Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/08/2003 S (LDC Amendments)January8,2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS Naples, Florida, January 8, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of Collier County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: JIM COLETTA FRED COYLE DONNA FIALA FRANK HALAS TOM HENNING ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Development Services Administrator; Susan Murray, Current Planning Manager; and Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA January 8, 2003 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 W HO DECIDES T O APPEAL A DECISION O F T HIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF TIlE 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 CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY 1 January 8, 2003 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 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. 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 2 January 8, 2003 January 8, 2003 ORDINANCE 2003-01 AMEND1NG ORDINANCE 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COI,I~IF, R COl INTY: FIJORIDA- ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, would you take your seats, please. Now stand up so we can pledge allegiance to the flag. (At which time, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I want to welcome our vast audience. We're glad that you're here today. This is -- well, this is what? What are we looking -- waiting for? What are we missing? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I am, too. Mr. Schmitt, are you in charge today? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner. Good evening, Commissioners, and welcome to our final hearing, our second and final hearing of the fall cycle of the land development code process, the amendment process. We're going to hopefully go through rather quickly some of these, because you've seen these the first time. I'm going to mm the microphone over to Susan and Marjorie so we can just set the basis and the groundwork of how we're going to proceed through these. But like last time, just for overarching guidance, we're going to hit the major issues first so that we don't keep people sitting here for most of the night. My proposal will be the Vanderbilt Beach issue first. We have an amendment that involves the school districts and the permitted versus conditional use. And then we're going to 3.15, and then we'll Page 2 January 8, 2003 do the rest of them in sequence. And I think that will probably clear out the room of those who are here to speak. And we'll go through the others, just to make sure. But I'll turn it over to Susan for the groundwork. Susan? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But of course I want you to realize you don't have to leave when your agenda item is finished; you're welcome to stay for the whole proceedings. Please continue. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure, we'll have a lot of takers on that, I bet. MS. MURRAY: Good afternoon. For the record, Susan Murray, current planning manager. As Joe mentioned, this is the second and final hearing of the fall cycle 2002 LDC amendments you will be voting on tonight. A couple of announcements for the benefit of the public: There are sign-up sheets on this middle table here. If you wish to speak on an item, if you'd fill it out with the agenda item -- or the section number and hand it to myself or Joe. Also, I wanted to announce that we had received a written request to withdraw one of the amendments, and that was to Section 3.13.8, which is the coastal construction setback line variances, the Lely Barefoot group, Don Pickworth. That was an independent amendment submitted. They have requested to withdraw that. So if there's anybody in the audience that was here to hear that, they don't need to stay, it's been withdrawn. Also wanted to let you know that the information you have in front of you has just been recently completed for review by the county attorney's office and myself, and there are some changes that will be taking place in terms of the ordinance. And they're mostly editing; there's no substantive changes at all. MS. STUDENT: I can add for the record that it's mostly -- Page 3 January 8, 2003 again, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. There are no substantive changes, except there will be some changes to 3.15. But other than -- and Mr. Feder will address those. But other than 3.15, it's just clarification and makes it a little more clearer and so forth in the ordinance, but no real substantive changes. One item that Ms. Murray and I have been working on was an applicability section for the PUD procedures and to just clarify that as to what you really mean. It talks in terms of presently nonconforming situations. This is a massive document, over 100 pages to begin with, and we've been making the revisions to the ordinance itself. It's taken our office three solid days to do it. And so -- and with work over the holidays and so forth. But again, it's just editing and clarification, sight checking and things like that. MS. MURRAY: And of course any changes that you direct us to tonight through your vote will also be made to the ordinance as well. I did give you one hand-out regarding Section 2.7.3. I highlighted all the changes. Again, they were not substantive. But this was probably one of the more important sections of this cycle related to the PUD, and I just wanted you to be aware of some of the changes as we had discussed them from the first meeting. So that is a hand-out and I'll go over that with you when we get there. But you can see, anything that's highlighted, the light highlight has been changed. There's a darker highlight in there that I just wanted to call your attention to, but you've already read that. You received that exact same language in your package. So when we get there, I'll be happy to go over that. As Joe stated, he wanted to go ahead and start out with the Vanderbilt Beach issue. And I'll remind you that typically we work from the summary sheet, which are the first pages in your document. Page 4 January 8, 2003 And the Vanderbilt Beach issue is on Page 56. And at the last hearing, you directed a 12-month extension instead of a six-month extension, and we've amended the document to that effect. So the extension will be for 12 months. MS. STUDENT: And just for clarification, there's a slight difference in what's in your strike-through and underline. We're just going to put in there until January 31, 2004, so that will take care of it. MS. MURRAY: Are there any -- MS. STUDENT: We have two registered speakers: Diane Ketcham, followed by Suzie Swinehart. MS. KETCHAM: I'm going to be so brief tonight, you're going to be very impressed. But we can't have a Vanderbilt Beach thing without having some people here from Vanderbilt Beach. My name is Diane Ketcham and I'm representing the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association and the Save Vanderbilt Beach Fund. We are hopeful that you will pass this one-year extension to the moratorium for several reasons: First of all, we need the extra time. This is our future and we want to get it right. For the first time in a long time there is hope on Vanderbilt Beach that we can preserve our community, that working with you and the planning staff we can set code requirements that will stop canonization (sic) and give us all in Collier County more views of the sunset and more green space on Vanderbilt Beach. And I'd like to add, this is not a fight between the people of Vanderbilt Beach and all developers. It was quality developers who made Naples the beautiful place it is, and we look forward to working with them in any future redevelopment on our beach. What we will oppose and what we have opposed are developers who want to build as high and as dense as they can, then take their profits and leave. This is not our vision for Vanderbilt Beach, and I Page 5 January 8, 2003 know it's not yours. We have stood here so many times and asked so many things of you, because we were the last beachfront frontier in Collier County. Well, you are listening to us, and now to the other groups to the north of us, and we are grateful for that. We hope to come forward to you next year with a new overlay district for Gulf Shore Drive that will make the residents say this was all worth it, the lawsuits, the endless meetings. So please, pass this extended moratorium today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Next speaker? MS. MURRAY: Suzie Swinehart. MS. SWINEHART: Hello. My name is Suzie Swinehart and I live at -- on Bayview Avenue. And I am also a board member of the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association. And I would just like to say that I strongly support the extension of the moratorium. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: There's no more registered speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, that concludes the public hearing -- MS. MURRAY: Do you have any questions of us? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- the public portion of the hearing. So at this point in time is there any questions from the commissioners for staff?. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I move that we approve this part of the land development code. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. Marjorie, you want to make sure you give the MR. SCHMITT: ground rules. MS. STUDENT: Yes. I know in the past sometimes we've taken straw votes and such, but at the final hearing I think that we Page 6 January8,2003 should have one motion for the entire land development code amendments. And with that motion, we will need a finding of consistency with the growth management plan. And this will be a little bit different because division 3.15 has supporting amendments to the comp. plan that we haven't received. They've been adopted but we haven't received our compliance notification from DCA yet, so they're not effective. So we've looked into this, and that part of it, the motion would be in compliance with the proposed -- or excuse me, Ordinance No. 02-60 adopted November 19th, 2002. So I'll restate that again when the time comes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me -- so you want us to hold off on a motion? MS. STUDENT: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In order to be able to take the suspense away from the audience who's waiting to find out how we feel about this, what -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: We could possibly be here all night that way. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we could. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's just not tell them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We could do that, then they will stay. But I think that by nods of the heads we're pretty much in agreement with this. MS. STUDENT: You can take a straw vote that way and -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, let's proceed forward with the next item. Thank you very much for coming, you did a wonderful job. MS. MURRAY: The next item would be on Page 2, and this is Page 7 January8,2003 related to the regulation of public schools. And if you remember from the last meeting, the proposal was to allow public schools as a permitted use in the agricultural and estates zoning district, which you did not take issue with. But there was also some discussion about including in a limited fashion to allow them by right in the RSF zoning districts for a limited time frame. So if you look starting on Page 3 and on to Page 4, you'll see that in the RSF zoning districts for the RSF-3 and RSF-5 zoning districts only, public schools are a permitted use through January 30th, 2004, and a conditional use in the RSF-1, 2 and 4 zoning districts through January 30th, 2004. Whereas, previously they were all conditional uses in RSF-1 through RSF-5. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, just to clarify, this solves the problem that we were at an impasse with the time to get the application before you for a permitted use for the two intermediate centers out in Golden Gate City. This solves the problem for the school district and for the board so they can retain and maintain the aggressive schedule that they have for constructing new schools and meet the requirements within the county. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But we're still heading towards that ultimate goal of having-- MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- them comply and have the public meeting so that the neighbors can all weigh in on it in the future, correct? MR. SCHMITT: This will be a permitted use for a period of one year, and they have to still go through that process. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It gives them that little bit of-- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- time to be able to -- MR. SCHMITT: And it also gives them the time to initiate Page 8 January 8, 2003 action to begin construction as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is some other schools in the works that I know of, and I'm not sure if there's more. I know there's one high school off of Collier Boulevard that is planned for, I believe, '04, and somewhere in '03, probably take a year and a half to construct. Maybe we ought to hear from Mr. Simms, tell us some of the hurdles that they have to jump through. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask one question before? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You certainly may, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this also a tie-in with the -- so that the school board and the Board of Commissioners have an understanding of what -- how development's going to be and we can help direct development in that area also, in areas? COMMISSIONER COYLE: A joint planning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: A joint planning? Or is this -- MR. SCHMITT: We are aggressively engaged with the school district and the board in the planning effort. Unfortunately, and Mr. Simms can allude to that, oftentimes the schools are forced to locations based on the land that they can acquire. It may in some times in some instances not be the best place, but it's just a matter of what they can acquire through -- without having to condemn property. And I can refer to Jim to highlight on that. But be that as it may, we are -- there are schools even going -- looking out in the estates where we're trying to aggressively work with the school board so that we can provide the infrastructure needed and jointly plan to meet those requirements. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, that's -- okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Simms? Page 9 January8,2003 MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Jim Simms, the associate superintendent for operations for Collier County Public Schools. Mr. Schmitt is absolutely correct, we are working very closely together. We'll be the first to admit that the whole process needs to be tightened up. And that's what you're trying to do and that's what your staff is trying to do. We agree with that, and we support that. And we'll work as diligently as we can to fulfill what we believe is the common objective, growth in the right places, schools at the right time. The high school that you mentioned, sir, Golden Gate High School, as I recall is in-- is zoned in the estates area, so we have no problem there with respect to any conditional uses that might be applied in the residential areas. Our concern, as you are aware, was our ability to proceed with the two intermediate centers in the Golden Gate City area, and the proposed amendments will allow us to do that and we appreciate that. We do have some concerns over the potential long-term impacts of having schools as conditional uses in the residential areas. Our consultants and in fact members of the public have cautioned us that there may be some delays and costs associated with that. So we have some concerns there. But nevertheless, as I said before, we need to work together and we need to support you in your efforts to control matters, and we'll do that. We would only ask that if we run into difficulties as a result of the conditional use designations, that we have the opportunity -- and I'm sure you'll grant us that -- to bring it back and address the issues with you should they occur and when they occur. So we want to express our thanks to Mr. Mudd, Mr. Schmitt and the entire staff, and to you for your support to the school districts as we endeavor to keep pace with the rapid growth that we're all Page 10 January 8, 2003 experiencing here in the county. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Simms. MR. SIMMS: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a little tidbit, a little knowledge that I gained over the past few weeks. The Naples Birthing Center, the month of November, 2002, there were almost 300 babies born at that facility. So if you take three months, that's one elementary school. MR. SIMMS: It sure is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, I think that was precedent setting, but I think that we need to work a little smarter and figure out where all these kids are going to live and where they're going to go to school. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have we found out what's causing this? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Water. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we might ask Commissioner Henning that question again, because he just contributed one of the new babies out there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was in the month of December. That was down a little bit. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we won't worry about it then. Any other questions? Are we all in agreement to move this one forward? Nods of the heads? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Simms. MS. MURRAY: Okay, the next item would be 3.15, and I believe you received that under separate cover. And Stan Litsinger Page 11 January 8, 2003 will be covering that with you. MR. LITSINGER: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning. This evening on division 3.15, what I will do is since your hearing on December the 11 th, I will go through the changes, note those very quickly to you from what you received in your first hearing and what you received by separate cover for this hearing. Very quickly, on Page 6, under 3.15.3.18, we've added for clarification the final development order definition for this division of the land development code shall be a final approved subdivision plat, final approved site development plan or building permit. On Page 7, the very bottom of your page under level of service standards for water facilities, we've clarified the level of service standards for independent districts and private systems as identified in your potable water sub-element, in Rule 10(D)(6) of the Florida Administrative Code. On Page 10, top of the page under level of service again for private sanitary systems and independent districts, here again for clarification, the reference to the sewer sub-element and Rule 10(D)(6) of the Florida Administrative Code for those levels of service standards. On Page 17, under actions relative to your AUIR process, which you just completed last month, we've added also for clarification under establishment, number three, establishment of interim development controls. Under D and E, remedies would include private development improvements guaranteed at enforceable development agreements. And for capital roads, the designation for constrained roadway segments. Page 19, under the boundaries for ASI, we have just added for clarification as proposed to you by the transportation administrator. Page 12 January 8, 2003 on? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question before we go CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Stan, can we go back to Page 17 under paragraph 3(E)? What is a capital road facility? MR. LITSINGER: Capital road facility would be an improvement in capacity as a result of additional lane miles or improvements relative to improving the flow and carrying capacity of a particular segment, intersection improvements. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that an official designation of some kind of capital road facility, or-- MR. LITSINGER: A capital road facility would be any type of a capital improvement to your roadway network that increases capacity, carrying capacity. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: On Page 21, we clarify under 3.15.6.56, dissolution of area of significant influence in that it would be dissolved in the same manner that it was established, which would be by action of this board that a public hearing could dissolve an area of significant influence. On Page 27, I would point out to you in the traffic impact vesting affirmation process that will take place over the six months following the adoption of this ordinance, we had clarified on Page 26, under 3.15.7.312 that the county will conduct a traffic impact vesting review during the six months following the adoption of this ordinance, where developments vested for concurrency prior to the effective date, which would include developments that have previously received a certificate of adequate public facilities have entered into an approved development agreement with vesting provisions for transportation for which were statutorily vested prior to the effective day of this ordinance will be reviewed during this Page 13 January8,2003 traffic affirmation vesting program over the next six months. And on Page 27, in the second paragraph, we had noted before this meeting that we would need to add after previously vested development, i.e. development with certificates, we need to add in there DCA's development contribution of agreement with vesting provisions and also statutorily vested projects, to be clear there on what we are intending to do with this vesting review. So we would add that language on the top paragraph there on Page 27. Also on Page 27 under 3.15.7.312, here we've clarified a mid-year monitoring report that we would propose to do on all developments that's previously approved which is not at least 90 percent built out, so that we can establish background traffic and know the rate of build-out of the various development approvals that have been issued by the county. A clarification also on Page 27 under 3.15.7.313, relative to the applicability of this ordinance, which would be to subdivision plats and site development plans approved prior to the effective date of the original applicable ordinance, which was in November of'93. COMMISSIONER HALAS: In other words, they're grandfathered in from that point on; is that what you're saying? From '93? MR. LITSINGER: Before. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Before. On or about. MR. LITSINGER: On page -- beginning on Page 28 -- on Page 29, we have a detailed explanation of the traffic impact vesting process which can take place over a three-year period as a result of the initial payment of 50 percent of your roads impact fees and ultimately the payment of 100 percent of your impact fees within three years will result in vesting for transportation concurrency in perpetuity for the particular project. It goes on to explain that those -- that traffic impact vesting may be transferred within the project Page 14 January8,2003 described on the certificate of adequate facilities for transportation, and the monies deposited or paid into the impact fee funds may be transferred within the district or the adjoining district. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Question I have on this. Suppose somebody comes in and wants to have this -- a PUD and then decides to pull out, do they get their money back or does that money stay there? MR. FEDER: Commissioner, if I could, Norman Feder for the record. If someone has paid their 50 percent, that is nonrefundable. And again, it wouldn't be a PUD, it would be a final development order, final plot or plan. Because they paid the 50 percent, it's nonrefundable, they-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they pull out, they don't get their money back. MR. FEDER: They do not get their money back. But what this does provide for is if they then surrender that certificate of adequate public facility for the rest of their project, they can't -- it stays with the land, runs with the land, the vesting. They though can use those impact fees they paid. While they can't get it back, they could use it on another project within that district or adjacent district, they paid those fees, so they're not going to create the impact, they've got the ability to use those fees within the district. But they cannot get -- move the vesting away from their project, nor can they get their money back. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, you're saying in the district. Does that mean the whole county, or is that -- MR. FEDER: The impact fee district, which there's seven in the county. That district or the adjacent district. Much like we can utilize the fees within the district or an adjacent district. It would allow them to move those fees on another project within that district or adjacent district. Page 15 January8,2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not trying to be devil's advocate here-- MR. FEDER: Please. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- but suppose that somebody has a development and decides that I'm not going to develop it at this point in time but I can go over to another area and we might find that there's constraints because of traffic. But he's -- can this developer come in and say well, wait a minute, I've already paid my development, I can go to this other district? MR. FEDER: Very good question. Let me make sure the record is extremely clear. No, they cannot. That's why I said the vesting runs with the property itself. They could use the impact fees over there if in fact they could get a concurrency determination for that new project that they wanted to work on. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: And that is the extent of the substantive changes since your first draft of the ordinance that we presented to you on December the 11 th. I would note that you that at the December 11 th meeting there was a hand-out by the development industry. Mr. Zucella (phonetic) handed out a proposal relative to a phasing and an early commitment for concurrency in the application process. We have reviewed that and worked with the industry, and in light of the fact that this is an interim concurrency management system, pending your checkbook concurrency system, we believe we have agreement with the industry that the process that we've outlined here over the next 12-month period is workable. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any speakers on this item? MR. SCHMITT: We have two registered speakers: Michael Page 16 January 8, 2003 Fernandez and David Ellis. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good evening, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good evening, Commissioners. Just two quick questions, and perhaps it's just a matter of clarification. There's an issue about cancellation of certificates. Currently there's a 30-day provision where you can-- once you're notified that your certificate's available for pickup, you have 30 calendar days to come pick that up. There was a change that was proposed to reduce that number from 30 calendar days to five business days. I don't know what the concern is, but that seems that, just from a procedure standpoint, from the time I get a fax notification that the COA is available for me to pick up, to go to the bank, get the money, the client and so forth may be out of town, or whatever, five days just seems a little short. And we're wondering if we can -- we don't know what the genesis or the reason is, but 10 days would be maybe sufficient, if there is an issue with -- relative to that. That's the first one. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where was this in the -- I didn't remember reading that. I thought it was all 30 days, from what material I have. MR. FEDER: I'm going to need the cite, and I have Stan looking at it right now. Please understand, the intent was to establish that actually at 90 days. At 90 days, not at five days or 30. The provision being that on initial determination of certificate of adequate public facility, that then that could be picked up day one or up to 90 days. If it's not picked up within 90 days, it goes away. But the day that it's picked up, that half of the transportation impact fees are to be paid. And they then become nonrefundable and the process goes in. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that's on Page 28, paragraph 5.15.7.3.1.5. Joe, you've got to get these things renumbered. Page 17 January8,2003 MR. SCHMITT: MR. FEDER: MR. MUDD: MR. FEDER: Hey, we're working on it. What page are you on? Page 28. 28. I can tell you on 34, if I call your attention there, it says what I just said, which was the 90 days. Let me go back to 28 and see if we have just -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: There was something I read in here for 30 days. After you're notified or something, 30 days. MR. MUDD: Page 28, middle paragraph? COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I didn't see the five days either. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not less -- not later than 90 days. MR. SCHMITT: Again, I'm on Page 28, Norman, the middle paragraph that says 90 days. And -- MR. FEDER: It says 90 days further down. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I didn't see anything on five days. I wish we-- MR. FEDER: That's an old one. It is 90 days. And I guess I had an old draft that Michael was stuck with. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the latest that's on the Internet right now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. MR. FERNANDEZ: But apparently that was catched (sic). The other item that I have regarding this is that there's a provision in here where you can secure a COA by development agreement for large developments up to -- or 500 units or 150-unit phase, or 100,000 square feet of commercial. If you're not-- if you don't meet those standards, you can only get a COA for three years. And I'm wondering if there's -- what's the rationale behind giving a larger development that luxury, as opposed to allowing all developments to have five years, or all developments to have three. And I'm not so much worried about the three versus five for Page 18 January8,2003 development as much as putting two developers that perhaps are competitors on equal footing that are located one adjacent to the other. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Ellis? Good evening. MR. ELLIS: Thank you. My name is David Ellis, I'm with the Collier Building Industry Association. Thank you very much. I just wanted to briefly say, this has been certainly a -- taken a lot of time to pull together a lot of these details. And certainly I wouldn't even purport to you that it's perfect, but I think your staff's done a very positive and proactive job in taking a very difficult thing and working with the understanding of trying to see it through to working in a day-to-day environment. And certainly this is an interim move on behalf of the county. And we're pleased so far. I think next year is actually going to be a very challenging year in terms of pulling together the information we're going to need to make our final decisions about this process. And I will commend your staff, I think they've got a significant task ahead of them. We look forward to participating in that process, too, as we generate the details and information that are going to be necessary to pull this together. But I will compliment them, this has been -- I'm excited to be able to come here tonight and have to bring up even small little things about this. I think it's a workable document, something we're going to be able to rely on. And I'm quite confident there's going to be something in here that's not going to work, but knowing that we're going to be working with the staff in bringing together a final work product in the next year, year and a half, whenever that happens, that's going to bring this to fruition. I think it's something to be very proud of and proud of your Page 19 January 8, 2003 staff, how they've engaged and worked with the private sector on this to make sure that it not only accomplishes that task of creating good concurrent systems, but also works within the world of-- the day-to-day of the people that do these jobs. It's been tedious, to say the least, but I think it's also going to be a good work product, something you should be very proud of. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Ellis. Well, that closes the public portion of this particular item. Is there any questions on the part of Commissioners? Do I see any agreement to move -- Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think on this item we go ahead and take a vote on it with the proper language? MS. STUDENT: Yes, you could go ahead and vote on this one and make the finding of consistency. Just let me turn to my notes here. Be with the comp. plan amendment, which was Ordinance 02-60, adopted November 19th, 2002. And that is not yet effective because we don't have our finding of compliance yet from DCA, plus the 21 days. And the effective date of the ordinance is so worded to reflect that. COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: So let me try this: Motion to approve the amendments to the Land Development Code 3.15 for the future amended growth management plan or comprehensive plan that is -- will be coming up in 2003. And the ordinance number was 02-60? MS. STUDENT: Yes. It would be finding of consistency with that ordinance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And finding that it is consistent with the future growth management plan/comprehensive plan amendment. MS. STUDENT: It would be the amendment to become Page 20 January 8, 2003 effective but -- already adopted but yet to become effective amendment. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You two attorneys are going to kill me yet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I include that in my motion. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right, that's better. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, now we could just go through the selected items in order, and I will just call the section and page number. I'll stop when you had a discussion about the item last time and tell you what we did. And if you want to stop me on any of the other items, you could stop me, if that's acceptable. And then we'll stop also when we have some public speakers. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just one question. Do we have any speakers on any of these items? MS. MURRAY: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we have one public speaker for four separate items. And they're pretty much almost sequentially as we go through the process. Mike Fernandez has registered for four different items. Page 21 January 8, 2003 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. When we come to that item, possibly at that point in time we should pause to allow the speaker, okay? MS. MURRAY: Super, okay. The first item would be Section 1.9.1 on Page 1. At the last meeting you reviewed that without comment. The next item on Page 2 we covered, Section 2.2.2. The next item on Page 5, Section 2.2.3.4.3, you reviewed last time without comment. The next item is Section 2.2.12 on Page 7. You did have a question. I think Commissioner Henning had a question relative to outdoor storage in C-4 and C-5. We met with him separately and discussed his question and it had no impact on the land development code amendments before you, so there had been no change relative to that. And that is one item that we do have a public speaker on, Mr. Chairman. MR. SCHMITT: Mike, you're registered for 2. -- is that the one you wanted to speak on? MS. MURRAY: 2.2.127 MR. FERNANDEZ: . 