Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/21/2003 S (LDC Amendments) May 21,2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIAL LDC MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS May 21,2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and 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: Tom Henning Jim Coletta Fred Coyle Donna Fiala Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ AGENDA May 21,2003 5:05 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1 May 21, 2003 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 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2.. THE BOARD TO CONSIDER 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 ~ 2 May 21, 2003 May 21,2003 Item #2 ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - CONTINUED TO THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON lllliRJll, 2003 AT ~.O~ ~ CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would everybody rise for the pledge of allegiance. Deborah Forrester will lead us in the pledge. Please come to the podium. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Patrick White, would you lead us off? MR. WHITE: I'll just start out, Mr. Chairman, by welcoming you all to the first of two LDC amendment hearings, the second of which I believe will be in these chambers at 5:05 on June 16th. And also, I'd like to put on the record, as assistant county attorney, I have reviewed the affidavit of publication for the published ad for today's meeting and found that it's legally sufficient, and I will be providing it to minutes and records for recordkeeping purposes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So what you're saying is we're here to hear the first readings of the land development code, the first cycle, and advertised -- advertising for this meeting is sufficient. MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Susan Murray, current planning manager, for the record. First I'd like to start out by saying any member of the public who wishes to speak must fill out a speaker slip and give it to me, indicating the item number. As Patrick mentioned, this is the first of two public hearings on Page 2 May 21,2003 the first cycle of LDC amendments for 2003. The second hearing is June 16th, 5:05 in this room. That is different from the original schedule of June 18th. Tonight you're going to be reviewing the draft amendments, as prepared by staff. It will take public input and you'll provide direction to staff. You will not vote tonight, though; that will occur on the 16th. There are three parts to your agenda package: The first is the original agenda package, it is the thickest item; the second is a supplement to your agenda package, which contains some color copies; and the third is a notebook, I believe, containing the Eastern Lands Section 22-27 amendments. As we get to each -- working through each one of those, I will call out the appropriate packet to work from. We primarily will work from the original agenda packet, but I'll let you know, as I said. In your agenda packet, about five pages from the beginning, we have the summary sheet. If you recall, the summary sheet is the outline of all the amendments. On the summary sheet you have the amendments, the page number thereon, and you have all the committees and the board's vote and recommendations on each amendment. We'll work from a summary sheet as a table of contents. The page numbers referred to in the summary sheet refer to the handwritten page numbers at the bottom center of the amendment page, not the stamped numbers. And the Eastern Lands amendments have their own page numbers, because they refer to a table of contents. I'll remind you of that when we get there. Mr. Chairman, past practice has been to take those items which have the most registered public speakers and move those to the top of the order. At this point I have one item dealing with the sidewalk issue that appears to have about six registered speakers. The other items have one and two speakers, probably not enough to shift those Page 3 May 21,2003 items around. So if you wish, we could begin with the sidewalks and then proceed in order of the summary sheet. That's up to you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I think that's fine. That's what we're here for is the public. But when we go through these items, we'll go to the Commissioners for any questions or comments, and then ask for public speakers. MS. MURRAY: That would be fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that fine with the rest of the members of the board? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Okay, the first, then, we will consider is agenda item No. 3.2.8.3.17, which is on -- it's in -- MR. MUDD: It's on your summary sheet on Page 6, and then it would be on Page 52 of the handwritten document. MS. MURRAY: And it's actually on the supplement, one of the handouts, the skinnier document you got with the color -- exactly. And it's numbered Page 52 in there. And that is the most recent amendment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Flagg? MS. FLAGG: Good evening, Commissioners. Diane Flagg, for the record. This is an item where there's been quite a bit of discussion, both through the subcommittees of the Metropolitan Planning Organization and at the MPO board. And this evening I'm going to ask Tom Tomerlin, who is the new pathways coordinator, as part of MPO, to present this item to you. MR. TOMERLIN: Hi. Good evening. For the record, Tom Tomerlin, principal planner of the transportation division. I think really it will be a tag team effort between Diane and I, but the first section we'd like to run through is 3.2.8.3.17, which starts on Page 52 in the small handout. Page 4 May 21,2003 These -- basically these amendments are the product of a great deal of public and grassroots efforts. There's a pathways advisory committee as part of the MPO that has been working very closely, monitoring throughout the years how sidewalks and pathways, basically modes of transportation, non-vehicular modes of transportation, have developed throughout the county. And this is largely a product of dealing with that advisory group, as well as the general public on a lot of these amendments. Specific to the particular amendment, 3.2.8.3.17, a great deal of the language is just housecleaning. Weare eliminating the definition of bike path in the LDC, so there's a strike-through wherever there's a bike path. Basically what we're saying is that there's two forms of pathways, there's sidewalks and bike lanes. And eventually in the county we'll certainly start to think about multi-use trails and the like, but bike paths are being eliminated. We probably -- some of the more significant things in this particular amendment is the width increase for sidewalks. We -- on local streets, streets that are classified as local, we are going from a five-foot width to a six-foot width. So an increase in 12 inches of width. On collector and arterial streets, they're talking about going from a six-foot width, as currently proposed -- as currently outlined in the LDC, rather -- to an eight-foot width. So an additional 24 inches of width to collectors and arterial streets. Basically the finding behind this width increase is safety issues. Wider sidewalks, especially on collector and arterial roads, the pedestrian traffic is roughly in line with what vehicles will be going down there, so increased pedestrian use, the need to accommodate bicycles on sidewalks as well, are all contributing factors to wanting to increase the width to 24 inches. Perhaps the thing that threw the process up to this point, the aspect of this amendment that received by far the most attention, is paragraph number four on Page 53. Page 5 May 21,2003 And basically this -- this -- after several revisions, this is trying to address the problem of multi-family developments where there's no county maintained easement or public right-of-way within a development. And what we're saying is that just because there's no county maintained easement and the LDC doesn't call for sidewalks to be placed in accordance with points two and three, basically, on both sides of a local street, that the county would maintain -- both sides of a collector arterial that the county would maintain, we're saying that in some way there should be provision for folks to leave the residential building and get out to the nearest public right-of-way on a pathway, not have to share the travel way throughout that complex. So basically what we're saying is that leave it in the developer's hands to come up with some kind of creative solution, but the general question or goal here is that in multi-family buildings, try to connect the building to the nearest public right-of-way to access transit and the greater county sidewalk system. I think maybe a picture might kind of illustrate the point a little better on the visualizer. The project on the visualizer is College Park Apartments off Rattlesnake Hammock Road. And the thing to note about what is being done here with the pathways in front of the buildings is that the project is by and large meeting the intent of this requirement. It is linking, in this case, the front of the buildings to a great deal up to the front of -- to the public right-of-way, which is Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The one missing element in this particular layout is that -- and this is the missing element we see in a lot of these type of developments throughout the county -- is that there's a sidewalk segment basically missing for the short segment into the entrance. So basically we're saying for a resident of one of these buildings to get to the actual right-of-way line, he eventually probably has to share the entranceway to get out to the public right-of-way. So this Page 6 May 21,2003 __ that tends to be kind of a common ingredient we've noticed as we pull the aerials on a lot of these multi-family developments. But by and large, with the way the pathways are laid out, they're meeting the intent of that rule. I could show you one other example that's a little bit different. This is Bermuda Island. And here, the requirement is loose enough that even the back of the building would suffice. We're saying in some way provide from the building to the public right-of-way. Here it's a good design that they provide the pathway around the lake that is interior to all the multi-family buildings. And in this case, they do actually have that final missing link that goes from the entranceway out to the public right-of-way. So once again, this was a compromise as we went through this process, basically leave it up to the development community to try to devise a plan. It doesn't necessarily have to be married or tied to the travel way that exists within a multi-family development, but in some manner provides for folks to leave their residential buildings out to the public right-of-ways, to access transit from the greater county sidewalk systems. To go further into the amendments, basically there was elimination of the cul-de-sac exemption of -- an exemption of cul-de-sacs less than 1,000 feet. And also there was elimination of point five for alternative designs. And I think what I'll mention right now is that this is not an intent to try to prevent alternative designs and creative solutions to pedestrian movement. Because if a developer wishes to come in for a PUD, he could certainly then, as part of the PUD language, as long as he provides some form of mitigation for what the code requires, he could try to come up with a creative solution to the PUD process to try to meet pedestrian goals, as outlined in this base code. I think I'll halt there and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? Commissioner Fiala? Page 7 May 21,2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Where it says in here that the sidewalks must be provided on both sides of the local streets, can you define local? I'm afraid that somebody will use that as a loophole and not install them because local could be misconstrued as something else. MR. TOMERLIN: Local streets, there is a definition in 6.3 that I don't have handy. I know the definition for a minor collector is any road segment that produces between 2,000 or 4,000 vehicle trips per day. So I think if -- maybe the local streets would be less than 2,000 vehicle trips per day, but if someone could check that definition section for local streets. But it is outlined in the code. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'd like to tighten that word up a little bit. MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, what you're asking is if, for instance, this historically, even though it may have a name, is not considered a street. What this amendment provides is we've said we don't care what you call it. You can call it a driveway, you can call it a street, but what we're saying is that give the community members the ability to leave their building and get on a path and get to the greater sidewalk network. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I totally agree with you. I just want to make sure that -- MS. FLAGG: It has been. Through this language it addresses the concern. It doesn't matter what they call this anymore. COMMISSIONER HALAS: A lane or -- MS. FLAGG: Doesn't matter. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. FLAGG: As long as a path is provided to the community member that is residing in these units, you can call this whatever you want. You still, by this language, still need to provide a path for these folks to walk. And I would add that if you wish to do a single path, which is Page 8 May 21,2003 what this -- and actually, the aerials that Tom has shared with you are primarily the middle to lower income residential areas. And these actually already are meeting the intent of it in most places. And the only -- what we've said is, is that if you choose to do a single path, as opposed to a path on both sides of the street, that the path needs to be 10 feet in width, because that's what Florida Department of Transportation requires when you have cyclists going in opposite directions and pedestrians going in opposite directions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if there's only one sidewalk within that development, it has to be 10 feet in width? MS. FLAGG: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. So that gives the greatest flexibility to the developer is that if they want to just do a single path, they can leave their community and they can either -- the cyclist or the pedestrian on a 10- foot path can head this way and another one can come out and head this way, if they choose to do the single path design, as opposed to two six-foot paths on either side of the street. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have two more questions, if I may? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. One of them is can we go back and retroactively encourage communities where there've forgotten to put the rest of the sidewalk in that really renders it rather null and void if they can't use it to get out onto the street, can we go back and say we want you to fix that? MS. FLAGG: Not according -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Same with where they have a sidewalk and then there's a tree in the middle and another sidewalk? MS. FLAGG: Unfortunately what happens is, what this amendment will address is it will prevent the community members from coming to the county and saying, for whatever reason, they didn't put our sidewalk in and we want sidewalks. And what's Page 9 May 21,2003 happening is -- and that's what you're hearing at your Town Hall meetings is this constant theme of we want sidewalks. So what we've done is -- I use the term of stop the bleed. If we just work from this day forward, which these amendments will address, from this day forward the developments going in, unfortunately the burden will fall on the county, these continual requests coming in for sidewalks. We're going to have to identify funding to put those sidewalks in. These amendments will only address from this day forward. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And will these rules that we're putting into place now affect the state in how they build their sidewalks? MS. FLAGG: Yeah. As a matter of fact, I think we're going to discuss that with the state. Florida Department of Transportation has indicated that the policy guidelines that the county implements are the ones that they would also seek to utilize on their roadways. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's back up. By the way, it sounds like 10- foot pathways will get Commissioner Coletta's A TV's off the side of the road. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you, as far as we're concerned, District 5, that's a four-lane highway. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're saying the reason is safety reasons why we want to add an extra two feet on the arterials? And 12 inches -- arterials and collectors and 12 inches on the local streets. MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. Those recommendations -- actually, that's a compromise. The Pathways Advisory Committee, in the research that they did nationally, indicated that it would be better to do a 10- foot sidewalk on both sides. However, in meeting with members of the development community and going through the Development Services Advisory Committee, they agreed to reduce it to eight feet. Page 10 May 21,2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: What was DSAC's recommendations? MS. FLAGG: DSAC, I believe their final recommendation was to oppose it, and the Planning Commission's was to approve it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What I read in here, and I could be wrong, is to -- discussion to continue on 5-14. MS. FLAGG: No, they voted at their last meeting-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. FLAGG: -- on 5-14 to approve it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The safety, can you explain it? Because what I see what we're building out there now is we got the curb, green space, and then now we want a -- increase the sidewalks. MS. FLAGG: Yes. If we're talking about the eight-foot sidewalk, the purpose here is that in their research, they showed that if a cyclist and a pedestrian are sharing a path that is six-foot wide, sidewalk is not wide enough to accommodate both. And if we -- they went and spent some time, as did I, down in the Bluebill Park area, and Vanderbilt Beach and Airport Road where they do have eight-foot sidewalks, and you could watch both the pedestrians and the cyclists share that effectively without one having to get off. I witnessed on a six-foot where the -- a gentleman was pushing his wife in a wheelchair, he had to push her onto the grass to allow the cyclist to go by and then pull her back on the sidewalk, whereas an eight-foot sidewalk will accommodate both. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a fiscal impact of percentage. Do we have anything per lane mile how much it would cost us in extra? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. We looked at the -- we actually had the engineers give us a cost estimate for that additional 24 inches on arterials and collectors. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That would help me out if we had what it's going to cost us per lane mile. Because we're going to have Page 11 May 21,2003 to acquire more property; am I correct? An extra two feet? MS. FLAGG: Potentially. One of the things that has been done in other areas is the -- Karen Bishop has been very helpful with the county in going out and getting the community to allow a sidewalk easement, where they weren't interested in selling property for a road. CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is on arterial roads -- MS. FLAGG: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and collector roads? MS. FLAGG: And she did that on Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where Collier County's going to build roads -- MS. FLAGG: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we're going to acquire property for storm water drainage. We're actually increasing the width of taking out there. So for me, it would help me to know how much more the taxpayers are going to pay for this amenity. And I think then the board has to realize is (sic), is this really important, is this really an issue out in the community? So if we can get -- if I can get that answered. The -- if we could go back to that community on Rattlesnake Hammock Road, please? MR. TOMERLIN: Yes. In answer to your question, though, I think by and large we've done some cross-sections. The Land Development Code has a series of cross-sections, and I think we're seeing that -- we think this can be accomplished. Not across the board, but we think this can by and large be accomplished within right-of-way that we typically acquire. So I don't think -- I think it's more times than not it could be done that way, but certainly cases might come up where additional right-of-way would have to be obtained, but -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: So what you're telling me is we're Page 12 May 21,2003 buying too much right-of-way now, today, that's what you're telling me? MR. TOMERLIN: I don't want you to deduce that from what I said, no. I think there's -- I could distribute some cross-sections, if you all are agreeable to that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. MR. TOMERLIN: That you could look at. CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you want to hand them to Ms. Flagg. Because we have a question and we could just continue on. The example at Rattlesnake, the -- you say there's a shortcoming in the sidewalk to Rattlesnake Hammock? MR. TOMERLIN: Yes. Sorry, here it is. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you show me that shortcoming? MR. TOMERLIN: Yeah. The shortcoming is basically -- and this is __ and we're seeing this, it happens quite a bit, and I have an example for College Park as well -- or I'm sorry, not College Park, but for Whistler's Cove as well -- this is College Park -- is that there's a sidewalk missing basically along the main entrance. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there a sidewalk going down Rattlesnake Hammock, existing sidewalk? MR. TOMERLIN: There will be with its widening, but no, there isn't. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So do you know where the property is going to be acquired with the widening? Maybe that's the reason it wasn't extended out to the road and why would we want a sidewalk leading out to the road? MR. TOMERLIN: That could be. I'm just not familiar enough with the Rattlesnake Hammock Road Hammock Road project to know exactly how far it will encroach into that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are we suggesting that we put these roadways -- I thought, and maybe I misunderstood -- is on the -- Page 13 May 21,2003 around the back side of -- or just on the roadways -- MR. TOMERLIN: Well, what we're saying-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- in existing neighborhoods? MR. TOMERLIN: What we're saying with multi-family, and multi-family is different, because basically it's just a large subdivided parcel of land in which there's no deeded right-of-way or road easements that exist within it. So it's basically these travel ways that are maintained by the community, the homeowners association or the rental agency. So there's not -- there's not a county maintained segment. And oftentimes these right-of-ways can be rather small. But what we're saying is that figure out a way to get people from their buildings out to the public right-of-way. It could be from behind the buildings, maybe it's cutting through the woods, we don't know. It's just if you can meet the basic criteria of if people can leave their building, even the back of their building, and somehow get onto a path and get to the public right-of-way, then you accomplish that goal. And I don't -- I guess there could be all kinds of scenarios where it's in the front, in the back. So long as it meets that basic criteria, we're saying it passes this test. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, one more question, and then I'll go to Commissioner Halas. What would this do to affordable housing, like what Habitat is building today? MR. TOMERLIN: I think with Habitat, by and large they're building single-family structures where there is actually local streets. So the multi-family language isn't specifically addressing them. But I think what we've done, and Diane alluded to this, is we looked through a lot of communities that are affordable, and we're seeing that we were -- it's not hypothesis, it's not proven, but we kind of wonder if these folks are already doing these requirements because of the nature of their customers, that they might rely more on pedestrian and bicycle traffic than vehicular. Page 14 May 21,2003 So I can't say statistically yes, they're doing it across the board, but the more we pull up affordable housing communities, the more we see that they seem to be doing this already. And that just might be the market working, saying these folks need that and that's what they do, they rely on pedestrian and bicycle traffic, so let's provide the sidewalks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So what I hear you saying is the developer's already providing for the people that are using the sidewalks. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've got to commend you for writing the spec in the way that you did. Myself, I do a lot of walking, and I find that I periodically run into bicyclists, and almost literally, to the point where the sidewalks and the way they are at the present time, they're very narrow. And it's very difficult to share, pedestrians sharing the sidewalk with the bicyclist. A good example of where this is working well is in Connor's Park. I think those sidewalks are probably eight feet wide or whatever, and the amount of foot traffic and bicycle traffic, it works very well in that area. And I think that that's one way the direction I think that we really need to go. Now, if I walk along a typical sidewalk that's three or four feet wide, let's say, for instance, along Vanderbilt Drive, on the west side, when you -- when a bicyclist approaches a pedestrian, the pedestrian has to get off the sidewalk at this point in time. And I think we need to widen the sidewalks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Commissioner Halas, I think I was the bicyclist that made you move a couple of times, and I appreciate the fact that you yield for the bike, because we have to keep trucking. But I agree with you, I mean, the alternative is, is that we drive Page 15 May 21,2003 in the road. And it's so dangerous on many of these highways. And even though in some cases we have it marked off with white paint showing an area of about two and a half feet for bicyclists to use, I just wouldn't do it. It's just not practical. I think this is something, if we want to have a mobile society that's not going to be dependent upon cars for every bit of their transportation, we have to go forward with something like that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else? Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Halas. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one more statement, thank you, and that is I think the main purpose behind this particular item is that we're called so often to build sidewalks where they've been neglected or overlooked, and then that goes -- that becomes the taxpayer responsibility. And what we're saying is we would prefer to have the developer build it when he's building the community, rather than have them come back after the tax dollars later on, right? MR. TOMERLIN: Right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I forgot what I was going to say now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. What I had to say was so profound. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to go to public speakers and then come back to the Commissioners? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. MS. MURRAY: The first speaker will be Dwight Nadeau, followed by David Ellis. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You've got four minutes left, sir. MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, good evening. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, RW A. I'd like to stand in front of you and say that I'm generally supportive of these sidewalk provisions. I had the opportunity to be invited to present to the Pathways Advisory Committee. We've got a Page 16 May 21,2003 lot of good ideas that we're moving along. I brought an exhibit for you to demonstrate how these sidewalks will work in local streets, as designed with our current right-of-way desires. And I can show you that the six-foot sidewalk will still meet the six-foot separation area off of the travel lanes. Also, the mandatory one-foot separation of the sidewalk and three-foot separation off the paved area will work, and that's two six-foot sidewalks on each side of that rights-of-way. Alternatively, as was identified by Diane Flagg, was that we could have a 10- foot sidewalk on one side of our local streets, and that could be a shared pathway. I can identify to you that we would have six feet on one side of the right-of-way that didn't have the sidewalk, a two-foot valley gutter, the travel lane area, the fire hydrant in the appropriate safety distance as required by NFP A, and a 10- foot sidewalk and still be able to have room to have expanded driveways, as may be required by transportation department. In my package, the section four states that the shared use -- should a two-directional shared path be utilized, the minimum paved width should be 10 feet. What's missing in my document -- it may be in yours, I'm not sure -- and may be located on one side of local streets. If that would meet your approval, I'd like to ask you to add that to that provision. Now, although I am supportive of the petition -- or excuse me, supportive of the Land Development Code amendment, I'm finding that there are areas of conflict within the Land Development Code that has not been adopted -- or is not being forwarded to you today. Specifically we're working in the subdivision regulations. This is how a subdivision is done. And we're speaking about not only subdivision regulations, but paragraph four deals with multi-family, wherein sometimes it doesn't have to go through subdivision process, it would be under Division 3.3 where site development plans occur. And specifically, Section 3.3.7.1.9.12 of the code provides Page 1 7 May 21,2003 everything contrary to what is being proposed in the subdivision regulations. So if I were going to build a site development plan, I'd go to Division 3.3, I've still got alternative plans, I still can have sidewalks on one side of the street, and I still can have five-foot sidewalks. In addition to that conflict would be a lack of coordination with Division 2.8, which relates to our commercial design standards where there are conflicts as well for sidewalk widths. It's still five feet. So it would be my suggestion, so that we can do this cleanly and potentially without any conflicts in the code, that we potentially move it off to the next cycle so all of the other provisions of the code could be addressed. I offer that for your consideration, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: David Ellis, followed by Dennis Church. MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's David Ellis and I'm with the Collier Building Industry Association. A couple of quick points to make before I really get into the heart of my presentation. I think you're all right. When we talk about sidewalks, many of the examples, maybe all the examples you gave, won't be allowed in the code today. Commissioner Halas, when you talked about the sidewalk width, we can't -- even in the neighborhood now, the minimum size is five foot, and on the big roads, it's six foot for the minimum sizes that are allowed in Collier County. So we won't be building three- foot and four-foot sidewalks anymore. The code does that today. There's a number of changes that have been made and meet the needs. If someone tells you my neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks, you can't do that anymore in Collier County. You have to Page 18 May 21,2003 build sidewalks in Collier County in the communities. So they're being done. I think they bring an excellent point out about the interconnectivity to the main road; something that needs to be looked at and how that can be done. I think one of the things that I do find fault with in what's been presented is the lack of flexibility in the plan. When you look at the previous -- if you look at the Land Development Code language, the section about alternatives has been completely stricken and basically sets forth the size of the roads six foot in communities, eight foot on the big roads. I'll tell you, it would be kind of like in my mind saying all roads in Collier County need to be six-Ianed. It really takes a lot of flexibility out of the plan. I will tell you, there are places in Collier County where we need eight- foot sidewalks around commercial, around certain parts of our communities. But there's other places in residential communities where five-foot sidewalks are just fine, and, frankly, even on one side of the street, depending on what we're trying to do. Because our community is unique, and we need to make sure we have sidewalks, we need to make sure they're properly planned, but we need to make sure they also fit in. Commissioner Henning, you raised a question, you asked about affordability. I called Sam D'Urso today and we talked about Victoria Falls, which many of you I know have been out to. It's the new Habitat community right off of U.S. 41. In that community, I asked him, I said what if you had to put the sidewalks that are prescribed here? He actually called his land planner, they ran the numbers and called me back and said that it would be $373 more per home to do that in Victoria Falls. If you've been to Victoria Falls -- I'm out there a lot with Habitat -- people walk in that community. It's a very comfortable community. It's a very low-impact, low traffic, residential Page 19 May 21,2003 community. And what they've done there works. And Habitat, why -- and I started talking to Sam about it and said, you know, at your request, we're now doing two-car driveways, then we're going to have a six-foot sidewalk. We're now trying to build our houses somewhere between five and six units per acre in density in order to meet the affordability issues that we have with land. And he kind of half joked and said we'll probably end up just having to pave everything and put the houses in, because by the time you do all that, we're not going to have much left. And it was a concern for the quality of life for the people living in those communities, much less -- and Commissioner Fiala, we talked about this a lot, the incremental increases that we bring to the price of -- I'm sorry; she always says I talk too fast -- the incremental increase we bring to the cost. $373 on this, another thousand on an impact fee. All of a sudden we can't figure out how to make it affordable in Collier County. That doesn't, by the way, include any concerns about relocating potential utilities or any storm water issues that might come from that. But it's not just affordable housing that's affected. I called the county and talked to them about Livingston Road. I said let's get a concrete example. And I gave them the example of what they'd have to do on Livingston Road. And they ran the numbers. If they had used these standards today on the Pine Ridge to Golden Gate Parkway, they estimated, and again, I'm using the numbers that I got from them, that with the right-of-way, the building, the additional sidewalk width and the bike paths, that it would have cost them an additional $2.3 million to do that on that section of road 2.5 miles. That's a lot of money, Commissioners. And as a person who's before you a lot on impact fees, I know that's a real concern. Should we be building a safe road network? Should we be building a safe walkway and bikeways? Absolutely. But I think Page 20 May 21,2003 some of the things you have to look at as far as what you'll be required to do under these codes as well, and there were also concerns about additional restrictions. When you look at -- and I mean frankly, Livingston Road was easy. You know, as far as right-of-way goes, when we start looking at expansion to Santa Barbara and Logan and some of those other roadways, it's going to be very difficult to do some of these things and it's going to require tough choices and very expensive choices. Should we -- again, we should be making appropriate accommodations, but let's make sure it's done right. There are other lingering concerns. A concern -- interestingly enough, we talk a lot about impervious surfaces. You know, the run-off and some of those things that some of our friends in the environmental community can talk about that. I'll also tell you there will be concerns in residential communities in particular about aesthetics. The look of that much concrete in a residential community. You know, I'll tell you, you go to a pretty sidewalk. My favorite sidewalk to look at in Collier County is Vineyards. And it's not -- I think it's five-foot wide there. But because it meanders, because it's properly landscaped, that's a beautiful place to go walking. And it doesn't -- it's not so much just the width but it's how it's done. And with this much width and this much restriction, it's going to be difficult to always do that. And even a question about how does it fit into our community character plan? We really haven't measured it into that. And then frankly, not to mention some of the other concerns that Mr. Nadeau brought up about how it fits into the rest of our Land Development Code. I'll tell you, Commissioners, we need a plan that recognizes flexibility. We need to say there's a difference between a residential street -- and I know this does, six foot, eight foot -- but even within residential streets -- in my neighborhood there's the busy street that Page 21 May 21,2003 needs a sidewalk on both sides and probably wider, and then there's the cul-de-sac street, the one I live on, where a lesser requirement would be just as fine. When they looked at this, your Development Services Advisory Committee said no. They had some concerns and they addressed those. And I was in some of those meetings. They felt like it needed further review. Your Planning Commission offered some suggestions. They were tentative. They approved, for the most part, the idea to move forward, because I think they were very concerned that we do better with our sidewalks. I would ask you to really look seriously at your master planning opportunity you have coming up. We've got a master plan for sidewalks in Collier County that hasn't been addressed, I understand, in a very long time, and it's going to be done now. I think when you look at your sidewalks and your streets through your master plan, you might find that there are parts of your main arterial roads that need eight-foot sidewalks. Near your commercial, near those important things. But there may be some parts of your main roads that only need six foot. And again, I'd ask you really from a planning perspective to look at it from that way of thinking. You may also find that there are places in Collier County where we can't because we're constrained in our roadways and other places where it can't happen, but you can be creative as well. I'd ask you to look at your master planning process and use that as a tool, as opposed to kind of the overall catchall six foot, eight foot and that's the way it's going to be. Because I think you'll find that you can do great things with sidewalks and still not have those as restrictive a parameter and then also offer flexibility to developers. Make -- you know, we've always said this to somebody who said we don't mind you setting the bar high but let us work within the parameters we've got. Oftentimes we have a difficult piece of land. Page 22 May 21,2003 And I do recognize your staff works hard within that multi-family to try to craft something out. I'm not sure that it's all the way there yet. I would agree with Mr. Nadeau's request to maybe put this off until -- to an additional cycle and then really use that master planning time to come back and look at these and maybe create a better plan that we can all really not only create those better walkways, but also something that we can actually afford and we can do as a community. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Dennis Church, followed by Rich Housh. MR. CHURCH: Good evening. For the record, my name is Dennis Church. I'm director of community development with the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks for your input today. MR. CHURCH: -- with the Bonita Bay group. And like the previous speakers, I believe sidewalks are a good thing, but I think they should be built in accordance with their needs. The amendment that's proposed removes the ability for flexibility. The language that was in there allowed the development services administrator to review case-by-case situations based on density, number of trips on the road. Basically they took out language that would have allowed sidewalks to be designed in accordance with a design that matches the land use density and intensity of the development along the street or cul-de-sac; they took out language that prescribes a design that matches the expected traffic volumes on the street or cul-de-sac, et cetera, et cetera. And I'm suggesting that we should allow that language to be in, or work with staff to come up with more specific criteria. I did an analysis on our project here in Collier County, Mediterra. We approved that PUD and worked with staff on PUD amendments, and we came up with what we think is a good pedestrian system. We -- I'll put it up there. What I'm showing here is the Page 23 May 21,2003 Mediterra site plan. And if you can read that, what's in blue, we've got a central loop where the higher density trips are at, and then we've got small, very low density neighborhoods feeding into that loop. That loop does connect to Livingston Road and the arterial roads. And given our density of a unit an acre and the very few trips on those roads, it's not a problem for the residents to walk on the street in those low density subdivisions. If we were to get this proj ect built with this current standard, what I've shown here in orange is all the sidewalks that would be required if we don't have the flexibility to work with staff. Currently we have 5.8 miles of pathways. This plan would produce 27 miles of pathways, 20 acres of concrete pavement, and would cost about $1.7 million additional in the project. We don't think that makes any sense, and I don't think staff thinks it makes any sense. I think that if you look at some of these neighborhoods that only have houses on one side of the street, a sidewalk on one side of the street might make sense there. So I would just ask that we put that flexibility back in or defer the approval of this amendment until we can work up with some specific criteria that staff might agree with, since they didn't agree with the language that's in there now. Any questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Y es. You may not think that this is a big concern, but I continually get e-mail and phone calls from groups, residents of different areas that live off a cul-de-sac, and they have children, and the children have to, in order to get out to a sidewalk or whatever, they have to walk down the street. And that shouldn't be. They should have sidewalks in that little area. If it's got a name, it's a road or a lane or whatever, it should be required to have a sidewalk. People shouldn't have to be required to run out in the street to walk down -- to get down to a thoroughfare. Page 24 May 21,2003 MR. CHURCH: I understand your -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then the other thing is that we also are getting more and more people that are moving in this community that like to go bicycling, and they don't like to bicycle on the streets because the streets are so crowded. So we have to be able to share the sidewalks, along with the pedestrians. And that's the problem we're running into. We're running into a problem where people are afraid to go bicycling, even though there might be bicycle lanes out in the road, just because of the fact of the traffic impact. MR. CHURCH: I understand your concern in higher density neighborhoods and neighborhoods with children. I'm just saying that our experience, 18 years doing this in southwest Florida, the only time we've ever had an accident was when somebody on a bicycle hit somebody, a pedestrian on a bike path. We've been doing this for a long time in these kinds of communities. And I'm not saying that other communities with public streets, higher density, with children, that sidewalks aren't an appropriate thing there, but I'm just asking for the flexibility for the kinds of -- these kinds of communities to work with staff on some criteria that wouldn't in a heavy-handed way require double sidewalks on every little cul-de-sac. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'm going to be extremely blunt, okay? It's a little bit more than I usually say. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we need to take a break? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. You know, I'm always willing to be flexible, and I'm always willing to compromise. But the thing is, it seems that as soon as we even allow a little flexibility, somebody comes in and shoves our nose in it. No matter how flexible we want to be, then they take advantage of that and use it against us. And then we have to in the end pay for it anyway. So I'm coming to the point where I don't want to be so flexible, just because it's always used against us. Page 25 May 21, 2003 MR. CHURCH: I've heard that. I know what you're saying, but COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'd love to give you some nice examples right here, but I won't take up your time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, within a PUD there is the option to create your own sidewalk or pedestrian network, or exempt yourself from the provisions of the code, or revise the code, per se, within the PUD document. So if you're talking about a PUD, applicants have the ability to come in and do something different within a PUD. Of course, it goes before the board for approval and gets staff review as well. But there is that option in terms of flexibility. MR. CHURCH: And that's the mechanism I was referring to. There's a little more guidance in the language as is than not having any guidance. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you have any -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a question. When it comes up to the PUD, as far as the sidewalks go and the bike paths, is it plainly written out in language that everyone can understand exactly what it is that's going to be there? Has it been in the past at all times? I don't recall seeing it there every time. MS. MURRAY: Not, in my opinion, in the past. It's like you pick a culmination of regulations and you put them together and you deduce what the requirement is. It's not been clear. And that's what T om and Diane are trying to do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If that's going to be an exception to this, then I think future PUD's when they come to us, we have to have a separate little notation in there as to what the effect of the sidewalk and bike path is going to be within this PUD, what the intent is, rather than just the drawings and we're supposed to decipher Page 26 May 21,2003 from it what we're dealing with. MS. MURRAY: Yes, you would definitely get a staff review pursuant to these regulations, and then it would also be spelled out clearly what they were attempting to exempt themselves from, if that was the case. MR. TOMERLIN: Yeah, I just wanted to echo what Susan was saying is that one way to look at this set of amendments that are before you is that this is the base standard. Maybe this is the default standard for the zoning that isn't PUD. What we're saying is that we're not killing flexibility, we're just raising the bar. And then when someone does come in for a PUD, they have this as the base standard, then they have to show how they mitigate for how they deviate from that. But the flexibility is still there, because folks that come in for a PUD, the bar has now been raised, because now the expectation is that yes, local streets will have sidewalks on both sides. Multi-family will provide sidewalks, provide a means in which to get people from the buildings out to the public right-of-way. But the flexibility still exists through many of the examples that we continually see; for example, Mediterra, that was the PUD. The flexibility still exists there to deviate from what the base standard is, but the base has been raised. So I don't know if that helps envisioning what this does, but -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's Tom Tomerlin, for the record. Next speaker. MS. MURRAY: Rich Housh, followed by Ted Litwin. MR. HOUSH: Hello, and I thank you. I am Rich Housh, from Naples. I'm a member of the Pathway Advisory Committee here in Collier County, and I thank you for the opportunity to address this group. I'd just like to share a few statistics with the Board of County Commissioners about what allowing flexibility in the LDC heretofore has gained us or lost us. Page 27 May 21,2003 In Collier County, we have about 2,408 miles of roads. We have about 235 miles of sidewalks. We have about 59 miles of bike lanes and we have 32 miles of paved shoulders. So what the flexibility, be it the -- from the development community or the engineering community or the BCC or the MPO, we've got a disastrous situation, and that's why we're getting so much negative feedback on the Pathway Advisory Committee from the community at large. We had a compo plan, and some of the folks -- I apologize for the redundancy, but some of you folks that were present at the MPO meeting when I shared these statistics, we had a comprehensive pathways plan that was adopted by the MPO in 1994. I wasn't a member of that Pathway Advisory Committee at the time. In fact, all the folks from the Pathway Advisory Committee, many of whom were I think very caring, concerned citizens about cyclists and walkers and the community at large have all left the committee because the comprehensive plan was adopted but nothing was done. At that point in time, there was a deficiency of $35 million worth of sidewalks and pathways that needed to be put in place. We went from that to making virtually some incremental progress against that goal, again, retrofitting where the development community had not put in the property -- had not followed the code and had used the loopholes that we're trying to eliminate to build streets without sidewalks. We went from that to this year our budget for pathways was $50,000; whereas, the budget for highways was 185 million. That's why we got the problem we got today. And so this is the time to fix this now. We don't need to wait another cycle. This thing's been-- it's been long overdue and that's why it's reached the epic proportions that it's reached. That's basically all I wanted to say, although I do need to clarify one thing. With regard to Habitat for Humanity, I know Millard Page 28 May 21,2003 Fuller, the founder of Habitat for Humanity. I also served on the board of Habitat and have been a financial supporter of Habitat for over 20 years. 