Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/08/2003 S (LDC Amendments)October 8, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE LDC MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 8, 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 ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and Environmental Services Division Susan Murray, Interim Director of Current Planning Russell Webb, Principal Planner Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER couNTy BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA October 8, 2003 5:05 p.m. Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, Vice-Chair, District 1 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 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 RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT TIlE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST 1 October 8, 2003 TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE e 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 October 8, 2003 October 8, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Board of County Commissioners are in session for the final hearing for the Land Development Code. This is the second cycle of the Land Development Code amendments for 2003. Would you all rise and Susan Murray will lead us in the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ORDINANCE 2003-55: 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 - ADOPTF. D W/CHANGF. S CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Mr. Schmitt, lead us through today's proceedings. MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Commissioners. Welcome. This is our second hearing of the proposed Land Development Code. This is actually our second cycle of this fiscal year, or this year. As you recall, it was September 10th when we had our first meeting. In front of you today is a packet containing both the summary sheet and the extensive data involved in the proposed LDC's, and Susan will go over that in more detail. And with that, I'd like to introduce the team. Across the way here, Ms. Susan Murray, who is now the interim current planning director, until we figure out what that department will be called here in the future. And Russell Webb, who is the principal planner, and he's -- frankly, he's our LDC coordinator. And if I could make an announcement to the public, if anybody Page 2 October 8, 2003 has a -- would like to speak on behalf or make any type of comments on any of the proposed LDC amendments, would they please fill out a speaker slip and forward them to Ms. Murray over on the opposite table, so you'll have an opportunity to speak on any of these proposed amendments. Patrick? MR. WHITE: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, good evening. Assistant county attorney Patrick White. And just a housekeeping matter, I've reviewed the affidavit of publication for this evening's meeting and find that it's appropriate and legally sufficient for the meeting to proceed. Thank you. I'm turning the document over to the minutes keeper for recordkeeping purposes. MR. SCHMITT: And Ms. Murray, would you lead the board from here and at least explain how we're going to go through this tonight? And the procedure we'll follow in order that you get through some of these most expeditiously. And other ones that -- how we are going to deal with the other ones that are a bit more contentious. MS. MURRAY: Good evening. Susan Murray, for the record. Just real quick, Joe, did you want to make a statement on the record about what we discussed earlier, or is that later? MR. SCHMITT: Well, I'll do that when we approach that amendment. MS. MURRAY: Okay, thank you. Tonight, as Joe mentioned, this is the second of two public hearings, so you will be taking a final vote this evening. In front of you, you should have two documents: One is a summary sheet, which is highlighted in pink. That is a duplicate of the copy you received in your original packet. We just handed you another one tonight that might be a little more clearer. If you'll notice, there's some highlighted items in there and they came out pretty dark on our pages, so we made another copy so you could see. So we will work from that document, as well as the thick handout Page 3 October 8, 2003 document. Your pink highlighted summary sheet will tell you the LDC section number in order. And then you have each board's recommendation, you know, DSAC, planning commission, and your comments from the first public hearing. And so that will kind of be your reference and guide that we'll work from. The summary sheet also references page numbers, and those page numbers are referencing handwritten page numbers at the bottom center of the thick handout. They are not the stamped numbers, they're the handwritten page numbers at the bottom center. We'd like to, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, consider first those items that are in grey highlights in the summary sheets, and also those items where we have registered speakers where they may differ. The grey highlighted items are those items that you've had questions, comments or gave directions to staff to make changes to. And the rest of the amendments, I believe you did not have comments about. So when we start with those and finish with those, then I'd like to have Russell or myself go ahead and read each LDC section number into the record, and you can stop me if you have comments or questions on the set that you did not originally have comments or questions about in the first meeting, if that's acceptable to you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's great. MS. MURRAY: Also -- okay, with that we'll go ahead and get started then. If you look on your summary sheet, and we'll start on Page 2, there is garages and driveways for the Bayshore Drive mixed overlay district. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I remove all concerns on that item. MS. MURRAY: We have no registered speakers on that item. Are there any comments, or can we move forward? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just make a little comment. I Page 4 October 8, 2003 understand that the committee met last night, and they felt that this was fine as it stands as well. They didn't really have an opinion one way or another. I think they were appreciative that Commissioner Henning even brought this to their attention. