. MS. MURRAY: That was the final amendment, Commissioners. The next meeting will be June 19th. That will be your final meeting in which you'll vote on these amendments. And we will bring back the revised language as Steve's directed us. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's been a pleasure, Ms. Murray. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm glad you have so much patience with us. I know that sometimes we're unruly children. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I have to apologize. I had my And So phone here this evening, and I did let it ring like hours now. they're supposed to call me from Cleveland when she's okay. that's why I've had the phone on. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I wish your sister well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Should I let Commissioner Henning talk? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's talked enough. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought he did, too. Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks. Thanks for the opportunity. I just want to thank Susan Murray and Joe Schmitt for meeting with me today and going over the amendments so that I really understand. The direction that we're going is really what the community wants, and I felt very comfortable with these amendments and following amendments coming forward that we're going to get what the community wants in toto. And I also want to say that I received a lot of comments from the public on what a great job, Joe, your staff is doing, especially Page 79 May 29, 2002 Susan Murray, and all your staff of being very open to the public for their questions. And I think hat's very important that we try to answer the questions because being naive is being suspicion of government. So I just want to thank you. MR. SCHMITT: I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Well said. Page 80 May 29, 2002 Adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair- Time 7:15 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JAME! COLETTA, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGH,~i~.[t~.OCK, CLERK T~a4~ut~n~[~SQJ~ by the Board As presented N or as co~ected Page 81 May 29, 2002 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) I, Brenda Grimes, Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken by audiotape at the date and place as stated in the caption hereto on Page 1. Page 82