373 bucks for a person to live in a house that doesn't have the wherewithal to have two or three cars in the driveway is not a lot of money. As a matter of fact, the National Center for Bicycling and Walking says that everybody in this room and in any community on average, 75 percent of the trips that we take today in cars are less than a mile. It's becoming a public health issue, it's a socioeconomic issue, it's an environmental issue, and it's just not cool to create the gridlock situation that we have that we have to get in our cars to go anyplace. And all we're trying to do is make sure that there's connectivity for walkers and cyclists and children, safe routes to school and safe routes to where we work and where we shop and things like that. And we're not asking for that much. And I think that that's definitely what society wants today. They also -- the survey in Florida specifically, 66 percent of the population in the State of Florida said even at the expense of roadway budgets they would prefer more sidewalks and bicycle lanes in their community. And all of this information is available on the web. I'd be happy to share the websites where people can access that information. But the world's changing, and it's not all about cars. And I think we need to make the area safer for all of us that walk and ride our bikes. Thanks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next speaker? MS. MURRAY: Ted Litwin, followed by Elsie Pickering. MR. LITWIN: Hello, Commissioners. Ted Litwin, for the record, Pathway Committee chairman. Many of the things that I was going to comment on have come out here in this discussion. But I can assure you, as public representative for your advisory committee, that we have spent hours Page 29 May 21,2003 in discussions with various people on our own time, as well as the committee. And what we're striving for is uniformity. There has been a lot of this build and maybe and then not build. And it seems to me that we built a lot of sidewalks that are simply not going anywhere at this point. We're struggling with that on how to connect these. But let me go back a minute to the Pathway comprehensive plan that was adopted in '94 that Richard just alluded to. And by the way, Richard, I was on that cOll1-mittee. I didn't realize it was that long ago. We said then the purpose of this plan is to provide for the development, maintenance of pathways and to promote their safe use. Your county is developing very rapidly. There are tremendous uses of vehicles and highways. And I think the game of the pedestrian to compete for the right-of-way with the vehicle has long passed. We need safe sidewalks. Now, we've heard from developers and how two feet is too much and one foot is more than needed and so forth. And I think that with the staff we have, that they are reasonable people, and we as a committee are reasonable people. But one of the things we're saying is uniformity. It's so essential. Safety is the issue here. Someone said to me the other day, Ted, you've been out on sidewalks and talked about sidewalks. Well, what percentage of the population do you represent? And I struggled at that question for an answer and then I thought yes, there is an answer to that, and sure, we represent the children, the hands of the children that want to walk to school maybe with their mom and dad on a safe pathway. We represent the family that might want to bike down to the fine recreation areas that we have in this county. And I think this Commission should be commended for taking the position you have on the roads, that sidewalks shall be built wherever there's improvement. This is important. This is what we're Page 30 May 21,2003 hearing from the public. One of the things also that doesn't get a lot of consideration is there's a lot of retired people coming down here and want to walk, like to walk. The medical people recommend that we walk. I like to walk. We have such a beautiful place to walk. Maybe that couple wants to walk down to -- for lunch. Maybe they want to walk to the drugstore which is less than a mile away or so and they want to get their prescription. Or maybe all they want to do is walk out and view and enjoy that floral abundance that we have so profusely spread around us. It's beautiful, and we should be able to enjoy it. And we can do this on safe sidewalks. I don't think we'll ever create a plan that's ideal. I can assure you, as -- your committee and members have spent a lot of time discussing this. And maybe it sounds harsh to some of the builders, but we're also saying to the builders that we will accept the maintenance, the county will accept the maintenance of these sidewalks. And I think it's fair that we ask that they build according to a standard that you have found in here and it's written and spelled out clearly. I don't think that's unreasonable at all. I really don't. Another thing that we're struggling with in the overall plan, and I -- let's see if I can help you with this, understand what we're doing here. The red -- thank you, sir. This is Immokalee. Now, five years ago when the committee made a decision that we'd all take sections of our county and see if we could work with that, give us a little personal experience with these areas, some of your districts. When you come up onto 951, which is here by the courthouse, three, four years ago the county built a new highway up through, up to Lake Trafford Road. And Commissioner Coletta, you can maybe help me on this. It's -- we started there, and at that time there was just absolutely nothing but, as you -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Already I'm excited about getting 951 to Immokalee, so we're doing great. But yeah, go ahead. Page 3 1 May 21,2003 MR. LITWIN: On Main Street, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, right. MR. LITWIN: And that -- you referred to them as cow paths, and that was exactly what we dealt with there. And if we took the sidewalk up to Lake Trafford Road (sic). Now, two years ago the committee recommended that we pick up, I think it's from Seventh Street here, up along by what's Roberts museum, that's going to be a generator of activity. And the sidewalk will go all the way past the post office and all the way up to the medical center. And that will be a continuous -- now this year the Chamber of Commerce and some of the members that I've worked with up there, Anne Goodnight and former chairman, and served on the Board of Education, New Market Road is being recommended. And so when we complete this circle here, you will have a pathway that will go all the way around through and meet the criteria which is the prioritization process that went up through and we worked it through last year, and this became number one. So those of you who get a request for a sidewalk, turn that over to the Pathway Committee, we will run it through this process, prioritize it and come back to you with what we think is a reasonable approach to a very difficult situation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, I have to ask you to wrap it up, please. MR. LITWIN: All right, I'm going to do that. The last thing I wanted to ask you is that -- we think it's so essential for again uniformity. That is a basic issue. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Elsie Pickering. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the next speaker after that? MS. MURRAY: That's your last speaker on this -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: -- specific sidewalk item. MS. PICKERING: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My Page 32 May 21,2003 name is Elsie Pickering. I am also a member of the Pathway Advisory Committee. Rich Housh said it most eloquently, and I have actually stood here before at different times, pointing out the federal law and the state law and the Collier County things. I think staff -- Diane Flagg has done a fabulous job in locating a fundamental problem, and it's wonderful that -- I look forward to it being fixed and meeting you on the path in a segue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just need to clarify a few points here. During the discussion about total right-of-way requirements, this handout was provided to us. MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Am I correct in saying this handout reflects the current code and not the proposed code that we're talking about? It says six-foot sidewalks here, not eight-foot sidewalks. MS. FLAGG: That's on a local street. It's proposed code. Local street is six foot; collector and arterial is eight foot. So the handout that you received is the proposed code. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So commercial/industrial districts would have six feet, cul-de-sacs would have six feet, minor collectors would have eight, and major collectors and arterials would have eight? MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The code, as it's currently written, says that both sidewalks and bike paths will be provided on both sides of the street. If I understood you correctly, you said the reason we wanted an eight-foot sidewalk is so that they could both coexist; is that correct? Page 33 May 21,2003 MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. We're not -- the PAC, the Pathways Advisory Committee, is not making any recommendation to the bike lane. The lane is that area where the bicycle rides right next to a car. What they did do is get a lot of feedback from the community saying there is a segment of our population that does use the car lane or the bike lane. However, the vast majority of the population needs the wide sidewalk to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. So the Pathways Advisory Committee said we need to accommodate the cyclists and pedestrians sharing the same sidewalk; however, that segment of the population that rides their bike next to the car, God bless them. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this requirement on Page 52 could be met by having a bike lane marked off on the pavement of the street and an eight-foot sidewalk that could be used by both bicycles and pedestrians; is that right? MS. FLAGG: No, sir. The way that the amendment reads is the long arterials and collectors, that it would be an eight-foot sidewalk on each side of the street and then there would be -- there's no change in recommendation to the bike lane. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, let me go over this one more time then. Paragraph No.1 there under 3.2.8.3.17 on Page 52, it says that sidewalks and bike lanes must be constructed contiguous to private and public roadways. Bike lanes must be provided on both sides of collector and arterial streets, and then it says sidewalks eight feet in width must be provided on both sides of collector and arterial streets. MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So to restate what I said, this requirement can be met by marking off a bike path on the asphalt of the street and building an eight-foot wide concrete sidewalk on the shoulder; is that what you have in mind? MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. It's a bike lane on the asphalt road and Page 34 May 21,2003 an eight-foot sidewalk. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the width of the sidewalks, whether they are six feet or eight feet, do you feel that there should be any consideration given to the density of the project along the street in question? For example, if you have a street with three or four homes on it, a cul-de-sac, would you propose a six-foot wide sidewalk on both sides of the street to accommodate those residents? MS. FLAGG: The -- in the case of the cul-de-sac, it really is -- if it's a street that ends in a half circle, it really is only on one side. As it comes back around, it then hits the second side. And the Pathways Advisory Committee -- and again, this would be only on a local street. So if it's classified as a local street. They felt very strongly that everyone deserves a safe area to walk off of the area that cars travel on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there should be no consideration given to the density of the development in deciding the width of the sidewalks? MS. FLAGG: Well, the density normally follows the type of street. If it's a local street, the width is six feet, if it's an arterial collector, it's eight feet. So from that perspective, yes, there was consideration given to the density. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So an RMF-6 district on a street would have the same requirement for sidewalks as an RMF-16? MS. FLAGG: Well, in the multi-family areas, which it's RMF-6, RMF-12, RMF-16 and all multi-family residential components, that's where that sidewalk six feet in width would be on a local street. And then additionally, if they -- they can put the sidewalk wherever they wish, as long as the person in that multi-family residential building can get from their building to the sidewalk system. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I'm not really sure that Page 35 May 21,2003 addresses my concern. But I presume that you've reached the conclusion that six people living on the street require the same amount of sidewalk capacity as 16 people living on the street; is that MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- essentially what -- the conclusion you've reached? MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The first sentence in that paragraph four at the top of Page 53 could be somewhat confusing. But I think you're saying for multi-family site developments and multi-family site improvement proj ects, you're not saying any site improvement proj ect would be subj ect to these regulations, I don't believe, right? MS. FLAGG: Multi-family. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Only multi-family. MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It might be good if we clarified that just by inserting that particular requirement there. The -- Commissioner Henning brought up a very important issue concerning the economic analysis. I heard some very, very large cost figures thrown around here today. And I think that if -- we would be derelict if we did not at least look at the costs associated with making these regulations. If we made a decision to build a road without doing a cost effectiveness analysis, I think that we would be subject to considerable criticism. I feel uncomfortable, particularly if we're talking about 20 to $30 million, to do some of these things, I feel uncomfortable that we don't have at least some indication of the cost of acquisition of the right-of-way and the cost of development. And in dealing with that issue, I think it's important to recognize that there is no free lunch. Nothing is free. If we add two feet tp a Page 36 May 21,2003 sidewalk, that is going to cost the taxpayers. Everything we do costs the taxpayers. And it's not just the increase in the cost of the home or apartment or condominium that someone is purchasing, it is the cost in taxes to other people who are affected by the general cost of living that causes their property tax rates to increase. So every time we increase the cost of construction for anyone, we increase your property taxes and my property taxes over time. So I think we have to recognize that there is a cost impact to doing that. And I don't know of anyone here who would -- well, I can't speak for the board. But based upon what I've heard them say, it seems to me that most people are in favor of sidewalks. I think it's a good thing, although I have to tell you that I've sat through sidewalk meetings as far back as six or seven, eight years ago, and I have never heard anything so controversial in my entire life. There are people who will threaten your life if you try to put a sidewalk in front of their home. And they will tell you that concrete sidewalks are totally unacceptable, asphalt sidewalks are better because they're softer to walk on. The debate goes on forever and ever. But when the time comes that we have multi-family housing adjacent to single-family residents and we wonder why the sidewalks don't go anywhere, we're going to have to deal with that issue of telling people you've got to give up some of your front yard so we can put a sidewalk through there and link these communities. And if you think Naples Park is a mess, wait till we get to that point. Now, the PUD's, I am very uncomfortable about not having any guidelines for PUD's. One of the problems we have is that we really do have a tendency to start with a blank sheet for all of these things. I would like to have some basic minimum requirements, or at least guidelines for what's permitted in a PUD. Otherwise, we do start with a blank sheet and we write whatever we want to on it, and sometimes it's not good. But it would be good, from my standpoint, I think, if we were to Page 37 May 21,2003 incorporate some of these guidelines into the PUD requirements so that we wouldn't completely ignore it. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sorry it took so long. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, that's fine. MS. FLAGG: Would you like me to address those issues for you? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which ones do you want to address? MS. FLAGG: All of them. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. FLAGG: I'll start with cost to the taxpayers. That's what these amendments are all about. As you've heard this evening, if we don't stop the bleed now with the sidewalks, then the county -- then the community members are going to continue to come to the county and ask the county to use taxpayers' dollars to retrofit them and put them in. So by having the sidewalks put in in the first place, they can be put in place nicely so that it fits the community, and the developer has the opportunity to recoup the cost; whereas the county, it's a straight cost to all taxpayers to have to retrofit. As far as the cost of right-of-way acquisition, as the diagrams pictured, and maybe we weren't clear, but in the diagrams that we handed out tonight, it does include the proposed width of the sidewalks, and under that current right-of-way that we're using, we can put these requirements in. Additionally, the guidelines for the PUD, these are the guidelines for the PUD. What we've done is we've simplified the guidelines in that we've taken out all these exemptions to putting in the sidewalks, because that's what got us where we are today. And we've provided very clear guidelines for placement of the sidewalks. Additionally, we've given the developers the opportunity to start Page 38 May 21,2003 -- say if you want to do a single directional path, it's 10 feet wide, put it wherever you want. All we're asking you to do for the multi-family is to get them from where they reside to the street so they have total and complete flexibility, but what we've removed is the ability not to put them in. As far as the single-family residence that a question was asked such as the Naples Park. These amendments do not address the single families, they only address the PUD's. So in the Golden Gate Estates area and the Naples Park area, or any of those areas, the question came up before about the Habitat. If that Habitat community is not a PUD and it's actually single-family, they are not impacted by this LDC amendment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, let me try one more time. The -- I understand that single-family residences are not impacted. But you are undoubtedly going to encounter circumstances where you have a multi-family development here and a multi-family development here and single-family residences in between. Our objective is to get people out to the primary roadway for -- I presume to walk on a sidewalk. Now, if you wanted to walk on a sidewalk, you're going to have to link up those multi-family communities, and that means you have to do something with sidewalks across the single- family communities. And therein lies not only the problem with respect to planning, the integration of the pathway network, but it's also the problem with the economic analysis. If we only consider the economic analysis of dealing with a segment of a sidewalk in front of a multi-family development, we're only touching the tip of the iceberg here. Because if we're really going to link those, we're talking about a lot of other sidewalk miles that have to be constructed with somebody's money, and it certainly is going to be ours. With respect to the PUD thing, I hope -- maybe I did not hear Susan Murray correctly when she said that the PUD's have flexibility Page 39 May 21,2003 and we start from a blank sheet of paper with the PUD's. That implies to me that these guidelines will not govern under a PUD negotiation. So I think we need to get some clarification of that, but that probably goes beyond this meeting. But we talked about one point in time having restrictions like height restrictions, even for PUD's. So it might be good to combine those discussions at a future point in time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I'm going to go next. The -- Ms. Flagg, while you're there, you're saying that we don't have to require any more right-of-way than what we have today to put these sidewalks in? MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir, that's the diagrams that we distributed to you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So what you're saying is we're buying too much right-of-way today, that's what I'm hearing you say, to put in the infrastructure that we told the residents that we were going to put in. And that concerns me, that we have been doing that. And what it's telling me is we're spending a lot of money for right-of-way where we could be putting pavement down, or sidewalks, on our existing roads. Give me some examples of requests to put in pathways in a community. MS. FLAGG: They have a very -- the Pathways Advisory Committee has a very long list of pathway requests. Hundreds of requests. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you give me an example? MS. FLAGG: Anywhere from the higher end communities in North Naples along Vanderbilt Drive to the Immokalee area. It touches all socioeconomic areas. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I -- Jim Mudd, for the record, just to help here. I mean, I've got an active investigation going on with Page 40 May 21,2003 one of Commissioner Halas's residents from Pelican Marsh that was short cheated ( sic) sidewalks. And he basically gave me chapter and verse. And I'm conducting an active investigation right now to find out why the developer didn't provide or if the developer had to provide, as far as that Land Development Code is concerned. So there was a resident that wanted -- on a multi-family development wanted to have the sidewalks and the developer didn't provide them. In a rather up-scale development, I might add. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I can tell you, probably his neighbor doesn't want sidewalks. Now retrofitting -- you take an example of the community, now, if we're talking about Vanderbilt Beach Drive, we're talking about existing easement. We're talking about Immokalee, we're talking about existing easement, and we're not talking about something that this would touch, these amendments would touch. That's my concern. And I -- I hope that -- well, I'm not sure. In fact, I'm almost positive, and I have to do my homework, that what you're asking us here to do today is a great idea, but is it really that much of a public concern? And I can tell you, before the CAT system, I seen (sic) a lot of people on the roadway, Golden Gate Parkway, Radio Road, using their bicycle and that. But since the CAT, I haven't seen that. So I guess I would challenge everybody to see what kind of traffic is out there. But what we have today, I can't support. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was next. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right, I'm going to take my turn. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Go ahead. And then I'll rebut it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can try. Page 41 May 21,2003 Let me first tell you, I live on Lakewood Boulevard. We never had any sidewalks on our street. And finally the county years back petitioned us, do you want sidewalks? There was all kind of an uprising, people didn't want sidewalks. The county put the sidewalks in anyway on one side of the street. They're used so heavily, everybody's riding their bikes, walking on the sidewalk, because our world has changed. People are realizing the value of exercise, bike riding, walking, kids walking to school, kids walking to their neighbors' houses, and of course on Lakewood Boulevard it's a very busy boulevard. You can't walk in the street. So they're utilized. On not so busy streets, well, I'll just bring up Linwood. Linwood is in a small little community, except the children have no way to get to school. They've been begging for sidewalks. Estey has been begging for sidewalks. Naples Manor has been begging for sidewalks. Those are just a few that I can give you right off the bat. They've been -- and you challenged us a meeting or two ago to go to some of these committees? Well, I have attended the Pathways Advisory Committee not once, not twice, but a number of times. And they have a myriad of lists of people wanting sidewalks, they just don't have any money to build them. So I know there's a need, I know there's a want, and it's proven because we even have the lists to -- you know, instead of just stabbing in the dark, I can name them and I can show you the list for them. Now, I think that what you're saying, too, we're talking about taxpayer dollars, Commissioner Coyle addressed this. But already, the law is when we are building a roadway, widening a roadway, we have to put sidewalks in now; is that correct? So what you're saying is from the development itself, build that sideway out -- I mean build the sidewalk out to the sidewalk that already abuts the road and it's going to connect itself. We're not having to talk about connecting one multi-family to another multi-family. We're just saying down to the Page 42 May 21,2003 sidewalk that's already there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'd like to-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, and I'm not willing to put it off, by the way, I want to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'd like to have that list, if you don't mind. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, we can give you-- MS. FLAGG: We can get that for you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have one on you, Ted? MS. PICKERING: I've just given it to the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? We got a long night if we keep on going on the pace that we're going. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. And this is going to be my final comment concerning this. The internal sidewalks here are not my biggest concern, okay? But to try to clarify this issue of linking them, when you have a multi - family development and multi-family development separated by single-family developments where there is no requirement to put those in, or has been no requirement in the past to put them in, okay. So yes, you will have to deal with linking them, because requiring that they be developed out to a sidewalk at multi-family doesn't necessarily mean that they link up once they get out there. But let me make this one observation: We have limited resources, and I think what we need to do is allocate those resources to those neighborhoods and/or streets who need and want the sidewalks the most. And I understand the Pathway Committee is prioritizing those things. But because we have limited resources, it's important that we use them wisely. And I will use this as an example: If you'll drive into Fort Myers on 41, you will see a sidewalk stretching for miles and miles and miles. You'll also see a three-foot wide bike lane. It's bordered Page 43 May 21,2003 on the left side by through high-speed traffic, and on the right side by a right turn lane. And you have a bicycle lane sandwiched between these two vehicular lanes with traffic moving at very high speeds. I know some of the diehard bicyclists think this is wonderful, but that is insanity. And I for one would not spend any money whatsoever on building something like that, but I'd be real happy to take that money and allocate it to people who need sidewalks so that they can walk back and forth and provide bike paths that are separate from the main vehicular pathways. But that's a question we're not going to resolve tonight, okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next item. MS. MURRAY: The next item would be -- finishing up the sidewalks would be on Page 55 of your large packet, Section 3.2.8.4.14. And there's one public speaker on that. MR. TOMERLIN: For the record, Tom Tomerlin. By and large, this is just clean-up language, basically referencing the cross-sections that you all have that spell out the new proposed widths, also eliminating asphalt sidewalks from consideration, and also eliminating an exemption. This particular amendment was approved by both DSAC and the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? Public comment? MS. MURRAY: Dwight Nadeau. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And while he's coming up, can you ask (sic) me what the fiscal impact of this one is going to be? MR. TOMERLIN: The fiscal impact associated with this is basically a cross reference from the previous amendment, because we're referencing the cross-sections which have the new widths. So the fiscal impact is intertwined with that section we were just discussing. There's a cost associated with the new widths, and the new cross-section also requires, due to settlement of the sidewalks, a lime rock base to be placed in with sidewalks. That wasn't previously Page 44 May 21,2003 required, so that has an additional cost associated with it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Tomerlin, correct me if I'm wrong: Number two, we're scratching out asphalt sidewalks and now we have concrete sidewalks. MR. TOMERLIN: Correct. It's basically sidewalks are going to be made of concrete. That's it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any fiscal impact to that? MR. TOMERLIN: Well, the -- I guess the lost opportunity to be able to put asphalt in. But that was not explicitly costed out. Basically there's also a maintenance component to this, that putting in concrete sidewalks -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mudd, you'll get that for me before the next hearing? Thanks. MR. TOMERLIN: The concrete sidewalks also have reduced costs associated with them, whereas the asphalt is continual repair. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I think we did a study on an MSTU in regards to blacktop sidewalks versus concrete. And the study that we did, looking at that, we found that the maintenance level on blacktop was higher than on concrete. The concrete would probably last about 20 years, versus I think 10 years for blacktop. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know that we're preparing sidewalks, cement sidewalks now that crack and there's a separation because the ground and that. So-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's why they want to put the lime rock base on there. I think that's why they're requiring that they'd like to have a lime rock base, because the base would help this problem of eliminating cracking in the sidewalk. MR. TOMERLIN: Basically data has shown that the -- whatever increase of construction costs that might be associated with it is by far made up in reduced maintenance that you would have to incur with cracking sidewalks and sidewalks that crumble at the Page 45 May 21,2003 edges with that, so -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we'll try to get you a life cycle cost for concrete versus asphalt sidewalks. And that's basically the issue on a time frame. We'll get that for you before the next meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And some examples, I think, that your maintenance crew can give you some examples of repairing concrete versus asphalt, too. Thank you. MR. NADEAU: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record again, Dwight Nadeau, R W A. I don't know if the package that was provided to the development community includes the four inches of compacted lime rock under the sidewalk. That was the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Just to give you a little history, we came -- the original standard was going to be six feet of -- excuses me, six inches of concrete laid on natural ground. And then after discussions with the engineering staff, as well as the transportation engineering staff, they said -- statements were made by Mr. Chrzanowksi that the concrete at four inches laid on a lime rock base will work. Subsequent to that, I had a chat with Diane Flagg in her offices related to the opportunity to be able to stamp the concrete. I think that would improve the aesthetics. The ability to stamp the concrete and possibly color the sidewalks. In addition to that, for aesthetic purposes, we'd like to have the opportunity, and I believe Diane agreed to that, to be able to put paver bricks down over that compacted lime rock base. There won't be any shifting, as would be the case when you put your paver bricks just down on a sand base. So I would just ask, for aesthetic purposes, that we have the opportunity to stamp the concrete, as well as to put the paver bricks over the top of that -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? MR. NADEAU: -- over the lime rock base, the paver bricks Page 46 May 21,2003 over the lime rock base. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know what stamp the concrete means. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Imprinted. MR. NADEAU: Well, there's -- it's an imprint. There's an opportunity for, when a sidewalk is laid -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like a design, you mean? MR. NADEAU: Yeah, it's stamped so it looks like cobblestone COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. MR. N AD EA U: -- or bricks or something to that effect. MR. MUDD: You see them on driveways a lot of times, Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I do. MR. MUDD: -- that people want to gussy up their driveway; they don't like the concrete look, they like it to be a little bit nicer, and they put some kind of crete over the top and then put a design on it. MR. NADEAU: Sure. And the paver bricks are utilized in state roads all over the state. So if paver bricks are allowed in our public roadways, I don't believe there should be any reason why we can't have aesthetically appealing sidewalks as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none. MS. MURRAY: The next item is on Page 27 of your large handout. It's Section 2.6.22, the manatee. And while staff is coming up to the podium, I'll let you know that -- give you an update on the Planning Commission's recommendation. They approved the language 8-0. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the record, Bill Lorenz, environmental services director. Page 47 May 21,2003 The purpose of these amendments was to incorporate all the land development related items in the Manatee Protection Plan into the Land Development Code. And also, to clarify any of the intent language that was in the Manatee Protection Plan. In addition, that if there was any additional specific language or specific process and procedures, we built that into the amendments to the code as well. Just to give you a little bit of background, in the late Eighties the state required the coastal counties to develop a system for manatee protection. It turns out to be the Manatee Protection Plan. Before the county had an approved Manatee Protection Plan, the state within those 13 counties limited boat slips to one boat slip per 100 feet of shoreline. In '95, Collier County was the second county that got its Manatee Protection Plan approved by the state, and in doing so, was lift -- that one per 100 restriction was lifted, and now the allowable boat slips and allowable boat ramps and dry storage is now dictated by the requirements of the Manatee Protection Plan. The plan allows for -- we talked about the ratings, because these will become important in terms of the issue that has emerged -- is the preferred rating that is 18 boat slips per 100 foot of shoreline, moderate is 10 per 100 foot, and protected is one per 100 feet. Again, these were the ratings that the state approved with their Manatee Protection Plan. I'd also like to introduce here David Arnold, who is the chief of the Bureau of Protected Species for the Florida Freshwater Fish Commission, and he is -- we've been working with his staff to ensure that any language that we put in our Land Development Code meets the interpretation and intent of the Manatee Protection Plan. Because not only was it drafted and developed by a committee in the county of staff, environmental groups and the marine trades industries, but it was also approved by the state, and they worked with that committee Page 48 May 21,2003 and worked through it. So when staff launched out on making sure that we have the proper intent, the proper clarification of language, we wanted to make sure that we had the state's blessing on the language. So David is here, he has registered to speak, but he's certainly available for questions or for clarifications. And if the Commission would desire to look at or explore any changes, you have him available as a resource to bounce some ideas off, so that at your final public hearing, if you wanted to see some changes, you have the benefit of some of his initial thoughts. Let me get into a term here that we're going to be using so you can understand some of the issues a little bit more, and that's the concept of adequate depth. You'll see in the plan that the ratings that I referred to earlier have a variety of different criteria for which you get a preferred rating or a moderate rating. One of those criteria is adequate depth. Adequate depth for Collier County for the Manatee Protection Plan is considered four feet at mean low water. Now, that depth of water was determined by the plan, based upon the little schematic that I'm showing up on the visualizer here. As a result of a boating study that we did in preparation of the Manatee Protection Plan in the early Nineties, the average draft of the vessels was two feet. So when we developed the adequate depth criteria, the state wanted to ensure that we would have two feet of manatee protection. In other words, from the bottom of the channel up two feet would be the depth where a manatee could be underneath a two-foot vessel. So two foot plus the two foot of the craft vessel gives you the four-foot adequate depth. Now, of course that's the average. That's the basis of the plan for manatee protection. So that's the vertical distance that we're going to be talking about in some of these issues with regard to adequate depth and the basis of the plan for determining adequate depth. Another point or concept that's important in the Manatee Page 49 May 21,2003 Protection Plan is we talked about the adequate depth and now we're talking about the horizontal distance that the plan is looking at with regard to a boating facility and some destination point. In the plan -- and my scribble here on this particular paragraph is on Page 73 of the plan. That plan talks about an on water travel distance of five miles is considered the sphere of influence for the Manatee Protection Plan in evaluating boat facilities and their ranking criteria. That distance was selected because it was about the average distance from a major boat origination point, a boat facility, to the open Gulf. And so the plan basis was to say if you're going to get a preferred rating, that is, the highest number of boat slips available, that we want to make sure that you have adequate depth, which is four feet, and you have that adequate depth for a distance from your boat facility to some destination point. So the basis of the plan is looking at those two factors, depth and distance. Now, the plan does say that the -- this depth requirement may also apply to areas between the proposed facility and any natural other navigational channel, inland, pass or deep water. That's on Page 72. The issue has become, from the speakers that you will hear tonight is the word may in that sentence. They're considering that as a regulatory construct. We don't take that as a regulatory construct. We're looking at that sentence, may means you may have that depth or not. If you don't have the depth, the Manatee Protection Plan and the code amendments will allow you to dredge to that depth. So if you don't have four foot adequate depth in that five-mile distance, and I'll talk about that a little bit more specifically, you can -- the plan does allow for you to do the dredging. So you can dredge to get that four-foot depth and you can then get the preferred rating, everything else being equal. Now, that five foot on-water travel distance was confusing in some of our initial drafts, and so based on some comments that we Page 50 May 21,2003 had received staff then went back and looked at the Manatee Protection Plan and crafted a set of figures that is our current proposal in your Land Development Code amendment. Those figures will show where there are adequate water depth channels. In other words, four foot. Those would be then given to the community that these are adequate four-foot water depths. And for your boating facility then, instead of using the term in the code five-mile on-travel water distance, we simply say that from your boat facility, from that facility to get to any of those channels that we've marked out in those figures, you have to have four foot of depth. So you just reach those channels with four feet of depth and you can get the preferred rating. If you don't have the four foot of depth, you can either just simply accept the moderate rating, which is 10 slips for 100 feet of shoreline, or you can go through the permitting process to apply for dredging of that channel for that area that you want to get to, and then as long as you get those permits and you do the dredging, then you can get the preferred rating, everything else being equal. So the current proposal that you have in your packet does not talk about the five-mile travel distance, but it uses those maps as an aid to be able to meet the intent of the Manatee Protection Plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where are those maps? MR. MUDD: They start on Page 35, Commissioner, and it's the handwritten 35, is what I'm seeing, and that's a figure 2.6.22.4-1. MR. LORENZ: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I've got those, but I don't have a legend that tells me what all this crosshatching means. MR. LORENZ: Okay, the crosshatching is the channel-- the point that has adequate water depth. So on Page 35, wherever your facility is located, as soon as you reach any of that crosshatching you will have reached adequate water depth. Now, you mayor may not have adequate water depth between Page 51 May 21,2003 that crosshatched area and wherever your facility may be located. If you have it and you demonstrate it, then you get the preferred rating. If you don't have it, again, you can go through the process and do the dredging. Because again, what we want to do is we want to ensure that between the boat facility, especially the boat facilities that have the highest density of boat slips, that you have adequate water depth to some destination point. And these maps are now our regulatory aid to do that, as opposed to just simply saying five miles of on-water travel distance, in which case the application of it would be that if you make it any route, you get five miles, and typically it takes you out to the Gulf to be able to get the five miles. So these maps are a substitute for that. But their intent is to meet the Manatee Protection Plan's conceptual framework. Again, we've worked this through with the state agency, and the staff from the state are comfortable with these maps and using that type of language, as opposed to the five-mile on-water travel distance. What I'd like to note, that this particular draft was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. They had three hearings on this particular item. It was also approved by the DSAC sub-committee -- or the DSAC. And the EAC did not take a formal stand on it. They wanted us to work as much as we could with the public in terms of this five-mile on-water travel distance. And staff did take some language from one individual, Todd Turrell had proposed some language looking at distance to natural channels. We sent that language to the state. They could not agree with that language. The state actually came back to us and said, well, what about instead of regulating the four-foot depth that you just simply regulate the two-foot manatee protection, and then you'd have to have limits on your vessel drafts? Well, when we tried to put that in the code language and tried to provide the appropriate controls to regulate vessel drafts, it started to Page 52 May 21,2003 become an enforcement nightmare and, quite frankly, you start to shift the liability in case something goes wrong to ultimately somebody in the future who is renting a boat slip. So that language didn't fly. We did shop it around. We had a meeting with the marine industries, the Conservancy, the Save the Manatees, and nobody really liked that language. So we -- that was a dead end alternative. So we tried to work it as much as we could, and staff is finally coming to the recommendation that you have in your package tonight. We're very comfortable with that recommendation. Again, it receives approval from the CCPC, from DSAC. Save the Manatee club had reviewed the earlier draft with the five-foot -- the five-mile travel distance, and they agreed to that concept. And again, the state officials are agreeing to the draft that you have in front of you. And again, the intent to hear from staff is to ensure that we're properly interpreting the Manatee Protection Plan, putting it in the code so everybody understands how we're going to regulate it. To the degree that we have an issue right now in terms of interpretation, I think it's telling you that we need to concretely put this in the language, because it would either -- we'd either have to have this discussion in crafting the Land Development Code amendments or at the proj ect level. But again, David Arnold is here, so if you have any further questions of the state in terms of interpretations or general concerns with regard to the Manatee Protection Plan, he can -- he's here to answer your questions. And if you want to tweak any language, he can also give you some -- I think some fairly quick feedback on it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think it was Collier County that wrote the language for the GMP and the Manatee Protection Plan, so wouldn't it be the people that would be on the committee, the interpretation that we should hear? MR. LORENZ: Well, the -- certainly there were a number of Page 53 May 21,2003 drafters. And I know that the public speakers who have spoken on this item in the previous advisory committees are not in agreement with the interpretation that staff is applying to this. But the best I can tell you is that from the staffs perspective and how we understand the framework and the concepts, and the state has approved the plan, it's not just -- the state had to approve our plan, that's how they're interpreting our plan. That's how -- and they're using our plan to -- within their permitting process. So if we make any fundamental changes to the plan, we're going to have to get state approval for that. So again, that's why David Arnold is here. And he can then provide the County Commission with his feedback and his information. So if you want to do any tweaking, we've got some -- we've got -- we at least have the state available to be here so that we don't get ourselves in trouble when we adopt something that the state will not approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Coyle, the -- on Page 32, the top map, the crosshatching, what does that crosshatching mean? Boat facilities prohibited. Is that what that means, there won't be any boat facilities in there? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. The multi-slip facilities. Residential docks are exempt. Single-family residential docks. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But no marinas. MR. LORENZ: But not marinas, yes. We're using the term boat facility, meaning a marina, commercial marina or a privately owned multi-slip facility. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How would this affect the research center that's going to be located in Henderson Creek? MR. LORENZ: Well, they have an existing boat dock. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There is-- MR. LORENZ: So there is an exception. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle's going to answer that question. Page 54 May 21,2003 How is this going to affect Isle of Capri? I guess I see it just on the one side, that you won't have any opportunities there for facilities on one side of Isle of Capri? MR. LORENZ: They'd have to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have, on Keewaydin Island a-- MR. LORENZ: The -- my staff said that that crosshatching does not include Isle of Capri. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Isle of Capri -- MR. LORENZ: Let me also add that these maps in here are the maps that are in the Manatee Protection Plan. So that's -- so we're simply ensuring that we're adopting the maps that are in the current plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: These are the old plans? MR. LORENZ: These particular maps are. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- when you refer to slips, commercial-- and this is on Page 31, 2.6.22.3.3, Port of the Isles. Commercial marina shall be restricted to a total of 175 slips currently permitted. Is that wet or dry slips? MR. LORENZ: Those are wet slips. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we need to clarify that? There won't be any confusion from staff when somebody tries to permit a -- MR. LORENZ: We can certainly add that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How is this going to affect Chockoloskee? MR. LORENZ: Well, I'd have to look at the plan. But remember, this is simply adopting the current Manatee Protection Plan. So there shouldn't be any changes to any locale that's being affected differently from what the plan -- when the plan was adopted in 1995. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Since you're asking the board to include -- what we're doing today is just to put the language in the Page 55 May 21,2003 Land Development Code, the working part of the document in the Land Development Code. So now would be the time to discuss, are we doing the right thing? And I guess I would have to ask is, how many mortalities was in areas where four foot of water -- in the mean low water level? Do we have those stats? MR. LORENZ: We have certain statistics that the -- for manatee mortalities. I'm not sure if they're specified directly to water depth. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we're applying something that has nothing to do with a mortality -- we have no science that -- MR. LORENZ: No, the science was developed in the Manatee Protection Plan original -- in the Manatee Protection Plan in 1995. If the question is, is do you want to review and revise the Manatee Protection Plan, then that's certainly wholly valid. It's been in effect since 1995, although we didn't have the speed zones till about 1998. The Save the Manatee club has requested, at least at the staff level, for us to begin a review and update of the Manatee Protection Plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are they paying for this amendment? MR. LORENZ: Pardon? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are they paying for this amendment? MR. LORENZ: No, this is a staff amendment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- I guess the bottom line is yes, we want to protect the manatee. At least I do. And let's be flexible and base it on science. And so if that's going to take GMP amendments to put the right thing in the Land Development Code -- because I'll tell you, I've been out there. All these hash marks in here? Where I see manatee is on the grass beds. I don't see it in these areas that are all hashed out. Not all the time. They do travel. I imagine they travel all up and down the coast. So if you really want to protect the manatee, maybe we should just shut down the Page 56 May 21,2003 whole thing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hope that's not a motion. MR. LORENZ: From a staff -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. MR. LORENZ: As a staff -- you know, we're proposing these amendments to implement your Manatee Protection Plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I heard that. MR. LORENZ: We understand the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I got it. MR. LORENZ: -- interpretation of the state. And if there's a desire to make modifications and a substantial policy modification, which of course this is 1995, this is what, eight years old? Then we can certainly begin the effort of revising the Manatee Protection Plan, creating the appropriate committees, providing the -- gathering the data, assessing the information, working with the state, and then of course again the state will be in the approval -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have a boat facility siting map for Naples Bay. Is that because it's not in our jurisdiction? MR. LORENZ: Naples Bay has adopted the county's Manatee Protection Plan, so we've -- these particular maps -- we're not addressing directly Naples Bay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's not included in this action at all? MR. LORENZ: Pardon? COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not included in this action at all? MR. MUDD: You have, in the adequate water depth on Page 37. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know, but I don't have anything that tells me where the facility -- boat facilities are prohibited. I've Page 57 May 21,2003 got that for everything else, but I don't have it for Naples Bay. Is there supposed to be one? MR. LORENZ: No, I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. LORENZ: As I said, the one thing, the maps that you're seeing here are prohibition maps. Those are those -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I'm asking, are there -- there are no prohibition maps for anywhere in Naples Bay? MR. LORENZ: Not that I'm aware of. This is the county's code. I'm not sure what the city's code is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's one thing I want to clarify: Does the city have a code that you're aware of? MR. LORENZ: They -- my understanding is they adopted Collier County's Manatee Protection Plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which essentially is this. At least these guidelines. MR. LORENZ: Yeah, this is -- essentially these guidelines. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. And I presume if there is a prohibitive facilities map, they would have it -- MR. LORENZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- right? Okay. Now, Commissioner Henning raised the issue about Henderson Creek, and I think you replied correctly that for the Rookery Bay facility, they have an existing boat dock. But there is a university -- Florida Gulf Coast University marine research facility planned for that location. They obviously will require boats. Is there anything here that will cause a problem for them? MR. LORENZ: Well, it would be not -- it would not be allowed to expand the facility. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That means create more boat docks? MR. LORENZ: More slips. Page 58 May 21,2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: More wet slips. COMMISSIONER COYLE: More wet slips. That could be a problem. You've got a university marine research facility and they can't have a boat in the water. MR. LORENZ: Well, again-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do we deal -- MR. LORENZ: -- Rookery Bay does have boat slips there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. How many; do you know? MR. LORENZ: No, I don't know. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: They have a pier, and I was just out there. They have at least four that I could count, okay, and plus they've got a smaller boat, a ramp on the other side, and it's right there by where the Conservancy is off of Shell Rock Road. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. MUDD: I didn't count down the other side of the pier. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But Commissioner Coyle's going in the right direction. I'm sorry to jump in, and I -- but I was just there myself. And they're saying that they do want to add extra slips when FGCU comes in for their research labs. So I'll just throw that in. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. And so what do we do about that? Does that mean we go through a revision process to see if we -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- can't revise it? How long -- what kind of a lead time are we talking about to do that? MR. LORENZ: Well, we'd be talking about revising the Manatee Protection Plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. LORENZ: I would -- the last time we went through the plan, it was -- it took at least -- it was about two years when all was said and done. Page 59 May 21,2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, we need to work on that. And the last thing is the procedure. We're talking about a Land Development Code cycle where we're incorporating these particular things, guidelines -- or requirements into the Land Development Code. What happened to the Growth Management Plan? We haven't incorporated this by reference into the Growth Management Plan yet. MR. LORENZ: There is reference to some criteria in the Growth Management Plan. It does not meet the state's requirement as a -- as properly referenced if a boat facility wants to be exempt from the DRI process. So it technically meets the 9J5 criteria for wildlife protection. And it was -- we were found in compliance with that. But if we want to exempt a facility from a DRI process, we have to add some more specificity to what we currently have in the plan so that a boat facility can be exempted from the DRI process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Isn't that what DCA instructed us to do was to reference the Manatee Protection Plan in the Growth Management Plan? MR. LORENZ: They indicated -- they indicated that if we wanted to do that, they gave us some guidance for how to do that. The comprehensive planning staff is working on an amendment to do exactly that, and that's to the board on July 29th. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I just want to get the sequence straight here. Is it unusual to do a Land Development Code cycle before you make the appropriate change to the Growth Management Plan? MR. LORENZ: We wouldn't be changing anything in the Manatee Protection Plan for this particular Growth Management Plan amendment. We would simply be referencing it to the degree that the state wants it to be referenced, such that a boat facility does not have to go through the DRI process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand that part. But Page 60 May 21,2003 what I'm getting at is, it's my understanding we generally determine growth management policy and then we implement Land Development Code to implement that policy. In this case we're developing Land Development Code without having dealt with the Growth Management Plan issue. Is that in any way unusual? MR. LORENZ: Well, I wouldn't characterize it that way. It's already in the Growth Management Plan, and it's in the Growth Management Plan that meets the wildlife criteria protection for 9J5. So if we didn't do anything more than that, if we didn't want to do anything more than that, then that would satisfy it. And the Land Development Code amendments that we're bringing forward to you is again that clarification of our current Manatee Protection Plan. And the Growth Manatee Protection Plan Management Plan is properly referenced. If the Commission wants to exempt a boat facility from the DRI process, then we have to modify the Growth Management Plan, our current manatee protection policy differently than we currently have it specified. That policy in and of itself is not going to change the Manatee Protection Plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, where were we? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we were at Commissioner Fiala. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's take Fiala, Coletta, Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I'll go quickly. I just wanted to state that I believe that our Manatee Protection Plan was almost an award-winning plan, and that was what kept us out of trouble, compared to like Cape Coral, I believe. And I heard that a lot at the workshop that I held in Marco Island. And the other thing -- so that's all I was going to say there. The other thing was I was going to do is, I was concerned about Rookery Bay, but Commissioner Coyle hit it, so I'll just be quiet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? Page 61 May 21,2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Just to recap on it, who's onboard for this particular LDC change as far as the environmental community, standing watch, the boating community? MR. LORENZ: Well, the Save the Manatee club. We've -- we haven't received any specific written support from the Conservancy, but verbally they've indicated that our interpretations fit their understanding of the Manatee Protection Plan. And as I said, these amendments reflect the interpretation of the existing Manatee Protection Plan. They're designed to ensure that we implement the plan with clarity. And I know that there's issues with the marine trades association, because they don't agree with the interpretation of the plan. But that's my point. Because we have an issue, we need to clarify the language. And our staffs clarification is supportive from the state. The state approved our Manatee Protection Plan. If we want to change the plan, which of course we certainly can do, and we wanted to make different policy from the current plan, then we need to go through a manatee plan update. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then the next question would be, we're under no gun at this particular point in time. If for some reason this doesn't receive approval and go through, there's no consequences that we're going to be paying for? MR. LORENZ: No, the only thing I would say is that staff -- as proj ects come in, staff would be reviewing them, using the language that we're currently proposing to you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And one last question, if I may? Thank you. This would not affect the county's plans for Dolphin Cove? MR. LORENZ: I'm not sure. Again, if -- it's the existing plan, so I don't know -- I haven't subj ected county facilities to the current plan. Page 62 May 21,2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just let me backtrack a little bit here. I think the only thing that we're going to do is take, for instance, on Page 35 where you've got this hashed area. All we're doing to this land code level -- this LDC here is we are just clarifying that we have the adequate depth there where this hash mark is; is that correct? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: For the manatee protection. So we're just adding this into the LDC amendment, stating that we have -- in that area we could put boats in there because we have the adequate depth; is that correct? MR. LORENZ: What we're saying is that if you can get to that crosshatch with a four-foot depth connector to that crosshatch channel and your boat facility, that's how we would interpret the adequate water depth requirement. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So like you said, we're not changing anything at all in the Manatee Protection Plan, all we're doing is stating that this is basically an addition or an enhancement of the Land Development Code to indicate to the state that we have adequate depth at these locations, whether it's at Page 35, Page 36 or Page 37; is that correct? MR. LORENZ: Yes. Taken with the language, we would say that if you get to that point, then you don't have to demonstrate adequate water depth any further from your boat facility. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, suppose you're on Page 35 and you want to go down to Water Turkey Bay. Are we indicating that that white area, which is the water, that at -- it does not meet the requirements of four feet of depth at mean low water tide, right? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. LORENZ: So if you were to put a -- if you wanted to put a Page 63 May 21,2003 facility, let's say where the B is at Water Turkey Bay, you would then have to get a dredging permit and dredge a channel from the B out to the crosshatch channel. And if you could do that, and everything else being equal, you get preferred rating. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, I understand. MR. LORENZ: And it may also be that in that white area, maybe there are places that have adequate water depth. You simply need to demonstrate that to staff. And it's only the places that you don't have adequate water depth that you need to dredge for the preferred. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's at mean water level? MR. LORENZ: Mean low water. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Halas, if you turn on Page 32 and look at those maps, those are the areas that the facilities are prohibited. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But that's in our current plan. That has nothing to do with this plan at all. What -- he's just showing these maps as -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we're saying we cannot change the plan? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if we change the plan, I think we're going to run afoul with the state, because the state has approved this particular plan that we have since 1995, and then we're going to run into the problem that Cape Coral's running into. I think; am I right? CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is the plan -- MR. LORENZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- correct, that the state approved? There's already existing Land Development Code language in here, 2.6, in this plan that you gave me. I haven't had a chance to review it, but it doesn't look like the language that -- what you're asking us Page 64 May 21,2003 to approve now. MR. LORENZ: No, the language that's in the plan was the language that existed in the code as of 1995, which we amended. And you have the Land Development Code now. But we've had some problems in applying those interpretations with clarity. So we're bringing forward this language to ensure that everybody's reading from the same page and that it's in line with the existing Manatee Protection Plan. As a result of this process, if there are issues that have emerged where the County Commission wants to do something different with the concepts, with the policy, then certainly we have the ability to launch into a revision of the Manatee Protection Plan. But in the interim, between then and now, we have a current Manatee Protection Plan which we're proposing to be implemented through these proposed Land Development Code regulations. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Should we go to public speakers? MS. MURRAY: Todd Turrell, followed by Lee Lyons. Clay Brooker will go first, followed by Todd Turrell. MR. BROOKER: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Clay Brooker, I'm with the law firm of Young, Van Assendorp, Varnadoe and Anderson. The bottom line is we do not agree with what's being proposed to you today because it is a change of the Manatee Protection Plan that was adopted in 1995. Commissioner Henning just raised a copy of it. This is a copy of it. What happened was at least before 1995 there were some Land Development Code provisions in effect. The Manatee Protection Plan was then adopted, and for whatever reason this document did not get incorporated into the Land Development Code until this process here today. This Manatee Protection Plan was the result of hours of work Page 65 May 21,2003 between various groups. A committee was instituted to look into it. The Conservancy was involved. There were a lot of competing interests. It is a work of compromise. And what happened was the BCC at that time approved it and the state approved it. So our position is whatever the Manatee Protection Plan states should be incorporated into the Land Development Code today. And what our position is, is that what's being proposed with regard to these maps, getting to a four-foot depth is nowhere found in the Manatee Protection Plan. I'd like to -- I guess the issue is with regard to the water depth requirement, the issue is whether in a site specific meaning you have to have four feet at your proposed facility, or do you have to have four feet for some distance? And what the county staff is proposing, in effect, if you analyzed and looked at the maps, is say you have to get to one of these crosshatched marks which leads you out to the Gulf of Mexico. So the proposal is basically saying you have to have four feet to get out to the Gulf of Mexico, and our position is that's nowhere to be found in the Manatee Protection Plan. The language, just to back up a little bit, so I've seen -- I've heard a little bit of confusion. You have a -- the ability to have a preferred, moderate or protected ranking. And what happens is you have three criteria that are applied to determine which of those ranking you get. The criteria are native marine habitat, the adequate water depth, that we've been discussing, and manatee mortality; what kind of deaths have occurred in this area over time. This is the table directly from the Manatee Protection Plan that's already been approved. You can see, here is the water depth criteria, here's the native marine habitat criteria and here is the manatee use or manatee mortality criteria. Below -- on the side of the table are the rankings. You see to Page 66 May 21,2003 get preferred, you have to have greater than four feet mean low water, no impacts on native marine habitat and a not high manatee use. The manatee use area, basically what you'd -- for manatee mortality, you take your proposed facility, you draw a five-mile radius around the facility, and if there are more than 20 percent of watercraft caused manatee deaths within that area, you are considered a high use manatee area. So that, we believe, is a very strong indication or implementation of manatee protection. If the deaths are not occurring in the area, you simply do not have a lot of manatee use in the area that is being threatened. What happens with regard to -- this gets to the nuts and bolts of it. If you are preferred, you have 18 boat slips per 100 feet of shoreline; that's wet slips. Dry storage, you can expand whatever is existing, and you can create new dry storage. Boat ramps, you can expand existing, and you can create new boat ramps. Problem is with regard to the four-foot water depth issue, as soon as you lose or what we consider would be today tightening down or making more strict what's in the Manatee Protection Plan, you get bumped to a moderate ranking, the moderate ranking, the density is almost halfed. You go from 18 down to 10 wet boat slips for every 100 feet of shoreline. You no longer can create new dry storage, you no longer can create boat ramps. We consider that a maj or impact. If you are going to make it more strict to get a preferred ranking, you are basically making it more difficult to create new boat ramps, to create new dry storage, and to expand your existing wet slips. That's the background of the Manatee Protection Plan, how it works. Now I'd like to get directly into the language at issue that we believe specifically contradicts what the county's staff is proposing today. This is Section 3.2.4, again, of the original Manatee Protection Plan. Here -- this paragraph here discusses the adequate Page 67 May 21,2003 water depth criteria. This paragraph discusses native marine habitat criteria. This is the manatee mortality paragraph. Because we're focusing on the adequate water depth, I'd like to look at this sentence here that starts with the word this, goes to depth. This depth requirement may also apply to the area between the proposed facility and any natural or other navigation channel, inlet, pass or deep water. I have underlined the word may, because I believe what the county is proposing today turns that word into shall. They are requiring you to get to the Gulf of Mexico in order to get a preferred ranking. And that -- and our interpretation is directly contrary to what the Manatee Protection Plan states, which was approved by this board, the BCC, back in 1995 and by the state. You are going to hear now from the public speakers, that's why we switched up the order a little bit, so I could do the introduction, so-called introduction. Three members of the committee that drafted the Manatee Protection Plan, they are going to tell you that the intent was never to make this four-foot water depth go beyond the site at the proposed site. If you have -- you were required to have four feet there, that's never a dispute. But to go further beyond the site to go to some hash marked area, some map, to the Gulf of Mexico or whatever it is, it was never the intent of the Manatee Protection Plan. And I believe that's what we have to get to today. And you're also going to hear of examples, I believe, of marinas that would be significantly impacted if the county proposal was adopted. And with that, I'll answer any questions or turn it over to the other speakers. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker? MS. MURRAY: Todd Turrell, followed by Lee Lyons. MR. TURRELL: Hi, I'm Todd Turrell. I'm a local ocean Page 68 May 21,2003 engineer here in Collier County. I was one of the original members of the committee that drafted the plan. There's no question in my mind that what staff is proposing is changing the plan. You know, I think that, you know, the whole idea here is to be adopting the manatee plan that was drafted by us and county staff and approved by the state. The four-foot requirement was site specific. That was where your marina was at. It was never ever discussed or intended or otherwise even mentioned that you needed to have four-foot mean low water to get out to the Gulf. I mean, it just -- that was never a part of the discussion, okay? Now, who that affects. That affects -- like all of Vanderbilt Lagoon is all of a sudden off limits, you know, as far as a preferred ranking. Everything south of Bonita Beach Road is off limits. All of Isle of Capri. There's huge areas of the county that are impacted by that interpretation, and it just was not what was intended. And as some of the other members that were on that committee are here, it's clear in our minds. I just don't understand where the county really is coming from other than a more restrictive interpretation of the Manatee Protection Plan. And I don't really think it's fair for them to lobby David Arnold in the State of Florida about what their interpretation of it is, because he's only hearing one side of the story. That's not fair to him; it's certainly not fair to us or you. I mean, you're the ones that approved the plan originally, you're the ones that I think need to approve the interpretation of the plan. Anyways, specific examples of properties that are negatively affected by this is Back Bay Marina, and they've asked me to just make a brief statement. They're south of Bonita Beach Road, they've been there for 30, 40 years, and if they're not a preferred site, you know, who is? And they say the county says, well, you can -- if you're not -- if you don't have four-foot low water, you can dredge it, Page 69 May 21,2003 you know, down to in this case to Wiggins Pass. That would be a multi-million dollar project. I mean, it would be worth more than their property is worth. So there's no way that they could ever do it. So what does that mean? It means they can never expand beyond the number of slips that they have now, because they already have the 10 per 100 foot of shoreline that a moderate ranking, you know, involves. Another example is Vanderbilt Marina, that one next to the Sea Witch, you know, down on the south end of Vanderbilt Lagoon. Once again, they've been there for 40 years. Well, they -- the new map that is in this takes -- I mean the old map showed that as adequate water depths. The new map takes it out. So -- plus you have Water Turkey Bay and other areas that aren't adequate water depth, although they're close. Well, those guys too want to express their opposition to this. I mean, there's some people down there that have assembled that land around the Vanderbilt Marina. They plan to redo that whole waterfront that I think will be wonderful for Vanderbilt Lagoon, I used to live there, and do a nice new public marina down there. The plan, as proposed, would limit them to 10 slips per 100 foot of shoreline, instead of 18, it would eliminate any chance for them to have any dry storage, and it would eliminate any chance to have a boat ramp. So it significantly impacts existing commercial marinas, that if they're not preferred, who is? So I don't know, we just have a major problem. And I'm sorry to get so blood boiling about it, but I was there, it was not what was intended, and I hope that you will clarify it indeed by saying that the four foot is site specific and is not related to access, because that's what the plan intended. Thanks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Lee Lyons, followed by Duke Turner. MR. LYONS: I'm Lee Lyons, local businessman in the county, Page 70 May 21,2003 making my living on the water. At the time the Manatee Protection Plan was put into effect, I was the president for the -- president of the Marine Industry Association of Collier County. I was one of the people that your commission appointed, along with the Federation of Wildlife, the Conservancy, Mr. Turner, and Todd Turrell to go in your behalf to the state in order to come up with a Manatee Protection Plan. And I believe that you'll find that we were the second one in the state to get it approved. They've used ours as a model. By the same token, because of the situation that we've gotten ourselves into, we are a lot better off than what Cape Coral and Lee County is and a lot of the other counties around the state. In this particular instance, we do believe that the Manatee Protection Plan should be in the Land Development Code. I think that's what the intention was all along. I think what we're really, you know, discussing here tonight is the interpretation again. I'm not sure how to use this piece of equipment, but I'll show you, this is the original map that was in the Manatee Protection Plan. This is in the Vanderbilt Lagoon area, for an example. And if you'll notice at the bottom of it, clear down to the bottom of Vanderbilt Lagoon, it's all crosshatched, saying that there's four foot adequate water depth. From a practical commonsense standpoint, it would make you understand that this was site specific and was not intended to be -- having to having to have four feet adequate water all the way out to the Gulf of Mexico, or else it would never have been crosshatched in there to begin with at that point in time. Your -- the staff or someone has taken it upon themselves to tweak the program enough where the only thing -- they've left out the whole bottom half of that particular chart on their new charts, and I don't have the specific page number that your new chart's on. In the original concept, it was only site specific. It was not set Page 71 May 21,2003 up to be -- having to go five miles or clear out to the Gulf of Mexico to make this an operable situation. I'll take a minute just to bring you up to date on something else. Prior to David Arnold, we were working with the people in Tallahassee, with DEP. Our Manatee Protection Plan is coming up for review again in the very near future. We have been working with Save the Manatee club over the past probably eight months. The young lady that we've been working with is on leave right now for maternity. But I think if she was here, she would tell you that we've tried to strive to be able to make any changes that we wanted in the Manatee Protection Plan. We have a situation right now on Naples Bay which they're trying to change the speed zones on Naples Bay. We have a situation down in Everglades City where they're trying to make some changes down there. What we in the marine industries are trying to do, and we've had meetings with the city, the county, the Audubon Society, the Conservancy, trying to bring all these people together again like we did back in the late Eighties or early Nineties to achieve this program as we have here. What we're trying to do is be able to get everybody on the same ground before it ever got to the point where we are here tonight. In other words, hopefully we would have been able to present a focus group where we could sit there and say we all agree. I believe in concept we all agree, except the interpretation is what we've lost here. Another thing, you -- someone mentioned about the fact of will this affect Chockoloskee. It definitely affects Chockoloskee. You sit there and you ask if it's going to affect the Dolphin project down at Goodland, it definitely could affect that particular project as well, too, this interpretation. And I don't think that's what it was really intended to do. Page 72 May 21,2003 We would like to make some changes to the Manatee Protection Plan in the future. We want to make some more astringent -- tighten up some of the rules and regulations, and there's some of the areas that we want to be able to lessen. But this is a prime opportunity for all of us maybe to get together again and sit there and decide what's coming up in our future to try to plan for the Manatee Protection Plan over the next five years now. But let's not lose what we've got now with the wrong interpretation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought that was a very compelling presentation. One of the things that we've been pushing for is more access, not less. All of a sudden I see a real threat to what we're trying to accomplish in this county. I mean, we're losing marinas to the developments. We -- at one end. We're at the other end trying to find new access for our boating public. And then at this end we're going to go ahead and limit the whole process all over again. I -- as long as this is not something that's required by the state for us to be able to operate, this particular thing having to do with the depth, the dredging, I can't say I could support this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Turner? MR. TURNER: Hi. How are you all this evening? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks for being here. MR. TURNER: Mr. Coyle, good to see you. Haven't seen you in a while. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, good to see you. How are you doing? MR. TURNER: Oh, I'm doing fine, thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. MR. TURNER: My name, for the record, is Duke Turner, I live at 1230 26th Avenue North. And I was one that was appointed by the previous county commission here to negotiate out the Manatee Page 73 May 21,2003 Protection Plan that the county had worked on for four years. They give us 90 days, we done it in 120. And we went to a lot of work and worked on it hard. And we didn't take people's words for it, we used facts. And the way we established a lot of the areas for marina criteria was that we actually took navigational charts and went through those to see where -- water depths. And we picked out where they would go. And that's how the criteria was done. And also along with that, when we went to Tallahassee, we went to Smith Aerial, rented aerial photos, real-time photos, and took them to the DEP in Tallahassee and sat down and took each one of their charts, and we laid those charts out and we matched water depths with what was in that area. And the -- in their -- in the DEP's original proposal, they had marinas built in Port Royal. They had marinas inside Doctors Pass where the condominiums' at. And that's the reason we said, hey, it can't work. In whose lifetime are they going to build a marina in Port Royal? Sable Bay was one of the preferred marina sites on their charts. But we took those pictures and that's how we established marina areas done through the preferred, the moderate and so forth. And that's where they -- how that come about. So that's where the -- and the water depths was decided and it was site specific. It was not that we go off out here, got to go 10 miles to get some water, you know. It was site specific. And also, now we're talking about this five-mile radius. The five-mile radius had absolutely whatsoever nothing to do with marina sitings and the depths. It was strictly for manatee mortality rate in that area. And we felt the only fair way we could do it, if you had more mortalities in Port of the Isles, it would not be fair to penalize Wiggins Pass or Doctors Pass or Naples or Marco. If you had -- and we used to go back and visit that. And then that -- we would then -- we would look at those areas that wherever the largest mortality rate Page 74 May 21,2003 was it, and if it was too high, then we could go back to that one specific five-mile radius and determine what happened in that area and what can we do about it. So when they sit here and try to tell you that that was intended to be a five-mile radius for four feet of water, that is baloney. That is not true. I was there at every meeting. And some of them here that I hear speak was not in those meetings, and I was in every one of them. And so I just want to say, I drove 750 miles just so I could speak my piece about this, when I hear that something's not true. And so that's the reason I'm here tonight. And so I would like to encourage you all that we should have adopted this plan after we done it in 1995. It's only been eight years. And so I think it's about time we done it. And I don't think we need all these modifications. And I hear that people that was in these negotiations. I have never seen or heard of them. And so that's my piece tonight, and I thank you. MS. MURRAY: Your last speaker is David Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Good evening, Commissioners. I don't envy the position that you're in right now. Certainly the testimony that you have heard illustrates why county staff has asked you to put something down. Now, county staff certainly has indicated to you that they believe that they are interpreting in writing the way that they conduct their business, and that's what I'm here to tell you tonight. And I don't disagree with any of the speakers that were involved in this process. I was not at those meetings. I came into the manatee business at the conclusion of that process. But what I can tell you is that when we're sitting in Tallahassee, we have to ask ourselves a very commonsense question. We're looking at a facility, somebody wants to build a new marina. We look at your plan and we evaluate their facility, using your plan to Page 75 May 21,2003 help us. Your plan is not a part of state law; understanding that we have the opportunity to use your plan, though, to guide us. And we faithfully try to support the conclusion that your plan reached, because we think that's fair to the people that live here who rely upon that plan as a planning document. And we're very supportive of that, that's why we're working with counties all over the state to do this. But the commonsense question that I ask is if someone builds a facility and they have four foot of water depth and they put a vessel in there that has a three-foot draft, and they're headed out and they want to go someplace, what do they do when they get to a portion of your waterway and there is not sufficient water depth there? CHAIRMAN HENNING: They get stuck. MR. ARNOLD: And so when we look at a facility, that's how we came to look for pathways that would take these vessels to their typical destination point. And your plan talks a lot about why they considered five miles. Because that was typically anyplace you were at in the county, you could get out to the Gulf within a five-mile distance. Now, not every single place, but most of the time you could. And so as we began to use the plan in Tallahassee and we were talking with your staff, both of us understood that that was our goal. We were trying to get vessels safely from their marina facility to their destination point, and all along that pathway, manatees would enjoy that measure of water depth, as illustrated in the graphic that you saw earlier. Certainly if that, in writing it down for the LDC suggests to a lot of these folks that there's going to be some problems in the future, that just means that you need to at this point in time pretty quickly start figuring out what do we want to do about that collectively. Do we want to create opportunities for variances, do we want to have some master program for insuring that we have a good series of Page 76 May 21,2003 channels? Perhaps public and private partnerships could create those kinds of channels. Do we want to change that requirement formally by a vote of the Commissioners so that everybody, staff, state and these folks that are intimately involved in here, will clearly then know what the interpretation should be? You have all those choices in front of you. We certainly are not here to try and twist your arms to do something that you don't feel comfortable doing. But obviously your staff and we in Tallahassee, when we review the next permit and the next permit and the next permit, we're going to have to make some decisions based upon our understanding. And the way we have been doing it is the way staff has written it down. And if that's not the way that we should be doing in the future (sic), then we need to take some steps to get that corrected. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And how the Growth Management Plan/Land Development Code is interpretated (sic), staff takes a position on it, but it ultimately is the Board of Commissioners. So maybe what we ought to do, instead of having any language moving forward, is find out what the state's concerns are in writing, look at those concerns, have staff come to us and see what their dilemma was interpretating (sic) the code, and let us work through that process here locally. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I feel very uncomfortable with what's happening here today. You can understand the opportunity for abuse when we -- the Board of County Commissioners approves a policy and then eight years later staff begins to interpret the policy. It may -- perhaps the policy wasn't good. But as I've heard people state tonight, if it's not good, let's change it. And I'm very, very concerned about letting something this important be changed without consultation with all the people who were involved in setting it up. Page 77 May 21,2003 And I'm going to ask one simple question: Is this -- this plan that Commissioner Henning held up before, is that the approved Manatee Protection Plan -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- from 1995? Then that's the one I want to adopt, okay? That's it. And that's the one I'm going to support. And if there's a problem with it, then what we need to do is get together and get all the people together and go about revising it to make sure it's right. But I'm not going to get involved in taking a document that's been approved by the Board of County Commissioners and approved by the state government and start changing it because somebody feels that it wasn't written properly or they want to reinterpret what it really says. That's a very, very dangerous process, and it puts us in a terrible position, again, because it makes us appear that we really don't care about protecting manatees now; we're going to reject some of these interpretations. And that simply should never ever have occurred. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We only -- that's two Commissioners are not in favor of adopting it, so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make that three. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Here, too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we want to do this right, and I think we need to take our time to do it right. So we need some input from the state again, and let's go through that process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask about a variation to that? Weare here, or I thought we were here to incorporate the state-approved Manatee Protection Plan into our Land Development Code. I'd like to do that tonight. That's it right here. I'd like to make that decision tonight, and then give guidance to the county manager to get the people who are -- were involved in this thing, let's get them together, let's go over these proposed changes and see if there is Page 78 May 21,2003 some update that's necessary, and then we go through the update process. But by adopting this, we can at least say we've got a manatee protection plan. If we don't do that, if we don't put it in the Land Development Code, it really can't be enforced and we're left without a manatee protection plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coyle, this has been adopted by the Board of Commissioners. There is language in there that they're going by. The problem is, the interpretation of the language presently written, it's problematic, and that's what I understand. So let's take that -- those problem areas and straighten it out. Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: Yes. In your code on Page -- the No. 28, you already have in the code land development regulations that adopted the Manatee Protection Plan. They're -- not all of the Manatee Protection Plan was in that code. That's why we proposed some additional -- incorporating all of the Land Development Code regulations in there. So that's -- so you do have the code that was adopted. It does talk about a five-mile on travel -- on-water travel distance of five miles considered the sphere of influence, which staff would need from the Commission in terms of the interpretation is that if you're directing staff that the interpretation should be simply at the marina site itself, not extending beyond the boat facility site, then we would take that direction for making an interpretation that in projects, that we would come in-house until there is another plan drafted (sic). So that's what -- I guess that's what I'm asking for, unless you want to -- again, and I don't see where -- the Commission obviously is not recommending or not accepting staffs proposal in terms of the interpretation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Lorenz, I don't think we have Page 79 May 21,2003 enough knowledge on this item. And I think what we need is people like Mr. Turrell, yourself, either in a workshop or on a one-on-one basis, to try and to narrow down the objective on both sides. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got to admit, I'm still confused. Either there is or is not a set of Land Development Code changes in our code to implement this plan. MR. LORENZ: There currently is -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. For all of it? MR. LORENZ: -- Land Development Code language. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So this plan that was approved by the state is incorporated in our Land Development Code at the present time? MR. LORENZ: Not all of it, but a majority of it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wow. Okay. It keeps getting worse. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't understand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't understand either. MR. LORENZ: Commissioner, the Land Development Code does reference the Manatee Protection Plan. Currently it does say all aspects of the Manatee Protection Plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So-- MR. LORENZ: What we attempted to do in these amendments was to take all of the Manatee Protection Plan that you have, to deal with it from a Land Development Code perspective, and put it in the Land Development Code so that the Land Development Code then would be all-encompassing and the interpretation would be the appropriate interpretation of the Manatee Protection Plan. So you have that already. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I'm beginning to understand. Okay. MR. MUDD: So getting past it another way, so right now if I Page 80 May 21,2003 had to go to the Land Development Code and look for manatee protection, I would go into this section and I would get it, and I would go in there and I'd read some things. And then if I really wanted to go into -- and I had to go into it further, I'd have to go find the Manatee Protection Plan, in essence, and pull it out as another resource in order to see if I'm in compliance or not. So what you tried to do, okay, is to take the two documents that are referenced, the plan and what's ever in the Land Development Code, and try to get them into one. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it went further than that. It went to modification of what was in the Land Development Code. MR. MUDD: No, what you're getting right now, and what the staff is telling you, from what I understand, is the way they interpret the Manatee Protection Plan and they decide how many docks you're going to get, okay, is written on these pieces of paper. And what has been brought up is there's some folks that were here at the original intent when they did the Manatee Protection Plan that says I'm not too sure that staffs interpretation of what's on the pages is what was intended, okay? And I guess what I'm going to say is English is a precise language, okay, and if what you intended -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not here. MR. MUDD: -- isn't on the page, okay, then we should have put some more writing down, okay, to make sure it was correct. And if that's the case, then that's fine. You do what you can. And that staff guy wasn't here when you did it, okay, so he wasn't sitting. But by God, he's got to implement it now, and so whatever's written on that page, he's got to pull from. And so I guess what we're saying right now, and the good part of this is, staff put down the way they're interpreting the Manatee Protection Plan right now so that you got it on a page, and at least we're getting at this particular issue. Page 81 May 21,2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my problem is that it appears that the staff interpretation is at substantial variance from the previous County Commission's ratification of this plan. And that to me is a very dangerous thing to get involved in. And I think that if the staff has some good reasons for interpreting the plan the way the staff is interpreting it, I believe that all the people who were involved in putting this thing together should have a chance to sit down and talk about it and develop some procedures that are effective. I just don't like seeing them go the way they appear to be going today. Now, my final question about this is, there should -- no, this is a statement, it's not a question. There should be absolutely no reason why we cannot proceed with the inclusion of the Manatee Protection Plan, this one right here, by reference in the Growth Management Plan. Right? MR. LORENZ: That's scheduled for July 29th. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, the action we take tonight will have no effect on that at all? MR. LORENZ: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, and then we're going to take a 10-minute break. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, let me get this straight. We talked -- there was a gentleman up here, got up and said that we adopt your resolution tonight, or adopt that language, that we are in a position where somebody like Back Bay Marina or somebody down in the Vanderbilt Lagoon could no longer be a marina. MR. LORENZ: No, they could not get the preferred rating. If they don't have the adequate water depth, the way staff is making the interpretation, they would not be able to get the preferred rating of 18 slips per 100 foot of shoreline. They probably would still allow the 100 -- I mean the 10 slips per 100 feet of shoreline. And then the rest of -- Page 82 May 21,2003 COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what we're doing is we're putting a crimp on the boating industry or the boaters in the county here, as far as finding adequate places to drop off boats, store boats, whether it's dry slips or wet slips. MR. LORENZ: The Manatee Protection Plan envisioned that you would not get the greatest amount of boat slips if you were not in a preferred site. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So how would this affect Back Bay Marina, that's located up off of Bonita Beach Road, from how they operate today versus if we adopt this language? How would that affect them in the future? MR. LORENZ: If they came in from an expansion -- for an expansion, then we would subj ect them to the criteria. Now-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: The criteria that we want to put into this document now; is that correct? MR. LORENZ: Well, that's what I'm hearing from the Commissioners is that you -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're not going there. MR. LORENZ: -- you don't agree with that interpretation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We need to move on. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I'm trying to find out, just so I get this clarified in my own mind here. That's why I'm asking these questions. MR. LORENZ: So in terms of the direction that I heard is try to sit down with the marine trades industry and -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: You got it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, everyone. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Everybody. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And environmentalists -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And environmentalists. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Everybody. All the people, so we get a good indication -- Page 83 May 21,2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Parks and Rec. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Definitely. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. I'll go there. But I think we could simplify it just to find out what the state's problem with our plan today and the interpretation -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: If they have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: He just said we do. So let's hear that, let the board interpretate (sic) the Growth Management Plan and the manatee protection and address it. And if not, let's have a party and throw a bunch of people together and rewrite the Manatee Protection Plan. Whatever the board wants to do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We gave direction. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we did. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the direction is? What you understand, Mr. Lorenz? MR. MUDD: Is to get the marine industry, environmental community and everybody together -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Got it. MR. MUDD: -- and try to get -- and come to consensus on the interpretation of the Manatee Protection Plan so that we can get it in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, let's take a 10-minute break. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would everybody take their seats, please. Susan Murray, where are we at? I know we want to get public speakers. MS. MURRAY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I had public speakers from the fire department that wanted to make, I think, a quick either request or make a statement on the record, I'm not sure which. And then we were going to go to Eastern Lands. Page 84 May 21,2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great. First speaker? MS. MURRAY: Matt Hudson and Don Peterson. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. HUDSON: For the record, Matt Hudson. Thank you for hearing us this evening. I'm one of the fire commissioners in Golden Gate. What we come to you this evening for is we'd like to propose an amendment to the LDC regarding agricultural zoning. And we'd like to see fire stations and emergency services as an essential use. We feel that this will allow us to eliminate the conditional use or PUD process and allow us to go straight to an SDP process. The goal here is obviously to allow emergency services to come about quicker and bring about a greater safety, health and welfare issue for the communities that are popping up. Certainly in some of the rural areas, especially where our particular district is in, Big Corkscrew and Immokalee, there are an awful lot of development issues that are going to be coming up, and streamlining the process is going to be paramount to bringing in emergency servIces. Predominantly most of these areas are non-hydranted, so they are going to require fire stations in greater proximity to some of the areas. In addition, by doing this, it will help the taxpayers in terms of their ISO rating for insurance and so forth, and will overall save the taxpayers money. It streamlines our process and allows us to get to the station quicker, increases our emergency response time and also can save the taxpayers some money on their insurance. This is a win-win situation for everyone. Currently we have a site that is involved in this on 951 that we are proposing a new station for. So it would certainly have an immediate benefit to not only our district but to the surrounding Page 85 May 21,2003 communIties. So this is an opportunity for good government. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to help. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear from staff. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, if the board directs us to look at such an amendment, we could bring one back in the second cycle this year. Of course, there will be a staff analysis and a consistency analysis with the Growth Management Plan that will be required, and we would bring forward a recommendation to you with that proposal as well, if that is your desire. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- do we want to include sheriff substations and EMS in this? Part of the process -- I know it takes time to facilitate some zoning requests for these, and it does cost the taxpayers money. We know that we need fire stations, we know that we need EMS facilities, and we know we're going to need sheriff substations, particularly in the rural land of Collier County. I think -- give the Commissioners a little background on this, Matt's in the process of getting a fire station on 951 rezoned. Come to find out that the transportation department needs that property for water retention. And what's happening now is they're scrambling to find another site and wanting to work with the county instead of going to eminent domain. And hopefully we can come up with a price before we do that. But there is a site just down the street that they might be able to grab. But this -- if we get this amendment in, it wouldn't slow down their process to provide facilities and protection to the residents around that area. MR. HUDSON: Right. We'd be able to proceed and get-- certainly get the station built on a timely fashion, like we've already kind of laid into our budgeting and our planning process. And that area needs a station desperately. That's in the furthest most point of our response time and that's where the greatest amount of growth is Page 86 May 21,2003 gOIng. So it's -- you know, to be slowed down in the process in this particular issue would be a very big challenge for the residents, but just in the future, in the planning aspects of the entire county, it just makes good sense to try and streamline that process to bring those emergency and essential services into place much quicker for the community. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, the -- David Weigel would like for us to affirm in a vote this is the wishes of the board, to make this amendment by majority or super majority. So without any further questions, I'll entertain a motion to direct staff to -- I'll make the motion that we direct staff to include fire stations, sheriff substations, EMS facilities within the ago community. MR. MUDD: Permitted use. CHAIRMAN HENNING: As a permitted use. And with that, I must ask, to protect residents in an ago area, if the zoning is next to residential, does staff come up with some kind of buffering criteria within that permitted use? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And maybe one public hearing to let them know that it's going to be there, so that they all know. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You added with a public hearing, right? CHAIRMAN HENNING: What do you mean by a public hearing? Neighborhood meeting? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Because when you -- if you say permitted, it goes right to SDP. The next thing you know, you've got a fire station there and nobody knows about it except when it's getting built and they start asking the question why is it there? Because we're not talking about having signs posted, we're basically saying hey, we're just letting people know that we're -- there's a station going in. Because the SDP is approved by the staff. Page 87 May 21,2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. Chief Peterson, would you like to say anything today? Thank you. MR. PETERSON: Just to say thank you. It does expedite the process, and it's usually time sensitive with the fire station process. So thank you very much for allowing us to come before you today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item? MS. MURRAY: Next item is the rural land stewardship area zoning overlay district, Section 2.2.27 . You have an individual handout for that, with that title at the top. MS. LINNAN: Good evening. I'm Nancy Linnan, county's outside counsel for growth management. With me tonight is Marty Chumbler (phonetic), my partner, and also Bill Lorenz will be serving as staff. Bob Mulhere, who staffed this, could not be here tonight. We intend to get back to him, but if there's no controversy tonight, giving the next hearing to him, and we'll stay in Tallahassee, if you don't mind. This is the first board hearing on implementing a portion of the land development regulations for the eastern land. We're going to adopt the rest of the land development regulations affecting the eastern land in other cycles this year. And I just thought I'd give you the big picture of what those cycles will be, as we know right now. Page 88 May 21,2003 We're in the first cycle now, and what we're doing is putting in place the mechanism for designation of the stewardship sending areas and stewardship receiving areas. A party can apply for designation when you adopt this, but nothing can be approved until all the implementing regulations are adopted and in effect. And really, you're looking at the end of next January to be in that kind of position. The second cycle we had planned to do, the fringe environmental amendments, and what we call the baseline environmental standards, the Group 5 standards for the eastern land; those who did not participate in the voluntary program and therefore have a slightly higher regulatory floor. Staff has just notified us within the last couple of days that they're not. They've got so much to do, it's going to take a little bit longer, and so we may find that put off until the third cycle. The third cycle then would have involved what we consider to be the tougher issues: The transfer development rights for the rural fringe and the design standards for the eastern land. Much more the detail on what the forms of development are going to look like. And anything else not covered. So that may well involve some of the environmental standards at the time. But we expect to bring that third cycle back before you. I think you'll see it earliest in October. I think final adoption is planned for January, 2004. The process we followed on this portion -- and this is just the mechanics of setting up those sending areas and those receiving areas -- was a little bit different than we had followed on other land development regulations before. Rather than coming up with a draft and giving it to you, having a wad of people show up and say we hate it, what we did was we drafted the document, we provided it to the stakeholders, and we started a series of meetings. Some of them were in person, most of Page 89 May 21,2003 them were by telephone. And we ended up, as a result of that, with a consensus document that's in front of you tonight. Any changes to the document have been provided to the stakeholders so that they can respond. And I would be surprised, unless -- we have added some language in the errata sheet which has just been handed out to you, and I'll explain tonight -- we would be surprised if there's any real controversy on the item. What you have before you tonight is two documents, the -- what I call the consensus draft, and this is the one up in the upper right-hand corner that says 5-15-2003. This is a slightly later version than the first document you were given. This is what came out of the Planning Commission, with its recommendation of approval. Those things that are underlined in here, the Planning Commission did not see. The reason they didn't see them is we only talked about them and said we would be doing those later. But they agreed in concept with those, and this is also consensus language. The second thing you have is an errata sheet. And as often as we read this document, somebody always goes back and says, you know, we could be more clear in that area. People are asking questions about it. If it were clearer, we wouldn't have those questions. In many cases, it's just typos, grammatical errors, stuff like that. So we do have the errata sheet that we need to make some changes to even tonight. Unless there's a real issue tonight with any of this, what we had planned to do -- and I would announce it now to all of the stakeholders, most of whom are here -- would be to take this document, get rid of the underlines, what you have in front of you tonight, plus the errata sheet, send it out to everybody one last time and say okay, last chance, we are now creating the last errata sheet that will go with this, and when we come back before you, you would have a clean document, plus the errata sheet of everything else that's in there. Page 90 May 21,2003 The document does two things: First of all, it creates the rural land stewardship area district regulations which set out what a property owner does if they want to have this board designate by resolution at a public hearing a stewardship sending area. In other words, your most sensitive environmental resources. Or conversely, create a stewardship receiving area on those lands that are least sensitive. It also rezones -- and that's why you have the map in this. It also rezones about 195,000 acres to rural lands stewardship area overlay. So it's going to be doing those two things. And Commissioner Halas, I know you missed the joy of all these hearings over the last couple of years. And I will do the Bob Mulhere role tonight in hopefully 30 seconds, by doing a gross over-generalization of what the plan amendments provide for. What was done was we went out and did resource values, natural resource values, based on a detailed study of the 195,000 acres and ground treatment -- not all of it, but portions of it -- by Wilson-Miller. And there was a score, a natural resource score, with some other factors attached to each of those 195,000 acres. 98 percent of the property that scored more than 1.2, which is kind of the cut-off for what's sensitive and what's not, is in a flow way stewardship area; in other words, the strand and the slough. Or a habitat stewardship area. When you see HSA, that's what that means. And that is the most sensitive land -- primarily uplands, but not necessarily; has some wetlands involved -- and the water retention areas. They are sensitive. While used for farming activities now, wildlife -- they attract wildlife, and so those were included. All of those were mapped on the future land use map that was adopted with the amendments. Then if a participant wants to get involved in the voluntary stewardship program, they get credits based on the layers of uses they are willing to strip away or give up on the most sensitive lands. Page 91 May 21,2003 And they can take those credits and use or assign them to create one of four forms of development on the least sensitive lands, the stewardship receiving areas. Credits are not acre- for-acre. It's eight credits for acre of land development within the four forums. What are the four forums? And maybe some of you will remember, there were towns which were anywhere between 1,000 and 4,000 acres; villages which were between 100 and 1,000 acres; hamlets, smaller areas, which were 40 to 100 acres. And then you had something called compact rural development, which were kind of special things: Eco-tourism village, where you might not have a large permanent residential component, something like that. And they could be the sizes of villages or they could be the sizes of hamlets. But each form has certain required and optional elements attached to it. That's the chart in the land development regulations. It's also in the comprehensive plan. There are also limits on how many compact rural developments, how many hamlets, villages and towns, whatever, so you won't have a proliferation of these all over the place. You won't have measles out there on 195,000 acres. You also get credit for two other things: One would be designating specific areas of the future land use map, which were on the map that you adopted, as restoration. And then you get even more credits if you actually go out and do the restoration. Finally, you get credits for stripping the uses off of the habitat stewardship areas, the most developable of the sensitive properties, and turning it into stewardship sending areas during the first five years of the program. If you do not participate in this voluntary program, you can still develop your land. You can do what you had before we started this process, the one unit for five acres. You cannot cluster. There are limits on what you can do. And for example, in a flow way sending area, you can't put residential, even attempt to. Some limits on what Page 92 May 21,2003 you can do in a habitat stewardship area. And you have much higher environmental requirements for clearing. And those will be the regulations. When I talked about the environmental regulations dealing with the people who did not participate in it, those will be what would be coming up over the summer and fall. There are a couple of revisions to the errata sheet that we learned only tonight. A sharp-eyed staffer caught that. And the errata sheet is the one that was just handed out to you. The first one is not Page 7, it should read Page 2. And the fourth one down, you find Page 11, you read to the right, it says add new J, it would read add new I. And with those corrections, I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question concerning the errata for Page 8. Why are we trying to name organizations with which we should meet, rather than just saying having public meetings where -- MS. LINNAN: Because it came up at the Planning Commission, one member, the person from Immokalee on the Planning Commission was very sure that he wanted representation, or at least the optional representation of farm workers in that. We put farm worker organization, being unaware of some tension that was going on in that area. I told Mr. Varnadoe we would -- we'd be happy to make it farm workers. On the other hand, if this board would like to delete those, we'd be perfectly happy. It was because the Planning Commission felt we should have it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: My feeling is that we have an obligation to encourage public participation in the review process Page 93 May 21,2003 through publicly noticed workshops and meetings, and through the solicitation of public input, period. MS. LINNAN: We would be happy, if it's this board's intent to say through the solicitation of public input, put a period and not include that language. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the point is anybody who wants to walk into that public hearing can sign up and speak to us. It's -- I think we get onto a very slippery slope when we start listing the organizations we're going to solicit information from and invite to these meetings. I think everybody is invited to the meetings. MS. LINNAN: We don't disagree with you at all on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would just recommend that we strike the last three lines of that particular item and put a period after input. MS. LINNAN: We could accept that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that the consensus of the board? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The consensus is yes, please strike. MS. LINNAN: Okay. Then it's done. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You were saying that you would like to not submit this tonight but go back to the drawing board to tweak it a little bit more? Is that what you -- MS. LINNAN: Okay, we are submitting this tonight with the errata sheet, okay? But what I would like to do for the other parties, because when you read this without the underlines, it reads a lot better -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MS. LINNAN: -- and you can notice things that maybe you didn't notice before. So what we would like to do is take the portions of the errata sheet that you find okay, or at least don't reject, put them into the document, take out the underlines. So we'll start with that at Page 94 May 21,2003 the next meeting. And let everybody know that that's what it is, and then let them point out glitches, mistakes, maybe even substantive concerns about that. And we would bring that to you hopefully in the form of a consensus errata sheet at the final meeting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I asked that question because being this has been before all of the committees, the CCPC and, what, EAC? Well, if this in any way changes it, something that they hadn't approved, I would want to know that. MS. LINNAN: The changes we are making are either technical or are clarification. They're not changing the substance of the document. We found, for instance, in some cases we refer to a stewardship receiving area. Well, when you read it carefully, we really ought to be saying the stewardship sending area. It's more of a technical change. It's an ah, you know, typo, we made a mistake here. This needs to go in. We're not making substantive changes. We would certainly make the board aware of any substantive changes that the other bodies hadn't seen. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like some clarification about exactly where the strand and the slough is located on the map. And I couldn't find that in the documentation that was presented. MS. LINNAN: Let's see. I think I have the compo plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's Okaloacoochee, or Camp Keis. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okaloacoochee and the Camp Keis Strand. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I didn't see on the map that was presented to us exactly where that was located. MS. LINNAN: Okay. I am pulling out -- got it? This is from the -- this is the future land use map in the comprehensive plan. It has all those areas I mentioned marked, okay? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Over by the old Ford test track. MS. LINNAN: One is hard to see on the map candidly, because Page 95 May 21,2003 there is an overlay over that, because it's -- it's also within the area of critical state concern. So it's a little bit grey. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? Any public speakers? MR. LITSINGER: We have two, Mr. Chairman. Brad Cornell, followed by Nicole Ryan. MR. CORNELL: Good evening, Commissioners. Brad Cornell, for Collier County Audubon Society. I'll be very brief. The Audubon Society supports these LDC rules as a very good implementation of the Growth Management Plan policies that you all have adopted. And this was a tedious process in coming up with these policies -- these rules, I should say. There have been some notes of concerns, and I would like to just point out that there is built into the plan the ability in five years to review the entire workings of this plan. It is admittedly an experiment. A very innovative and creative one, we think. But because it is an experiment, we have all built into this process the ability to review how it's working in five years. And that's an important thing to keep in mind when concerns come up. And with that, I would say we are supporting it and thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Brad. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nicole Ryan is our final speaker? MR. LITSINGER: Yes. MS. RYAN: Good evening. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I'll also be brief. But I just wanted to really applaud all of the different groups that have worked so hard on this evolving document which has come before you tonight. There's been a lot of really good communication and -- with all of the redrafts. The draft that went before EAC several months ago, the Conservancy did have a lot of questions and concerns about; Page 96 May 21,2003 however, between the EAC and now, the county staff, outside counsel, the property owners and all the environmental groups have really done a good job of communicating and working together so that what's before you this evening, we support. I think everyone is in support of. Now, that isn't to say that we don't have some concerns about what the population could be at build-out or how much acreage is really going to be used up by these receiving areas. But as Brad mentioned, this five-year review process we feel will be able to go back and look at these issues. So we're comfortable with that being built into the plan. So we support what's in front of you now and we look forward to working with staff on the baseline regulations and the design standards in the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Any further questions? On this item, do you need a separate motion, or just -- MR. MUDD: Just direction, if you're going to give us any direction that's different than what's on the page. And you did on that one piece to strike the different groups. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next item? MR. MUDD: I'm glad you showed back up again, because Stan and I were about ready to tap dance. MS. MURRAY: Is he done? MR. MUDD: Yeah, we're finished. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want to see that. MR. MUDD: I looked at Stan, I said, is she coming back? If not, we're going to have to do a lot of ad hocking (sic), with emphasis on the hoc part. MS. MURRAY: Downing a small piece of pizza. Okay, the only other -- the remaining public speaker I have, Page 97 May 21,2003 Michael Fernandez, is he here? Okay. So that's on Section 3.5.7, which is on Page 63. And Bill, are you going to speak to that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's -- looking at this, what are we doing? Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: Yes, for the record, Bill Lorenz, environmental services department. There are -- I'll break it down into two areas here for -- these are the littoral standards that are amendments to your current littoral -- to your current Land Development Code amendments. The littoral plantings that have occurred in the past have not been successful. The standards -- the technical standards were just not working. Because I think the bottom line is that the plants have been planted too high because of the way we define the littoral zone, being one foot above control elevation to two feet below. So a large part of the amendments that you see there were to draft different technical standards that would better -- we would have a better success in the littoral shelves that are being planted in our storm water ponds. These are the areas that create storm water ponds with basically wetland plants in them. They function, they give you some ecological value, and they also can give you some aesthetic value as well. But sometimes the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so many times the public will not like the plants against their backyard, but up against the preserve area or something like that, we have some locational standards to try to help direct and guide the plantings to occur. So we have a number of technical standards. Your DSAC committee was very helpful. We submitted our codes to a number of practitioners, and we received a lot of good feedback from them. Incorporated a lot of their technical requirements into the code and I think we have a pretty good code now. And I want to say that our littoral plantings in the future ought to be much more successful than they currently are. Page 98 May 21,2003 So that's a lot of the technical side of it. Let me talk to the policy side, however. The -- in your review here, you're seeing a proposal in the urban area. This is not the rural fringe, because we don't have that plan in effect. But in the rural area, the proposal here is the county -- the Collier County Planning Commission's proposal to size the littoral plantings at seven percent of the surface area of the storm water ponds. Growth Management Plan currently just requires two and a half percent. And staff was working with some of this information with the EAC in past months. They were always looking to try to somehow beef up a little bit more some of the additional vegetation that were going into developments. So staff initially started off with a proposal of the littoral shelf could be 10 percent. That 10 percent figure was adopted by the Environmental Advisory Council. It was adopted by the DSAC. When we came to the Planning Commission, they had some discussion. The speaker spoke to some of the -- the costs of implementation. And the Planning Commission backed off and recommended seven percent. So staff is proposing seven percent as the Planning Commission's figure. Quite frankly, that's a policy decision for the board. From a staff perspective, we definitely would want to see us more than two and a half percent that we currently have, which is fairly small. And as I said, the other advisory boards recommended between seven and 10 percent. But I know what your speaker -- you said you have here. We've talked before about what the costs are, trying to arrive at an appropriate fiscal impact, and he will address you on those issues. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions by -- Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Are they allowed to plant this littoral -- the littoral plantings all around the perimeter, or do they Page 99 May 21,2003 have to locate them in one particular area? MR. LORENZ: Well, we are calling it one location. And those are locational guidelines. But if they're planting it around in one particular all-around, that's okay. The biggest problem that we have, we're trying to get -- getting it in one location, and guide them that way is that if you start planting them around individual lots, then the residents who move into those lots want to see those plants to be -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: They want to take them out so they can see -- MR. LORENZ: They want to take them out so they can see the water. So that's why we have in the locational standards the guidelines. In the first place, we want to try to see you put it up against the preserve area, around the water control structure, and we're talking about one location. But we will interpret it as being all the way around the lake as being one location. We just don't want to see little patches here and there and everywhere in small tiny patches that just when the lake management crews come in, they just spray all of that. But we do have some signage requirements in the code here to ensure that the shelves will be maintained. CHAIRMAN HENNING: On Page 63, you say the reason many littoral zoned planted areas are not surviving. And what you just explained is you want in one area. Is that why they're not surviving, because they're all over? MR. LORENZ: Well, I think that can be one reason. I think the primary reason that we've seen is the plants have been set too high. Because the littoral zone was specified as one foot above control elevation, and the water level -- many of the lakes will get the control elevation when they're discharging, and then they draw down in the rainy season, so you're -- so the plants are not buried close to the contact of the water. And then when you go into the dry season, especially the lakes that are a little bit further away from the coast, Page 100 May 21,2003 you can see a five, six, seven-foot depth difference between control elevation and the low water level. So those plants then are simply set too high. So what we're recommending is that you try to create as flat a shelf as possible, be sensitive to what you expect your water levels to be, and then set your shelf elevation commensurate to the plants that you select. So there's a defined process in there. And I think that's the major -- the major reason. But again, we do see a problem. And some of the practitioners, designers and installers have told us that because they're spread out in small places, people don't even recognize them as being the littoral plantings. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if we're having some kill of our littoral zones, do we want to create more? MR. LORENZ: Well, as I said, the adding the additional amount above the two and a half percent is not so much addressing the survivability of a plant, simply the desire to increase the amount of wetland plantings and plants within these areas, as opposed to simply having the majority of the area being just the water. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we definitely want to make sure that we preserve the manatee and the littoral zones, so this is good language. Why don't we go to public speakers. MS. MURRAY: Michael Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good evening, Commissioners. I'll try to keep it brief. First of all, I think that staffs right on target as far as coming up with some new standards as far as to ensure the viability of this vegetation that's being planted. Too many times it does die, and that's because of that big change in the elevation of the water and the lakes. So hopefully we'll end up with nice vegetation now instead of weeds. Page 101 May 21,2003 And I think that's one of the biggest reasons that people are out there trying to kill it. They look like weeds. With these new standards, hopefully we'll end up with nicer areas of vegetation. I do also like, and I appreciate his -- Bill's talking about as guidelines that we would try to encourage it in one area. As currently written, those really aren't guidelines, they're more you're going to do it this way, and we'd like to see this language tweaked a little bit. But the biggest point that I want to address has to do with the amount of littoral areas. Just a few years ago, it was 10 percent of the perimeter, which equates to about one percent. That was changed to two percent, which was a 100 percent increase. Last year this board adopted a change of 25 percent to go from two to two and a half. The proposal to go to 10 is a 500 percent increase, and it's hard to absorb. And there's problems accommodating that within the lake area. And the cost can be extreme. The loss of fill; requiring to bring lots of fill from off-site in trucks; the increase in planting areas. It's excessive. I have talked to Bill on it. I think he's comfortable -- he can speak for himself -- but I think he's comfortable that five percent is a number we've thrown out there that can be reasonably accommodated in the project, as long as we have some flexibility where it goes. And we've got projects right now that we're doing at around five percent. Not because the code requires it, because it only requires two, but because we're trying to do a nice proj ect. So we think that a five-percent plus the ability to move them around, more or less, where we want would get us there. And I think that is a huge enhancement over what we have currently. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that something you would recommend, the five percent you'd be -- Page 102 May 21,2003 MR. LORENZ: Yes. As I said, from a policy standpoint, that's twice as much as what you currently have in the Growth Management Plan, so you've doubled that. And it's not what the EAC recommended or DSAC recommended, but I've indicated that the policy direction is moving in the right direction, and anything greater than two and a half percent would be great. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before I would feel comfortable with ignoring the recommendations of the DSAC and EAC, I'd like to get a better understanding of why they wanted to go to such a higher level and you feel that something maybe a little lower would be acceptable. MR. LORENZ: Well, I think -- I think that when Mr. Fernandez presented information to the Planning Commission, and he presented some information to me also in terms of the cost impacts, there's potentially greater cost impacts than what we have in -- that I've listed here in the executive summary of what I guess we were calling kind of out-of-pocket costs of what -- the amount of fill that would remain on-site. I'm not sure that I completely agree with the analysis, but then we've talked about our analysis before and we're not exactly on the same page. But I think the Planning Commission heard that information with regard to what the cost impacts are, and they certainly backed off from the 10 percent. And the other committees COMMISSIONER COYLE: Didn't hear it. MR. LORENZ: -- did not hear that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I see. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, we -- at that time we had not had an opportunity to develop that information. MR. MUDD: So the Planning Commission backed it off from 10 to seven; is that correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. Page 103 May 21,2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's what you're recommending to us now? MR. LORENZ: What we're recommending to the board is what your Planning Commission is recommending. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, which is seven. MR. LORENZ: If you ask me is five percent okay, it's a policy decision. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think if the Planning Commission heard the cost data presentations, I think I'd feel more comfortable going with their recommendation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not -- you know, I don't think -- I don't know if anybody watched it, but what I hear we're saying is it was at 10 percent or five times what was in the old Land Development Code, now we're down to two and a half times -- no, we're more than two and a half times. And if we go to five percent, it would be two and a halftimes more than what we have now. So do we want more -- two and a half times of government or greater? It's up to the board. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This coin belongs to-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I would be willing to go with the recommendations of CCPC. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So would I. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So would I. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's -- Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At this point of time I'd be willing to go with the Planning Commission's recommendation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, you've got a super majority. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: At this point, Mr. Chairman, we can start going down the list, starting on Page 1 of the summary sheet. And we'll primarily be working from the large packet. If you wish, I could just call the section number out and you Page 104 May 21,2003 could stop me if you have questions, or we could have a brief presentation by staff. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Could you do the page number, too? MS. MURRAY: Yes. Okay, I'll start with Section 1.8.2, which is on Page 1, nonconforming lots of record. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. MS. MURRAY: Section 1.18 on Page 2. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? MS. MURRAY: The Planning Commission recommended approval of that, 7-0. The next section is 2.2.3 through 2.2.10.3 on Page 3, zoning districts. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? MS. MURRAY: Next is 2.2.8.4.5 on Page 5, the residential tourist district density calculation clarification. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have some underlines here. Can you explain to me what we're trying to do here? This is next to activity centers. And this is about density? MS. MURRAY: Yeah. And I apologize, your pages are slightly out of order here, realizing that Page 5 is actually after Page 6. Yes, this is the -- to clarify the intent of the method to calculate residential density. And a lot of this was driven by the issue we had up in Vanderbilt Beach with the concern over the use of road right-of-way in the acreage calculation for residential district -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. MURRAY: -- density, and this is basically a clarification of that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Because the community character committee is looking to try to implement density into the activity Page 105 May 21,2003 centers, what they truly were meant for. Would this affect it in any way? MS. MURRAY: No. The underlining and strike-through you have, you see here pursuant to the activity centers, is basically a rewording, it's not a change. There was -- it was difficult to follow. So the proposed change here related to the activity centers is simply a rewording of what already exists, for clarification purposes, so there would be no change as it currently exists. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. MURRAY: The next item, on Page 2 of your summary sheet, we've already covered the rural lands. MR. MUDD: It's Section 2.2.33 on Page 7. It's the Bayshore mixed use overlay district. It was approved by the Planning Commission 8-0. COMMISSIONER FIALA: On Page 10, I have a question. Under number Y (sic), these are permitted uses, it says? Some of those that concern me were gun shop -- gunsmith shops? I don't think I'd care to have gunsmith shops. MR. BLAIR: That can be deleted if-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where should we put it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nowhere. MR. BLAIR: Aaron Blair, for the record. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think there are too many people that would like to use them. And also, where it says repair shops, I don't know how we can -- what wording you can use, but in trying to keep with what they're trying to do over there in the CRA and build the area up, I would like that to be -- you know, like the watch repair shop is great, but probably not a truck repair shop, okay? So is there some way that we could modify that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just for clarification. Page 106 May 21,2003 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, so that it would be in keeping with the vision that the people have to build up their community to a -- MR. BLAIR: Right. Well, under the repair shops and related services, I think only the -- what's spelled out in this paragraph would be the only allowed repair services. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Antique-- MR. BLAIR: Antique. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and restoration? MR. BLAIR: And under that SIC code, basically that's like restoration of like antique furniture or antique type stores. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about the automotive? I mean, automotive could be a semi, right? MR. BLAIR: If you don't like that, we could take that out. I . , mean, It s -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I think I'd delete that. MR. BLAIR: -- not that big of a -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it's up to the rest of the board members also. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, let me read this to you. It's allowing some uses in this SIC code 7699, except for furniture and automotive only. So it will not permit furniture and automotive. MR. BLAIR: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that right? MR. BLAIR: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bicycle repair shop only, gun shop only and rod and reel repair. MR. BLAIR: Yeah, the whole purpose behind that repair was we had an individual that was trying to have a rod and reel called Mangrove Outfitters, having a rod and reel repair service, and we were -- he was trying to build a new shop down on Bayshore Drive, Page 107 May 21,2003 and he was having problems, because the SIC code, there wasn't one than fit his, so we looked over the SIC codes to find businesses that are similar to his that aren't high intensity, they're more of a tourist type thing or, you know, enjoyable thing for people. That's where that came from. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a plus for the neighborhood. Maybe the gunsmith wouldn't be. Okay? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I might make a suggestion with respect to the construction of the particular phrase and work with Mr. Blair on it to ensure that the gunsmiths are out and that it's clear that the rod and reels are in. Because what we have is some things that seem to be included following after an exception, and I think we just need to reorganize a little. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And maybe you could even meet with me sometimes and just -- like some of these numbers, I didn't know what they meant. MR. BLAIR: Right. I can show you in the book. That was a tough one to figure out, because there wasn't really an SIC code that met the intent of certain businesses, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you wouldn't mind just -- MR. BLAIR: That's fine. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- meeting with me just so that I feel more comfortable with what we're allowing and not allowing? MR. BLAIR: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Since we're spending billions of dollars on widening the sidewalks, would you want to keep the bicycle repair shops in there? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bicycle repair is all right. MS. MURRAY: The next item is Section 2.3.16 on Page 13, off-street parking and loading. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? Page 108 May 21,2003 MS. MURRAY: 2.3.19 on Page 14, off-street parking, reference loading space. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? MS. MURRAY: 2.4.3.6, Page 15, landscaping and buffering, reference the pruning code. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have some underlines here. Maybe I just don't understand. Last sentence on Page 15 of plant growth. Growth habitat shall be considered in advance of conflict (sic) which might arise. Oh, okay. So you're allowed to trim it if it has conflict with the sign, overhead power lines, lighting, circulation, sidewalks, buildings. Is that what it is? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. For the record, Michelle Arnold. Yes, you can. And what we're doing is merely updating that language so that every time the standards are changed, outside of this code, we don't have to keep amending the code. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: To whom does this apply? Is a neighbor obligated to trim trees that overhang into another person's yard, blocking out the sunlight? MR. ARNOLD: No. If the tree is planted on my property and overhangs my neighboring property, I'm not obligated. But I would do it, you know, as a good neighbor. But you're not-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're a great person. MR. ARNOLD: I know, I know. But no, this doesn't apply to this. COMMISSIONER COYLE: This doesn't apply to something like that. MR. ARNOLD: No. It would -- this -- the language that the Chairman referred to would be where we have, you know, FP&L things. It would -- you wouldn't have to meet the standards as described in these regulations, you would just trim around it and be Page 109 May 21,2003 exempted from it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But what happens if that tree is in your yard and is hanging over in mine but it happens to be one of those that attracts tree rats, and I want you to cut it and you say I'm not going to cut it. Can the person whose yard it's overhanging in cut it? MR. ARNOLD: The portion overhanging on that portion of that property is allowed to be cut by your neighbor. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. MR. ARNOLD: This doesn't apply to that. It's something different. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I'm glad that we're cutting down all these trees to amend (sic) for this new wider sidewalk regulation. Because we're going to have to cut down some of these trees. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item. MS. MURRAY: Next item is Section 2.5.6, the signs, the illuminated open signs, on Page 16. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I notice the Planning Commission was in favor of allowing the retention of neon open signs in the window. Forgive me for doing it one more time, but has there been any change on the part of the board as far as that decision? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, I think the language is in there, and I don't know if -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just picking up where the Planning Commission-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- you might have jumped forward, or Commissioner Coyle or Commissioner Halas had any comments on this. Page 110 May 21,2003 Seeing none, you want to move forward. MS. MURRAY: Section 2.6.4.1.4, on Page 18, exception to required yards. 2.6.4.2 on Page 19, minor after-the-fact yard encroachments. I'm on Page 4 of your summary sheet. Section 2. -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question on that one. MS. MURRAY: The last one? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, the variance. MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Minor after-the-fact. That's where staff can do those minor ones you're doing -- clarifying it. And it's saying it's not to exceed a maximum of six inches. MS. MURRAY: This is actually an enhancement to the existing regulations where, through no fault of the current property owner, an encroachment has been discovered. And it actually expands the administrative ability to approve variances under certain circumstances. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And I think that's great. I just need to ask my colleagues, is that enough inches, or is that appropriate with the board? Because at the seven inches, the board's going to hear it. MS. MURRAY: Well, the current regulation allows a maximum of six inches, but the addition is specific to the dwelling unit type and allows administrative approval of up to 25 percent of the required yard. So it's going to vary, depending on the zoning district and the yard requirements per the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're right. Any other questions? Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Next is on Page 19, Section 2.6.4 -- oh, I already went over that one, sorry. Page 111 May 21,2003 Top of Page 4, solid waste collection and disposal, Section 2.6.15 on Page 22. We already went over the manatee section. Section 2.6.33.3 on Page 42 to allow construction trailers within single-family development. Temporary use permits. Section 2.7.2.16 on Page 44. Applicability provision for rezonIng. Section 2.7.3.4.1, Sunset provisions, the error correction. I'm on the top of Page 5 of the summary sheet, 2.7.3.9, applicability provisions for rezoning. Section 2.7.4.11 on Page 47, conditional use application processing time. 2.7.5.15 on Page 49, variance application processing time. 3.2.8.2, subdivision plans - digital submittal. Okay, I'm on the top of Page 6 of your summary sheet. We've already covered the sidewalks. So that leaves us to 3.3.3, site development plans to exempt neighborhood parks from the provisions of 3.3. 3.3.7.1.2, site development plans require data, Page 60. 3.3.9, Page 61, site develop plans criteria for an insubstantial change. Top of Page 7, we already did the first three. Weare now to section 3.14 on Page 75, and I do need to read and -- or let you know that we wish to make a minor change to reference on Page 76 under Section 3.14.3.1 to add a reference to emergency services. That section. And I'm afraid I skipped Section 3.5.7 on Page 63 -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, before you -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before you leave that one, the -- what was the vote of the CCPC? MS. MURRAY: On 3.14 it was 7-0 for approval. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 3.14? Page 112 May 21,2003 MS. MURRAY: Yeah, 3.14. Is that the one you're referencing? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I was on 3.9.5.5.6. MS. MURRAY: Okay, I'm sorry. They -- and that is the one I skipped, and I apologize. That was approved 8-0. And they wish to have language exempting projects submitted prior to June 16th, 2003 from this amendment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one was that one? I'm sorry . MR. MUDD: That's the one that's red on your summary. It's Section 3.9.5.5.6 on Page 72. And it's native vegetation preservation is the topic. And it's basically the proposed amendment is incorporation of native vegetation preservation requirements that currently exist in the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan, or have been policy and procedure for the past five years or greater into one easily accessible section regarding preserves. Also, language changes reflect clarification. MS. MURRAY: Okay? We're at the bottom of Page 7 on your summary sheet, Section 5.4. And that was approved by the Planning Commission 8-0. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank heavens for that Planning Commission. They sure do a lot of work for us, don't they? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They sure do. MS. MURRAY: Page 8 of your summary sheet, the definitions for automobile service station. There is a slightly revised one in your supplement, that's why it's marked in red. The Planning Commission asked that we take I think it was a word or two out. We did not have a problem with that. It certainly didn't change the regulation any and we did that. So that's why it's shown in red. And they approved that 7 -0, and we agreed to do that. Definition for density, on Page 89. Definition of neighborhood park on Page 90. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question on that one. And I Page 113 May 21,2003 missed one, too. Page 90, definition of neighborhood parks. This language really doesn't provide any language for public, the word public neighborhood parks. It's just allowing in a residential district, estates zoning. But this language would permit a neighborhood park within a gated community? MS. MURRAY: Yes. It allows for if you're a residential zoning district or a residential component of the PUD. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that the wishes of the Board of Commissioners? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that mean that the -- our Parks and Recs could build a park inside a gated community that the public couldn't get to? CHAIRMAN HENNING: A neighborhood park, yes. That's one of those small parks. Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think that's too good. MS. MURRAY: Yeah, this stuff -- this is just a definition of a neighborhood park. It explains that it's a public park, owned and maintained by Collier County, intended to serve the needs of the local residents. And then it gives a locational criteria as well. I guess it's defining if you had a public park within a PUD that met the other criteria for neighborhood park, that's what it would be. MR. MUDD: I guess, Commissioner, if you -- let's take Pelican Bay for an example. It's a PUD, but it has public roads. And there could be an opportunity, let's say that their service center where we've got the reclaimed water -- I'm not saying that's where they're putting it, I'm just saying there's an area in there where they've had a sewer plant before, and let's say they wanted to change that and make it a public park green area in there that everybody could get to and it wasn't gated and it was open to the public. That is a PUD and it could have a park in it. But, you know, I see your exception. I mean, if it's gated, you Page 114 May 21,2003 can't -- the public can't get in. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. MUDD: And it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And I'd shoot John Dunnuck if he ever came in front of the board recommending a park of that nature. But as long as it could get to and be accessified (sic) in public without having to stop at a gate and get in, I wouldn't see that as a problem. We do have PUD's that you can get into. MS. MURRAY: The Madeira PUD has a public neighborhood park in it, or plans to have one. Now, neighborhood parks aren't typically accessed with vehicular means. They're pedestrian oriented. And in the case of Madeira, there is access, pedestrian access easement from the non-gated subdivision just south of Madeira through another land to the public park within Madeira. So there is access to -- pedestrian access to folks outside of the proj ect. MR. WHITE: And if I might interject, Mr. Chairman, you will be looking at an agreement with respect to that particular park. It's the Del Sol subdivision in the near future. So-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- if we can back up a minute. I missed one. Vehicles on the beach. The Tourist Development Council wanted to weigh in on that, on this amendment, because it could prohibit or could affect on how the raking of the beaches and stuff like that. And getting more to what the City of Naples does, they don't rake their beach. It's all natural and they let seaweed come up to the shoreline and let it lay there and rot and everybody gets to smell it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The same with fish, too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Fish, yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They call it decompose, not rot. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I didn't know if you wanted to have the Tourist Development Council weigh in on this, this issue of Page 115 May 21,2003 decomposing vegetation on the beach, and the ability to -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Clean it up. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- clean it up. MS. MURRAY: I could bring that message to Barbara and Bill. I think they assumed you were done with their amendments and left. I'll certainly note that of your concern for the next meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, that we want to bring that to the -- MS. MURRAY: TDC's attention. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- TDC. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There wasn't anybody there last time. Okay, next item? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We did them all, didn't we? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Alternative transportation modes? MS. MURRAY: I think you've -- definitions on pathway bike lane, Page 91. MR. MUDD: Section 6.3. MS. MURRAY: Section 6.3, thank you. Again Section 6.3, definitions of sidewalk, on Page 92. And that's it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Does our legal team have anything to add before we close it up? MR. WHITE: No, Mr. Chairman. MS . MURRAY: The second meeting will be on June 16th at 5 :05 p.m. in this room, and that is when you're taking your final vote. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any comments from the Commissioners? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have a comment. At 9: 18 tomorrow I'll be landing in Cleveland. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Enjoy. We're adjourned. Page 116 May 21,2003 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:20 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL . ,!,\',. r.,ii r I" ......."\;... ~... ',' 1/) ATTEST:" ('., Dw~iHT E. ~i9CK, CLERK TOM HENNING, CH AN (,,./ 0.08 ./ ",,! . . >&t:~ -6'~ttest II to CIlaI....... signature onl1- These minutes approved by the Board on ~-lo.t>.!J , as presented a/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 11 7