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: And just for the record, that was on Page 9 of your handout. So from here Russell is going to go ahead and lead you through the rest. MR. WEBB: The next item is on Page 24, handwritten Page 24 of your packet. This is Section 2.4.4.2, landscaping and buffering. This was basically just a minor tweaking and rewording of this, and it's been done subsequently. If there are no comments, I'll move to the next one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any comments from the board? What -- the underlined section is the changes? MR. WEBB: That's correct. That's the new language. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's what we mean about cumbersome, it was too wordy or not clarified? MR. WEBB: Yes, exactly. It just needed to be clarified. MS. MURRAY: I think Commissioner Coyle had suggested a wording change that clarified what the intent was, and we incorporated that to make it less cumbersome. I'm sorry to interrupt. Russell, I skipped one item that we did have a registered speaker on, and that was on Page 1, Section 2.2.16.2.1. This board didn't have any comments at the last meeting on that. And I believe it's Clay Brooker is the registered speaker, and I believe he's just here to ensure that you have no more comments or concerns this evening. But I'll let him speak to that effect, if he wishes. MR. BROOKER: Good evening. Clay Brooker, for the record. I'm here only to answer any questions you may have. It went through I guess the last hearing fine without any questions, and I'm just here to attempt to ensure that it gets approved. So if you don't have any questions, I'd rather keep my mouth shut. Page 5 October 8, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. BROOKER: Thank you. MR. WEBB: Moving right along, the next item would be on Page 45 of your packet, Section 2.6.9.1 and 2.6.9.2. As you can see, the last time you directed -- well, actually -- MR. SCHMITT: Russell, if I could just read in the record. Commissioners, at the last meeting on September 10th, there was a discussion as to whether or not we received guidance from this board. And at that time I said we did not. We in fact did receive guidance. Back on May 22nd, Fire Commissioner Hudson and Chief Peterson approached this board, and the discussion resulted in a guidance at a 5-9 motion -- was carried 5-0, directing staff to come back to this board with a recommendation of a permitted use for fire stations in the ag. district. So that in fact was the guidance. We prepared that amendment as directed, went to the planning commission, and this is where we got into the discussion at the September 10th meeting at the planning commission. The planning commission disagreed with the permitted use and directed -- or recommended that we make it a conditional use. Staff reassessed the guidance, because in your September 10th meeting we discussed permitted versus conditional use. We went back and looked at the May 21st, and there was some confusion as to whether or not there would be a neighborhood meeting. At first it was termed a public hearing, and then discussed a neighborhood meeting. So frankly, the staff has conflicting guidance, so what we proposed -- or what's in front of you tonight are two amendments: One that is written for a permitted use, the other for a conditional use. And we're prepared to receive your guidance on the issue. Page 6 October 8, 2003 We discussed in length the impact of the -- to two different proposals. We can talk about that further, if you so wish. I'm sure that you do understand the issue versus permit -- conditional versus permitted. And frankly, we're here to get your guidance as to where you want to go with this and whether or not we need to tweak this even further in order to take your guidance and still meet the needs of the public. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. First off, I want to thank Commissioner Henning for giving us some new insight into it and bringing up the fact that we discussed this before. At the last meeting, I had serious reservations about agricultural -- people living in agricultural land being treated as a special class and allowing a permitted use to take place there. I've met with the fire chiefs, I've taken it up with my citizen advisory committee and come up, with the help of many people, an alternative to this whole thing. And I may offer two suggestions that we may want to think about. I think we're all in agreement that we need to come up with a shorter time line to be able to make it work for the fire departments and EMS and the sheriffs departments so they can locate where they need to be with these essential services in a timely manner that is not going to cost them an arm and a leg. That there's no argument about and Commissioner Henning was very good in explaining that in the beginning. What I'm going to propose is that we don't make a special class of agricultural, that what we do is we come up with a design criteria that limits these fire stations to areas that are the main thoroughfares, where fire stations generally are located right now, the main thoroughfares, the areas that are easily accessible to the main thoroughfares, with a certain amount of setback, a certain amount of other design criterias, but have it so it's universal through the whole unincorporated area of the county. Page 7 October 8, 2003 So two things are accomplished: One, we're not treating one particular class of people as a special class, and number two, we're meeting the total needs throughout the whole county for this very, very essential service. Everything -- of course, the municipalities would be exempt because they have their own particular rules. But this would allow things to move forward at a much faster pace. Make it a permitted use with design criterias in place. That's what I am going to propose at this point in time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I totally agree with you. That would be great for all the fire districts is, you know, they have to site fire stations that are strategically located because of response times. And also, it's a benefit to the residential property owner and the businesses, because their insurance ratings will go down if it's in a strategic area. So I think that's very forward thinking on your part. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, actually, I got the idea from you. I just took it through the words till I came up with the right definitions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Here's the dilemma that we have tonight. The -- and I need to give you a little history. 951, Collier Boulevard, is going from two lanes to six lanes. There was -- the Golden Gate Fire Department has property over there. They would like to put a-- they were in the process of putting a fire station going through the conditional use. At one point somebody mentioned of doing a land swap so that the county can benefit for stormwater drainage at 951. So they, you know, abandoned or took that process of that conditional use and put it on hold until they go through that use, if the board can make it easier for them in that process. So the idea was to make agricultural a permitted use. Anyways, that deal fell through with the fire station and the Page 8 October 8, 2003 pond siting. But here they are, left out six months, and they could have gone through that process. And looking in that area, it would save a lot of people a lot of money, a lot of residents, for their ISO ratings, besides response times. So if we can pass this amendment, clean it up with your suggestions, I think that we would be serving the public greatly. Okay? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very good. I'm glad that you brought it back and gave us some reason to give thought to this. MR. WEBB: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I have to point out that we do have a public speaker on this issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's hear from the public. MR. WEBB: Okay. Don Peterson. MR. PETERSON: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Don Peterson, Fire Chief for the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. Thank you for allowing us to come forward and continue with this item. Appreciate Commissioner Coletta's time a couple of weeks ago in working through this item. From the beginning, one thing we wanted to make sure the public was not excluded from whatever we did, wherever we went; that we wanted to make sure that they were aware. We didn't wanted to change anything that would not make us go through the public hearing process, however we did that. And Commissioner Henning was right on track, that the problem we're running into continually is the long delay process, knowing that essential service is needed, that -- just asking for that assistance to facilitate this. We did talk about the design criteria. That is a very big issue with the neighborhoods, and we go through it with staff all the time. One thing that I would do by adding some of that, or allowing that ability to be put in here is to clarify for everybody up front so when each site goes through the permit process it doesn't get fiddled Page 9 October 8, 2003 with to a certain extent. Understanding that we've got development zones that require and dictate certain types of designs, like 951 and Davis requires -- I think there's three different styles you can use. Mediterranean, or certain colors that you can use and those kind of things. So if we can identify those up front that satisfies everybody, we'll definitely be able to speed that process. Because we get caught in the middle as well as a regular developer does with any of the projects of changing this and changing that. We want to have the buffers between the neighbors so we don't bother them, whether it's a commercial project or a residential area. The ag. area is a tough area, because we a lot of times end up with two and a half-acre pieces or an acre and a half piece, and somebody else has an acre and a half piece potentially that we end up piecing together. Station 71 is a good example. A gentleman donated a piece of property. Down the road another piece got donated to us and then we bought a piece and put that together, so to speak. So the ag. area is the big problem. Once you get further west of-- in the Airport Road and 41 area, it's more designated currently commercial areas and not so much residential impact. However, there are major arteries that would in the future require those needs. And Commissioner Henning is correct, on those major arterial roads are the easiest places for us to go into, because it facilitates everybody moving around. We don't want to be on a dead end cul-de-sac and we don't want to be intrusive to those single-family residential areas. So whatever we can do to facilitate this would be appreciated. And anything we can answer for you or share with you, we're glad to do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, would we say something like also permitted uses in C-4, C-57 Page 10 October 8, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that's where Commissioner Coletta wants to take us. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually, I thought the design criteria might even open it up a little bit more. Suppose you had Immokalee Road where everything is residential for five or six miles and you have to locate a station there. Under certain design criterias it would be permitted. Mostly the urban area. I was trying to broaden it even a little more. Because I'd like to see them be able to locate wherever the essential service is needed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. The -- we do have architectural design. And I thought where you were going was allow it in all the districts -- and we might want to clarify that -- except for residential and multi-family districts. Allow it in ag., the commercial districts and whatever else is left out there. But we don't want to make it a permitted use within the residential. Make it a conditional use, keep it under a conditional use. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, to be honest with you, when we talk about the ag. land, we're talking about people living on larger lots, and that's residential also. So that's why I was thinking -- but the design criteria could take into consideration a lot of things. I just would hate to limit it just to industrial and include agricultural in the same classification. People live in the agricultural land, they don't live in industrial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Chief, if you have a minute? How about if we require them to be a permitted use and for them to have a neighborhood meeting like we require of all rezones. But since we have elected officials within these special districts, those elected officials have to answer, you know, where that station is going, because they're going to be servicing their neighbor, and they're going to be very sensitive to their needs or concerns. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm sure they will be. The fire department has proved to be a good neighbor time and time Page 11 October 8, 2003 again. But my concern is that the people that have residence in agricultural areas will be treated as a different class of people. That's my whole concern. I want these fire stations and I want them to be out in the right places, but once -- I'd like to deal with it as a county issue. In other words, the whole unincorporated area of Collier County, to be able to deal with it equally across the board. Of course, there's some places where they're never going to get land. But if the opportunity came up to buy it in a multi-family area that might stretch over a half a mile and they can do it in such a way that the design criterias fit in and they buy up the land, I think that could be a fair play. And then they could have their own community meetings. But if it's a permitted use, no matter what happens with a community meeting, it still takes place. It's just a polite thing to do to have the community meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, except for the elected fire officials are still answerable to the people who they serve, just like we are. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's true, we are. And I'd just like to see it broadened across the county to meet the needs of everyone out there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I think John's trying to get this to Susan real quick. I want to make sure that you understand that the Estates are zoned Estates, and it's not zoned agricultural. If it's zoned agricultural, that means it's pre-PUD anything. So I just want to make sure that's clear, since you've made that-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where Commissioner Coletta is going is he has a lot of associations out there that's not in the Estates, they are considered agricultural. I think that's where he's coming from. Page 12 October 8, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. But of course, if this particular rule, the way I'm proposing it, the Estates would also be an eligible place to put these stations as a permitted use. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Chairman, if I could share that one of the things that you currently require out there is that a site be posted with a four by eight sign sheet of plywood and that we have to provide documentation that a public meeting was done someplace, that if you attach that to that, that would give you assurance that we've had that public meeting, whether it was part of a fire commission meeting or -- we're required to sign that, just like any other project would be, that would make sure that the public knew the project was good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The only problem with that, Chief, is, you know, I'm considering sheriffs substations and EMS stations. MR. PETERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that kind of throws them out of the mix. We still need those in all areas for response time, too. So if we have a neighborhood meeting, you guys are going to be responsible for your end as far as the fire department, and the county will be responsible -- County Commissioners will be responsible if there's any concerns from neighbors. And it's quite similar -- well, I don't know, I can't really explain how a neighborhood meeting goes, but there's certain criteria. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, again, for the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator of Community Development and Environmental Services. The Chief mentioned a sign. A sign probably would not -- I would say that probably would not be required. I mean, that's if you're going to have some kind of petition, land use petition, then you're required to post a sign. The neighborhood information meeting is where you have the Page 13 October 8, 2003 meeting, you come in, meet with my public information coordinator, and then you're required to send letters to property owners usually within 100 feet of the proposal. And you send out letters and preferably contact maybe one of the -- if there's a homeowners association or one of the leadership groups, and we would try and help you find who those people may be, and then you have a meeting to discuss your proposed fire station. If you want to post a sign in accordance with the standards we now use for any land use petition, we could go that far and require the posting of the sign. That's usually where it has the PUD petition or variance, and it will have the date on there for the planning commission meeting and the Board of County Commissioners. Here you're not -- if it's a permitted use, there's no public hearing. So all you're doing now is just going through a neighborhood information meeting and just to let the neighborhood know what's going to be there and listen to their concerns. Of course, the other issue, there's no compelling requirement for you to meet all their demands, it's just a matter of trying to reach a compromise. I think the design standards would define the landscaping or the buffering that would be required between the incompatible uses, and that would be something we could define in the LDC. If the issue gets to be whether it's a six-foot wall or a -- one of our specified buffers, then that probably is going to get beyond the