1. MR. SCHMITT: 12.1. Okay, that's the next one then. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. Next item, 2.12.1, you did have a question about the office provision, and we discussed and resolved that in the meeting. And then this is the item Mike Fernandez wishes to speak on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What page is that? MS. MURRAY: That's on Page 7. MR. MR. particular by square SCHMITT: A large No. 7 on the bottom of the page. FERNANDEZ: Again, Commissioners, in regard to this item, there are several of the permitted uses that are limited footage. For instance, video stores, 1,800 square feet. Page 22 January 8, 2003 Anything above that requires a conditional use. Staff sought to address the problematic issue with this by coming up with a provision that said if it was part of a shopping center, it does not have to go through a conditional use. But that means that any project that is less than 20,000 square feet and has less than eight tenants, different tenants, would have to get a conditional use approval just to put a new tenant in place, which seems a little much. It also seems that -- too much to ask for a small 1,800 or 1,900 square foot video store to come in and go through a fairly extensive conditional use process, but a shopping center that has 200,000 square feet would not. So again, it's just problematic, the limitation of square footage. And maybe there's another way that something like this can be handled. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, this question is actually for Susan with regard to your concerns. In something like this, is that kind of like being able to guarantee what type of facility would be renting there? In other words, you're speaking of a video store, and so now a new one is going to come in, but this just happens to be one that I would classify as undesirable in my neighborhood. This would allow us then to address that more closely and possibly decide we don't want that in the neighborhood, is that-- MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't know what the purpose is. But see, if it's part of a shopping center, you have no purview. But if it's part of a strip center that's less than 20,000 square feet or has less than eight tenants, which is the requirement we classified as a shopping center, they have to go through a conditional use process. In the meantime, the owner of that strip center has no tenant. And by the same token, if you're doing a brand new development Page 23 January8,2003 and, you know, you're coming in for a little video store, it seems like an awful lot to ask for somebody to come in just to do a little video store to go through a conditional use. But if you're a big shopping center with a lot of impacts, that doesn't -- it doesfft apply. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just thought maybe there were some safeguards in here for us, and so I just wanted clarification on that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could staff give us clarification on that? I bet that's what it is. MS. MURRAY: Sure. As you recall, last year we amended all the purpose and intent of each of the districts to further clarify them. And the purpose and intents were amended and then we subsequently came back with LDC amendments and placed square foot limitations on some of the types of uses. The reason for that was to -- how can I explain it? It goes to intensity. So for example, C-1 is your least intense commercial zoning district, and so the uses that would be allowed by right in there you want to have consistent with the purpose and intent which is generally to -- I mean, it's all written in here, but it's generally to allow office types and to allow uses that are compatible with nearby residential neighborhoods. And so we took the intensity level for each district and we tried to apply the uses as applicable, depending on the purpose and intent of the district. As you get more intense, you tend to be located farther away from residential, you tend to be located near other commercial areas. So C-4 and C-5 -- after C-3, we took out the limitation of square footage, and C-4 and C-5 allow your most intense commercial districts. We did add the provision for the shopping center, because previously even if you were in a shopping center, you had to do a conditional use if you were one of these uses. And there's certain facets of a shopping center that are -- that have an intensity level of Page 24 January8,2003 their own that I don't think a conditional use process would have been really beneficial to anybody. I just think it was excessive. And we found that people were coming in wanting to go into shopping centers, and to make them go through a conditional use when they were surrounded by commercial development already of a similar intensity seemed to mitigate out a little bit the impact of that use. I don't know if that makes sense but -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So this does give us a safeguard. MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: This allows us to have some say as to what's happening in these strip malls, especially if they're an older strip mall and, you know, they've been rented out. But we at least are allowed then to take a look at for who or what they're renting to. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right? So I like that safeguard in place, quite frankly. I'm delighted that it's there and I want to keep it there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think this is fitting for the community character plan also, trying to get that C-1 and C-2, you know, those neighborhood uses to those mom and pop -- MS. MURRAY: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- type operations. MS. MURRAY: You're exactly right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How would this affect overlays, though, where we want to encourage redevelopment? MS. MURRAY: That's a pretty broad question. It depends on what the overlay says. And the overlay can write different -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can give me a broad answer. MS. MURRAY: The overlay can write different regulations Page 25 January 8, 2003 than what the underlining zoning district -- supplemental regulations to the underlining zoning district. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if they come in with like a PUD or something like that, it wouldn't be affected by limitations of a square foot? MS. MURRAY: Depends on what the overlay says. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Is there any other questions on behalf of the commission? With that, I guess we're more or less in agreement with it? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we'll move on. This is one we can approve at the end, correct? MS. MURRAY: Yes. Okay, now we're moving on to Page 2 of your summary sheet, at the top of the page, Section 2.2.20, and that's on Page 33 of your hand-out. And I need to state for the record that in the RT PUD that we need to add group homes and group care facilities -- and Marjorie, if I'm leaving something out, will you help me out, to -- the list of permitted uses. That was omitted and we discovered that after the hand-out had gone out. And that needs to be added. MS. STUDENT: And I'll explain the reason for that. Because in the table there's a reference to residential development, and where that's found under the Federal Fair Housing Act amendments, we have to treat homes for disabled folks the same way as we would treat any other type of residents. It's the number of people and the size of residence, not the fact that they have a disability. So because there's the general reference to residential development there, to clarify that, we're going to put in the reference that we have in our code and other zoning districts to the group care, Page 26 January 8, 2003 the care unit and the family care facility. MS. MURRAY: And we also have a registered speaker on this. And we're working from Page 33. And that's Michael Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioners, this is a significant change -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For the record one more time. MR. FERNANDEZ: Michael Fernandez, of planning development. This is a significant change to the PUD requirements and the PUD formats. And what I'm going to suggest to you is that what we're doing really is creating all these new districts that have -- that are being endowed with the old standards of the existing zoning districts. We are removing our ability really to have a unique PUD. And I think that -- I would suggest to you that what we actually should do is create yet another district that allows for flexibility for someone to come in with something that is truly unique, as opposed to just living on the existing standards. 99 percent of the PUD's that you probably do review nowadays are significant upgrades already from the existing standards that are in the current standard zoning districts for commercial or residential. And I think we're actually lowering the standards here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Really? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any comments? MS. MURRAY: Did you wish comment from staff?. If I understood the concern correctly, I guess I would respectfully disagree. I think the purpose of classifying these is basically to identify a relationship between a proposed PUD and other zoning districts within the LDC. And that relationship exists by statute in the LDC already. So this is just basically clarifying that. I don't -- I'm not sure that it diminishes any type of development Page 27 January8,2003 standards or the ability to have a unique PUD, it merely references some of the zoning districts so that that relationship can be established. For example, where there's -- where you have a residential PUD, you're going to identify it as such. Where you have a mixed use PUD, you're going to identify it as such, you know, a mixture of commercial and industrial or a mixture of commercial and residential. And then you are going to be able to reference the applicable zoning districts to do a comparison of the standards between the two and establish that relationship. I think what you can anticipate is we may come back before you actually expanding these districts out a little bit more in a tabular format. And -- but I do disagree with the speaker, that's really the intent is to further clarify. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think on Page 34 you basically hit the nail on the head. It's a desirable environment and visual harmony is what you're trying to convey in here. Am I right? MS. MURRAY: Yes. Yeah, we didn't change any of the purpose and intent of the PUD district-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. MS. MURRAY: -- standard itself. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All it is, is just to make sure that it environmentally addresses the issues at hand so that it basically conforms with the surrounding area. MS. MURRAY: Correct. And a PUD is not absolved from complying with applicable provisions of the LDC. There's a relationship that's established there, and it's defined in the LDC. And this is just further clarifying that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Susan, I thought we had identified a mixed use PUD in these provisions. At least it seems to me that the Page 28 January 8, 2003 last draft I saw indicated that was the case. But on Page 45 and 46, I don't see a mixed use PUD. Am I looking in the wrong place? MS. MURRAY: Yes. If you go to 48, it gets -- unfortunately it gets a little lost in there, because there's some special requirements for industrial PUD's, and that goes on. You go to 48, about the middle of the page, you'll see 2.2.20.4.6, a mixed use PUD. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Follow-up question: There are instances where a commercial and industrial PUD might be appropriate. Is it possible to do that under this category, or should we think about adding another mixed use commercial industrial unit? MS. MURRAY: It's possible to do it under the way it's drafted. You may want to consider that. And I guess what I would let you know is because these are fairly substantive changes, I would forewarn you that will probably be coming back before you in the near future after we've implemented the regulations to see if they're effective. And if they're not or where they're not, we'll be making some more changes as well, to see if they've accomplished the objective you set -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there's nothing here that would preclude someone from wanting -- MS. MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to integrate industrial and commercial components in a single PUD? MS. MURRAY: No. No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any speakers on this one? MS. MURRAY: That was your last speaker. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was the last speaker, fine. And any other questions on behalf of staff?. We agree to move forward on this? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please proceed. Page 29 January8,2003 MS. MURRAY: The next item was Vanderbilt Beach. We already talked about that. I'm on Page 3 of your summary sheet. At the top of the page, Section 2.6.9 through 9.2, you reviewed last time with no comment. The next item, 2.6.15 was withdrawn. The next item, 2.6.30 you reviewed without comment. Section 2.7.2.3.5 you reviewed without comment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute, I have -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hold on. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's one that -- the new hand-out, right? MS. MURRAY: No, that is the next one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. MS. MURRAY: The next one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That one I have a question on. MS. MURRAY: Okay. The next item is at the top of Page 4, 2.7.3.1, and that is the hand-out. If you'll refer to that. And beginning on Page 5 of the hand-out, you'll see some highlights. All of these highlights through Page 11 was text added after you received your packet. Basically it's clarification language. For example, on Page 5 we talked about deviations to sections of the code, and I just clarified to make sure that they understood where you didn't have to spell a deviation out to the code. And we'll have a standard format for the yards and the setbacks and the building height and all that, and they'll have to plug their numbers into that format. But it's not necessary to call the very specific section of the code that you're deviating from in that case. The next item that was changed was -- if you go to Page 10 at the bottom, this is the description of the Board of County Commissioners' action pursuant to PUD's which have sunsetted. Or -- the words "or at status" were added there for clarification purposes, Page 30 January 8, 2003 mainly. But when I went through this after I had submitted to you, the text didn't flow very well, and what it did was it went into discussing an option that wasn't really clarified at the beginning that you had. And specifically it gave you the option to extend the current PUD to approve or deny an application for a PUD amendment, or to require the owner to submit an amended PUD. And if you see that paragraph three that's highlighted there, I went ahead and added that. And the original language was leading into that, but there was just no link between the top two and that language, so I went ahead and added that for clarification that would allow you to require an owner to submit an amended PUD. Also, we have added language -- no, I think we discussed that last time, I'm sorry. Below that, I wanted to call to your attention Section 2.7.3.4.6, all the darker highlighted. We had discussed some of this last time, and basically that section was expanded. And the expansion talked about the extension of a PUD and the circumstances under which you would grant an extension, the maximum extensions allowed, and the process by which we would go to evaluate and recommend to you whether or not an extension should be granted. So all of that was expanded, and I wanted to call your attention to that. The last correction was -- or addition, I guess, was on Page 16 at the bottom. Marjorie and I had discussed this last time with you. She was uncomfortable with the language, and the purpose of this language was to make these regulations retroactive to all PUD's that were already in existence, so we discussed and changed this, and basically that's what that language does. So that's different than what you had in your packet. MS. STUDENT: That is in 2739? MS. MURRAY: 2739. Page 31 January 8, 2003 MS. STUDENT: And Susan, while I was coming here tonight, I thought of a bit of a further clarification, and I'll just throw it out there and correct me if I'm wrong, but something to the effect that all future PUD's and PUD amendments shall comply with these procedures except that the sunsetting procedures are applicable to all PUD's. So if-- does that meet the -- MS. MURRAY: That meets the intent of-- MS. STUDENT: -- I think that clarifies it a bit further. MS. MURRAY: Yes. MS. STUDENT: So if we can have that changed, I'd appreciate that. MS. MURRAY: And that was all I really wanted to call your attention to on that. There is a speaker, registered speaker. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to the speaker, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we identify Page 13, what is insubstantial changes? Would that be like landscaping? MS. MURRAY: This section is a little -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: What page are we? MS. MURRAY: We're on Page 13. The way the code is structured, it -- what it does is it defines what a substantial change is, rather than an insubstantial. So it lists out -- under this paragraph you'll see numbers one through 10, 11. It says a substantial change is deemed to exist where -- and then if any of these items are tripped, based on what you're proposing to change, then it's called a substantial change. If you don't trip any of these items, then your change is insubstantial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. MURRAY: And the insubstantial change goes to the planning commission for approval. If it's substantial, it goes to the board. Page 32 January 8, 2003 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Substantial change, right, that's what I was reading. Applicant-- insubstantial change, I guess that's on the next page, 2.7.3.5.4 would be required to go to the planning commission. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- would that take an advertised public hearing? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it would take posting of the property? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what would be an insubstantial change? MS. MURRAY: Well, let me see if I can provide a real-life example for you. For example, if somebody wanted to, let's say, relocate a recreation area -- I'm not sure if that's the best example, but let me just go through here. MR. SCHMITT: MS. MURRAY: MR. SCHMITT: Internal street design. Internal street design, that might be better. Internal street design, like a cul-de-sac. If we're going to change the location, let's say, of the clubhouse within a PUD or identified area, again, we would determine are there impacts affecting other neighborhoods, and if there are not -- so it becomes a decision made by the current planning manager, and it can be trumped up to the planning services director for a determination, if in fact it is a substantial or insubstantial change. Certainly if it's ruled an insubstantial change, it becomes more beneficial to the applicant because it -- it's not a -- as long of a process. MS. MURRAY: If somebody wanted to, for example, increase Page 33 January8,2003 their conservation or preserve area and they have their PUD master plan with the various bubble diagrams showing the different land areas, they could do that, nine times out of 10 through the insubstantial change process, provided-- MR. SCHMITT: Water retention requirements may have dictated a change in some kind of modification in the road network. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would that be better -- that's a great parallel, conservation change, you want to increase it. We should applaud them, shouldn't we? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We shouldn't give them a stick by having advertising to the planning commission. Shouldn't that be something that the staff should be able to handle? MS. MURRAY: There are some minor changes that the director has the ability to approve administratively. And again, it gets to be a case-by-case basis. And you can see these categories are fairly broad. There are some that are pretty specific. But there is some changes that the director can do administratively without an advertised public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask another question then. Let's say than an applicant comes in with a PUD and it was approved. 'Now he has to go through the Corps of Engineers for his permits because he has wetlands on it. So we're having the -- pretty much the site development plan, the commissioners are reviewing this now, and that's because the commissioners are asking for it. The Corps of Engineers, you know, wants to change the whole conservation or the flowway or the wetlands and stuff like that, so does that applicant have to come back to the planning commission MS. MURRAY: Possibly, depending on the extent and magnitude of the changes. Because you'll see if there's a significant Page 34 January 8, 2003 change that might affect an adjacent land use or there's a significant change that might otherwise increase stormwater discharge or might relocate stormwater discharge, that could possibly affect-- MR. SCHMITT: And the reason for that is if it triggers that kind of significant change, you have to allow the adjacent property owners, in this case the adjacent PUD's, an opportunity to at least have a say as to whether or not the visual or any other type of impact is going to impact them. And of course the discretion lies in the Board of the County Commissioners and not in the staff. And that could be a discretionary decision that would have to be made by an elected official level and not the staff level. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, I think we're talking about insubstantial changes. I don't think we're talking about substantial changes. MR. SCHMITT: But when we were talking about the Corps of Engineers, if that triggered a substantial change, then we would have to come back to you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or if it's an insubstantial change, then it would have to come back to the planning commission. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And an insubstantial change would, I think the example was, increase in a conservation area, or density reduction. MR. SCHMITT: But that could be a substantial change as well. MS. MURRAY: It could be. It really is a case-by-case basis. If you see here number eight, the change will bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use, that's fairly broad. That's an evaluation we have to do based on the circumstances of the application at the time they apply, or normally it's at the time of a preapplication meeting. Page 35 January 8, 2003 Normally we discuss that before they even apply to try to figure out if it's substantial or insubstantial. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this person could be in government for a long time. I guess I made my point. COMMISSIONER COYLE: A long, long, long time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll see. If we may, let's go to Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle, then we'll go to the public speaker. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what the idea was of this is to put the responsibility back under the developer to make sure that he did his homework when he come up with -- when he designed the PUD, so that we knew exactly what was going to go in there ahead of time. I think that's what the whole -- this whole idea was. But the point that Commissioner Henning brought up I think is a good point. I think if we go ahead and pass this, we can always come back and tweak this, if there's a particular area that we need to address. But I think overall, what this is to do here is to put the responsibility back to the developer to make sure -- am I -- is this the way that I read this, that we're trying to put the responsibility to the developer to make sure that when he sets up a PUD, that we know exactly how that PUD is going to be and how it's -- and if he makes any changes, then of course it's -- they got all these 10 triggers here that are going to set it off; if he tries to make any changes that may involve serious problems with adjacent property owners. MS. MURRAY: Right. And that's -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's how I read this. MS. MURRAY: If you're looking on Page 13, again, we're not changing anything. That's the existing process. You'll see there's -- and I apologize if this gets confusing. There's no underlines here or any strike-outs, so whatever is not underlined or struck out, that means it's existing text. Page 36 January 8, 2003 But Commissioner Halas, you picked up on a really good point, is yes, part of the changes that are going through here are to put the burden more on the developer to tell us, you know, the details of the PUD in more detail, to put the -- make sure they're responsible when a PUD sunsets for applying for an extension or applying for a PUD amendment, and the burden's not so much on the county. COMMISSIONER HALAS: County or the staff, exactly. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is really sort of convoluted. I just want to make sure that on page -- sub-paragraph three on Page 13, it will be considered a substantial change if a proposed decrease in preservation does not exceed five percent. By implication that appears to say that if the decrease in preservation is greater than five percent, it is insubstantial. I know that's not what you intended to say. But you might want to figure out a better way to say that, right? MS. MURRAY: Honestly, this whole section -- and again, we're not changing it this time, but the whole section is very confusing. You almost have to go to three different sections to figure out -- or to ensure that the change is not substantial. And I also wanted to call your attention, Michael Fernandez brought it to my attention and I was discussing it with you earlier on Page 15, at the top of the page, there's -- and again, we're not changing this either, but just to let you know, the planning services director shall also be authorized to allow minor changes, like I described to you. And if you see one, two, three and four, that is the description of the changes that the planning services director is allowed to authorize administratively, so they would not have to even come through a public hearing process if they were doing that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. MS. MURRAY: But I appreciate your comments, because this section has really been difficult for staff at times and the planning Page 37 January8,2003 commission as well. So we'll certainly look into that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we all understand what the intent is. So if you can sort that out -- MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- it would just be a lot easier. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, just a statement. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we're going back to changing that, in my opinion our staff is the expert in some of this, and I hope that maybe we give them some kind of latitude to make some changes. MR. SCHMITT: I would support that. Even in fact maybe -- and that would be something we'd have to ensure we have the legal backing to do that so that some of those things could just be handled at the planning commission level even, without having to come to the board. And the fact that the planning commission is in a public meeting, if there are people who want to object or make those kind of public statements in opposition or in support, without burdening your docket. So we'll look at that. That would be something we'd certainly I think from a staff perspective we'd be delighted to look at. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Shall we move on? Okay. MR. SCHMITT: We have one public -- we have one speaker. MR. FERNANDEZ: Michael Fernandez, for the record. I'm delighted with the direction the changes are going, but I don't believe in the one provision that's requesting footprints of buildings, you start to look at items that are fairly down the road, let's say, when you have a larger project, commercial or industrial project, where you have a master developer who won't know the footprints of the future buildings on a project that may have a built-out period of Page 38 January 8, 2003 10 or 15 years. What I would suggest to you is to provide an alternative in the code that would allow somebody to go through a second stage process. The City of Naples, for instance, has what they call a general development site plan review that goes to their planning commission, and only in a case of disagreement between the commissioners and the staff would it go to the board. But it would allow that kind of detail to be looked at when the project is ripe for that information. In other words, you establish the zoning, you establish the setbacks, landscape parameters. But the visual aspects of the building, the footprints of the building, those are being done as the individual parcels develop. If there's a provision, and I don't say that we necessarily have to change everything that staffs done, but at least there's an option for a developer who has a larger project to come in here and do it in that fashion, in a second tier fashion. I think that would be beneficial. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're probably going to have to assume that people are going to come in here and dream up artificial footprints, and you're not going to see the real deal. If you allow it to come in as a second tier development review, I think that's where you're really trying to get at. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any additional comments? Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would say that the GDSP process works pretty well in the City of Naples. The problem, as I see it in this respect, is that if you do have a very large PUD that's going to be developed over a period of years, it is almost impossible for someone to forecast the exact footprint of the buildings. And then if you require that they then periodically come back before the county commission every time a footprint changes, it becomes expensive for them and for us. Page 39 January8,2003 The question is how do we determine who should have to go through this process and who should not? Do we set it up as a specific size of PUD would come in and be relatively specific? For example, the Goodlette Comers PUD, we required that to get fairly specific. It was a small PUD. Larger ones are -- some that were approved 10, 15 years ago, are still developing and still coming in and asking for changes. There is some logic to say that if the changes don't violate the intent of the PUD, let the planning commission take a look at it. And if it's consistent with their land development code and growth management plan and it's consistent with the original PUD, why bring it to the commission? What's your reaction to that? What kind of complexities does that create for you? MS. MURRAY: Well, I think there's two ways you could handle that: One would be to clearly define something like that as an insubstantial change in the code, or -- and then that would go to the planning commission. Or to give staff the authority to evaluate whether or not it's -- it can be administratively approved or it's an insubstantial change. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I wouldn't want to do is put the staff in the position of having a situation like the Manatee Resort. Okay? MS. MURRAY: I understand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where the square footage becomes an insubstantial change because the height of the building didn't change. MS. MURRAY: Right. Thanks. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I don't want to put you in that kind of a position. But I do understand how it's almost impossible to come up with a realistic site plan for something that won't develop Page 40 January 8, 2003 for another 15 years. And I'm just looking for a way that staff and the commissioners could administer something like that in a way that makes sense so you don't have to keep bringing these things back before us all the time for relatively inconsequential issues. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may comment on it, I agree with you, staffs time is very valuable and planning commission serves a vital function to this commission. I'm very appreciative of it. I am a little bit leery about signing off some of our responsibilities too soon. This is something that's going to be coming back for review in the distant furore. I hear you very much and I agree with you, that we have to find some way to streamline the process and make it work better and give everybody their value for the dollar they spend, but I think we're going to have to keep a very close eye on the fact that we're the ultimate responsible person, party, and that there has to be some sort of failsafe in there so that we're acting accordingly. Like you mentioned the Manatee, who would ever dreamed that that particular scenario of events would have unfolded the way it did? But then again too, we came back and we said the staff overstepped their bounds and made the determination over and above what the commission was allowing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's why I suggested that it be brought to the planning commission for any of those kinds of changes. But the only issue here -- I understand we can change this, but I don't think we need to put something down that we understand is not capable of being administered effectively. And Marjorie, you had your hand up. I'd like to hear what you have to say about that. MS. STUDENT: Yes, thank you. I just wanted to state the caveat that if there is a text change to Page 41 January8,2003 the ordinance, the PUD ordinance, that would need to come to the board, because the board has the authority to amend the ordinance and what it says. So just with that caveat. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But what would happen if we required a detailed site development plan at the time of PUD submittal and then someone says well, I want to change this footprint of the building. Not the size of the building but the footprint itself, perhaps even the shape of the building. What would happen under those circumstances? MS. STUDENT: I think it would be possible to delegate that authority to the planning commission or to the staff with sufficient criteria that would be part of the delegation, so long as it would not affect an actual text change to the document. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? This may be something we'd want to bring back for discussion during a workshop. It's not something we're going to be able to change at this point in time where we can really get into it and advertise it as a public meeting so we can get an input from everyone. Just a suggestion, of course. And of course you're all welcome for your input now. Let's go to Commissioner Halas and then we'll come back to you, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to direct this question to Mr. Schmitt. And I don't mean to put you on the spot. But I think where we're going here is basically the same scenario that you and I addressed with a particular problem this week. That I think was a good example of where somebody had come up with a site plan that was 10 years old and then all of a sudden this developer decided he was going to change the site plan on the PUD and it was substantially larger, took up a lot more area than was originally placed on the Page 42 January8,2003 PUD. Now how would you address that? MR. SCHMITT: Well, again, I haven't gone through and reviewed the particulars behind that since our discussion. We have a meeting on Friday to review kind of how that whole thing transpired. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But just come off the cuff. MR. SCHMITT: But our current process now of course is you empowered the staff to review SDP's. We don't bring SDP's to the board. In fact, we don't even bring them to the planning commission. You make zoning decisions and authorize in a PUD the density and the zoning and intensity of land use and those kind of things are empowered. Those are the authorities that are empowered and are vested in your position. You then define for us the land development code, and that's how staff makes their decision, based on the land development code. That situation that you and I discussed, the decisions, at least my initial review, were firmly founded on provisions of the land development code. Now, that's where we may have a disagreement that -- which is why we amend the LDC, because there's a provision in the LDC that gave staff that authority, and now the board wants to pull that authority back. And in this case it was a review of a substantial modification to a site development plan. But the zoning was what had already been approved by a PUD many, many years ago. This was just a changing of a footprint. And just so you understand how we got to where we are in this LDC amendment, because the board has asked for more specificity and -- we have asked the developers for this, because we say when you come and present a petition to the board, whether it's a PUD, PUD to PUD or a rezoning or whatever, the public wants to know what is going to be built. And as Michael alluded to, oftentimes the PUD, we still don't know whether it's going to be a medical office building or a storage facility, because the PUD has to get the Page 43 January 8, 2003 rezoning done first to commercial, and then of course then they market the product and then a builder will come in and build. And certainly that's -- they'll build to what the community des-- or at least what they can sell. And what I'm hearing is kind of we want to move both ways. We're trying to get specificity so that when the petitioner comes to you, they can at least give an indication of what they think's going to be there. But this is a great example of what Mr. Fernandez referred to and what Commissioner Coyle is alluding to as well is a 10-year-old PUD, a good example, White Lake, you may not know what's going to go in on the last platted portion of White Lake PUD. And to come in now and say gee, I think 10 years from now I might have a warehouse there, I think what we're looking for is something to give the staff at least the, lack of a better term, the authority, but the responsibility of making those kind of administrative changes without burdening the board. And when I hear you talking about this, what we need to do is look at this whole process and we'll come back to you with a proposal to at least see where you want to go with what authority versus what authority you want to hold or withdraw back from the staff as far as those kind of decision processes. Susan? MS. MURRAY: I think I can kind of cut to the chase here. The code already gives the planning services director the authority to allow minor changes to the PUD master plan. And number two on your list says relocation of building envelopes when there is no encroachment upon required conservation or preservation areas. If that's acceptable to you, that's what the code allows now, we could retain that. The other provision in this proposed amendment is to also show proposed building height. There's nothing in here that talks about a Page 44 January 8, 2003 change in building height. If somebody wants to come in and change whatever building height they put on their master plan, it probably would be an insubstantial change and would have to go to the planning commission. I just need to call that to your attention. But right now the -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Maybe as a caveat to this -- and I agree with you, Commissioner Coletta, I think it's something that we can workshop and maybe get to the next round. But the idea perhaps would be if a project is big enough that it's coming in for a subdivision of property, then it doesn't have to go to that level of detail at that time, and then that information can be done in that subsequent submittal. Because you're looking at a subdivision as opposed to the actual development of an individual parcel. And I think that's the scale maybe that we're looking for. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, this is for future changes to what we have before us, not for today. MS. MURRAY: Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we're belaboring this for quite a long time for another -- I think we've got enough direction to staff so they know what we're looking for, but Commissioner Coyle, we'll go to you and hopefully be able to move on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have anywhere else to go tonight. Let's do it till we get it right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do. I'd like to go to the Rose Garden. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm just concerned about our ability to actually submit a PUD if we don't have footprints, if all we have is a subdivision. MS. MURRAY: You'll have to show it on the PUD submittal is COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, as I read -- Page 45 January8,2003 MS. MURRAY: -- the way it's -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- what you already have here on Page 13, 2.7.3.5.1, when we're talking about a substantial change, it doesn't say here that a change in the footprint is a substantial change, does it? MS. MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it appears to me that as you go through this to refine some of these definitions, you can do exactly what we've been talking about. If somebody comes in with something that's going to change the permitted height of the PUD, the density or intensity, the number of dwelling units, that's something that's coming to us. But if it's something else, and you guys can best determine that, I believe, as you go through and revise these things, or clarify them, actually, because I think you probably have it right here on Page 13. MS. MURRAY: Except for height, I believe you're correct. And I think we're still going to be put in the position of evaluating the specifics of the request, regardless. And there'll be the opportunity for the planning services director to do an administrative thing under the provisions that already exist, or there'll be the opportunity for the planning commission to hear it, depending on what the change is, or the board to hear it, depending on what the change is. If you're telling us building height is one you absolutely want to see, I think I need to clarify that in what we're proposing, because it's not clear to me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think building height is something I'd like to see. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What do you think about building heights, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Page 46 January8,2003 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are you sure you want to do this sometime in the near future? COMMISSIONER COYLE: He wants to limit it to 10 feet. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's the rest of the county. Vanderbilt Beach is going to be six feet, right? MR. SCHMITT: I mean, as you well know, when the public engages in this, their interest is what size is the building going to be, what is the -- at least the anticipated potential use, and the traffic pattern, what will be the ingress and egress. Those are the kind of things that you ask of the petitioner when they come to you for a rezoning. So now we're asking the petitioner, at least be prepared to address those. Does that law come into that? In some instances, and we'll go back and look at this language, there are at least -- we want to live within the intent of what they told you but still give them some flexibility, so when it comes back for the SDP review that either I or the transportation director can make those kind of changes at the staff level, as Commissioner Henning referred to a while ago, where the expertise is and where the planners and engineers are to make those decisions, but still live within the parameters as defined and presented before the board. And we'll go back and look at all this so we can come back in the spring and clarify what we've just talked about here. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry for one more thing. I do need to correct the record. I was corrected by Kay, and I appreciate that. Building height is listed in here as a substantial change. And I apologize for that incorrect -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, there is. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Number two. MS. MURRAY: I don't use the section much, and I wasn't Page 47 January 8, 2003 prepared to discuss it too much tonight, and I apologize for that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. Before we go on to the next item, we're going to take a short break. You're ready for one, I take it? (Brief recess.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where are we at? MS. MURRAY: We're on the summary sheet, Page 4. And we're on Section 2.7.3.4, which was combined with the previous section, so now we're on Section 2.7.5, which you reviewed without comment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On Page 85, 2.7.5.6, the findings, gives the planning commission findings. And I think one of them is -- turn the page -- will grant a variance to be consistent with the growth management plan. Now, in the growth management plan, if I remember right, it deals with comparable and compatible with neighboring adjoining uses in the findings? I mean, this is part of the things that you guys do in the findings one through eight, and also with the consistency of the growth management plan. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And in there, isn't there something about comparable and compatible to neighboring uses? MS. MURRAY: No. 6, will granting the variance be in harmony with the intent and purposes of this zoning code. And the zoning code speaks to compatibility, and the zoning code standards are designed to hopefully ensure compatibility. And then following that, and not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare would speak to compatibility. Also, on number seven, are there natural conditions or Page 48 January8,2003 physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulations such as a natural preserve, lake or golf course would also speak a little bit to compatibility, where that would mitigate any -- or attempt to offset any detrimental impacts of a variance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because most of the variances -- and I know we're not changing anything on this, but most of the variances that we're seeing and will be seeing in the future is height. And I know that, you know, you're going to have some of them, one with a restaurant right next door to a proposed 80-story building. MS. MURRAY: Compatibility is a fairly subjective thing that can be mitigated by a lot of different factors such as large setbacks, buffering through landscaping or separation or otherwise. It's fairly subjective and also can be mitigated by requiring other things of the offending -- of the development itself in order to ensure compatibility. So I'm talking -- like I said, I'm talking about separation distance, buffering, rules on operation of uses. MR. SCHMITT: Reduction in intensity of use, going from commercial to residential. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to know what that one is. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: The restaurant. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Speak right in the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just wondering. That's all right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. MURRAY: And variances are -- I mean, we apply variances in a dimensional aspect. Our code doesn't allow for use variances, for example. But through a PUD rezoning, certainly you would evaluate the uses that are proposed and the building heights Page 49 January 8, 2003 and the building separation and everything to ensure that they're compatible with adjoining uses or uses within the same development. Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: I just wanted to state that under the common law of Florida, use variances are prohibited throughout the state. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Say that one more time? MS. STUDENT: Under the common law, which means the case law for the State of Florida, use variances are prohibited and they're prohibited throughout the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you elaborate? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, give us an example. MS. STUDENT: That would be use. Not a dimensional standard, but a use. In other words, the variance of the zoning district does not allow a grocery store, then you get a use variance for that district to allow a grocery store. The way you do that is to amend the zoning district either by PUD amendment or by amendment to the land development code. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in simple terms, are we doing it right? MS. STUDENT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: And the section that Susan referenced in the code is in line with the common law of the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thanks. That's the only question I have on that section. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's move ahead. MS. MURRAY: Marjorie, do I have to read each section into the record? Because there's several pages here that they reviewed without comment, and I could just reference the page and -- MS. STUDENT: I think that would be fine. Page 50 January 8, 2003 MS. MURRAY: MS. STUDENT: MS. MURRAY: acceptable? MS. STUDENT: MS. MURRAY: -- that's acceptable? Any interested-- And the board could stop me, if that's -- yes, I think that would be fine. We've finishing up on Page 4, Section 3.2.4.8. And then I'm now going to Page 5 on the summary sheet. If there's any sections on here that you all wanted to stop us, we I don't think have any registered speakers on that one. MR. SCHMITT: I have one registered speaker. And I don't see Michael here, but he's registered for 3.3.7.1. MS. MURRAY: I think he left. MR. MUDD: No, I think he's here. MS. MURRAY: Oh, is he? Okay. MR. SCHMITT: While we're waiting for Michael, any other issues on Page 5? Those were all reviewed with no comment in the previous section. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have any comments on any of those. MS. MURRAY: On Page 6 -- MR. MUDD: He waives, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: He waives? Okay. MS. MURRAY: On Page 6, I would just call your attention to Section 3.3.8.4 was withdrawn, and we put that on the record at the last amendment, so that's not under consideration for this evening. You had the remainder with no comment. On Page 7, Section 3.3.10 and 2.7.2.15 on Page 105, I need to read one correction into the record. And the correction was made because there was an inconsistency within the paragraph here. If you're looking at the bottom of Page 106 under Section 2.7.2.15, about a third of the way through the paragraph, if no development, Page 51 January 8, 2003 i.e. actual construction, has commenced within two years, measured from the date of approval, and then strike out, the required preconstruction conference. And that makes it consistent with the -- a paragraph that was written and changed previously. The remainder on that page you had no comment. Page 8, I believe all these were reviewed without comment. Page 9, reviewed without comment. On Page 10, section 3.13.8 was withdrawn by the petitioner. I mentioned that earlier today. 3.15 you already approved today. And the remainder you reviewed without comment at the last meeting. Page 11, all of these were reviewed without comment. Page 12, reviewed with no comment. And the last page, 13, was reviewed without comment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You recommend adjournment? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing no -- Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one question before the motion. Is any of this applicable to applicants that are already in the stream? MS. MURRAY: office. MS. STUDENT: I'd have to defer to the county attorney's I'm sorry, I didn't hear the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did any of the changes that we made tonight, if somebody has submitted a site development plan or a PUD amendment or a variance, does this apply, this new language apply, or is it from this date forward? MS. STUDENT: The enhanced requirements would apply from this day forward. And generally our rule of thumb has been that if a submittal has been, I believe the term is sufficient, or complete and Page 52 January 8, 2003 sufficient, then we may wish to add that language, Susan, to clarify it for those changes. But if an application's sufficient and complete, then they go under the old. If not, they go under the new. MS. MURRAY: The only exception to that tonight would be the PUD Section 2.7.3 where we put in that the changes we were making would be applicable retroactive to existing -- MS. STUDENT: Right. MS. MURRAY: -- PUD's. MS. STUDENT: So we can certainly put those in there for those enhanced procedures. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I just -- for everybody's information who, you know, is in the process, okay. I'll make a motion to approve, and the findings of January 8th, 2003 land development code amendments are consistent with the growth management plan, or as Marjorie Student calls it, the comprehensive plan. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a very detailed motion from Commissioner Henning, I'm proud of you. We have a second from Commissioner Halas, who won't repeat the motion back again. Any other comments? Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And does that conclude our business here today? MS. MURRAY: I have one more request, and I hope this isn't inappropriate, but I was questioning whether or not the board would Page 53 January 8, 2003 be interested in reviewing a land development code amendment possibly in the next cycle to implement some regulations pertaining to developments along 1-75. We're getting a lot of requests in through rezonings, or what have you, with folks that are putting berms and fences and walls and landscaping. And that's all well and good, because the code requires that, but there are some that are becoming extremely elaborate, and I don't think the code addresses a lot of that in specifics. And, you know, 1-75 is our corridor or entry into Collier County from Lee County and from the east. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning has a comment he'd like to make. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would hope that we'd do it for the whole county. And I think what you're talking about is the aesthetics of walls and the height of walls. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or berms. MS. MURRAY: Or berms, correct, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they can be softened with landscaping. And I think that needs to be addressed throughout -- MS. MURRAY: I think some of the regulations, the way they're structured, makes maintenance very difficult, and so they tend to look unsightly. And then if you start getting a number of projects that have short frontage on 1-75, it would be nice to have some sort of uniformity so you aren't getting very tall berms and very short berms and a mishmash of fences and landscaping. I don't know if there's an interest, but we were discussing it today and I just thought I'd take the opportunity to ask. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, this is a great opportunity. I mean, I know Commissioner Halas has about four things that he wants to talk about at the next board meeting that you might want to entertain at a workshop. This would be another nice item to have at a workshop. Page 54 January8,2003 So you've got the general specifics, and it isn't catching you short right now, because you don't know what it says. We can address that and then get your direction and go right into that -- get into that cycle. And depending on what you tell us you want us to do, based on Commissioner Halas's request at the board meeting that he wants to talk about, we can add those particular items to that and then get it all in one place and get us pushing in one direction. But I'd like everybody to at least see, we've got a visual, Commissioner Henning, from what you've just described, and we get the specifics about what's vacant -- what doesn't exist in our code and what should be there, and we can give you some suggestions and recommendations at that workshop and we can get that scheduled pretty close after Tuesday's board meeting. Because there's some significant things he would like to talk about in addressing the land development code. And I think you -- they were kidding about heights, but I think that's one of the things that you'd like to talk about. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: If-- on these berms, if we find something that's out of compliance, are these people grandfathered in, or can we make them-- if we decide to come up with some type of adjustments in the berms or in landscaping, can -- will we have the ability to make sure that people are in compliance, or will they be grandfathered in as of what they've got now? MS. MURRAY: Marjorie? I think the ability exists to ensure compliance over a period of time, but I'm not sure of the legal background on that. MS. STUDENT: Yeah, for things that are already developed where a berm or something might already be -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or a wooden fence that's unsightly Page 55 January8,2003 MS. STUDENT: Or a wooden fence. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- because there's some -- MS. STUDENT: That would be deemed a nonconforming use and would be governed by Division 1-8 in the code. And there are provisions there that if it's destroyed, for example, by an amount in excess of I think it's 50 percent or above, they have to replace it in accordance with the code. If they do a voluntary replacement, that's different. They do have to follow the code in that instance. And so there are provisions in 1-8 that govern that. To go back, and for example, with the fence and have everybody redo their fence, that may be problematic, aside from if they voluntarily come in to do something new or also in light of the nonconforming provisions of the code. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else to add? That pretty well cover it now? Is there any closing comments from any of the commissioners? Hearing none -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, no, that's my turn. Motion to adjourn. Second. Go. Page 56 January 8, 2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7'00 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL /filM COI~ETTA, Chairman K, CLE~ approved by the Board on /- Z B- o J as presented ,// or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE R. NOTTINGHAM Page 57