capability of the neighborhood information meeting. That becomes an agreement that you may make with the residents as part of your construction. Unless the board prefers that we have that type of buffer between incompatible uses, and I don't know, Susan may have some opinion on that as well. MS. MURRAY: My suggestion is probably to stick with design -- specific design criteria. And as Joe mentioned, landscaping is one. Setbacks, building placement and access are generally the issues that Page 14 October 8, 2003 we hear about or deal with with fire stations when we're doing conditional uses. I don't mean to squash the idea of a public information meeting simply from the standpoint of informing the public, but I think the danger is if agreements are made between the public and the Chief, for example, there's no enforceability in terms of what we can and can't do. So in other words, if they reach an agreement separate and aside of this neighborhood information meeting, there's no provisions in the Land Development Code that we could apply when we're reviewing a site plan and when we're enforcing the code. So then it becomes kind of one of those side agreements that is hard for us to enforce. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me just say that if we do the same thing for our facilities, EMS and sheriffs substations, what you're saying is the county's not going to agree what the neighbor wants to do. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, I didn't understand what your concern was. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, if we have the same criteria as what we're talking about up here, the county has a neighborhood meeting, the residents have a concern that they don't want a retention area right there, and you say okay, and you say that that's not enforceable by the Land Development Code, but do you think the county's going to go back on its word on moving a retention pond or something similar to that? No. And it's just like the Chief has elected officials that are elected by the people who are -- they're going to iput that facility next to. They're going to do everything they can to accommodate the residents. MS. MURRAY: I think I'm crossing over into the attorney's -- MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, we had the same discussion, and I'll let Patrick talk, but we had the same discussion when we Page 15 October 8, 2003 were talking about essential services primarily dealing with utilities, our pump stations, our lift stations, or other. And we did make a commitment that we would ensure that the buffering and landscaping was more than adequate to make sure that these things were not obtrusive to the community. And I think that's what we would probably want to go with this as well. And Patrick mentioned about service stations, we have specific criteria for buffering of service stations. Patrick? MR. WHITE: Yeah, Assistant County Attorney, Patrick White. And I think that's the distinction between creating a process that starts to become one that's more quasi-judicial as opposed to one that is solely administrative. I understand that if we allow the use to be permitted in the various districts -- and you can choose which of those you believe to be appropriate where to permit-- then if you have an enhanced set of standards, property development regulations for that type of use, regardless of where it's permitted, I believe you'll have what this board may consider to be the appropriate amount of protection afforded to the neighboring property owners. The slippery slope of something that's like the neighborhood information meetings is that it begins to give a flavor of something more than administrative to what essentially is a site planning issue only. And the county has traditionally followed that being solely an administrative process. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was going to say, possibly the language we're using for this is wrong. It could be labeled an informational meeting where the residents could come and just be able to see what's being planned. Nobody likes to have something happen in their neighborhood without some sort of information being disseminated in some way. It could be an informational meeting with the understanding that we bring everything forward. We do this quite often when we're bringing out the road plans. Page 16 October 8, 2003 We have informational meetings where we lay them out across the table. People come in and maybe discuss the proposals that are going to take place. MR. WHITE: And in that sense, Commissioner, I'm certain that we could make it a checklist item for part of the site planning review, that that informational meeting was held. And I think that's what the Chief was referring to. And whether they want to have that as part of one of their district commissioner meetings, district board meetings, that is certainly an avenue that would meet what's anticipated as that requirement. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have the same obligation as the county when it comes to EMS and also the sheriffs department, who we build the facilities for, to do the same thing in some form or fashion. Probably at that location we would have somebody go with the particular plans and everything to show the citizens what's being planned for that particular area. Is that out of line? MR. WHITE: That's a policy consideration, but I think that it's entirely lawful and appropriate if you wanted to create a class of uses that included not only the fire stations but also EMS or sheriffs substations, for example, that those standards would apply to and for that an information meeting would be required for. That would be proper. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we do this, is bring back at a future meeting or future Land Development Code the Commissioners' comments, try to formulate something, and then also development standards, like you're talking about in the gas station one, or even car washes in that in certain districts, the commercial districts, there's a hour operation, there's a wall and that. And I'm sure that we can -- you can formulate something that would be apropos for this type of use, and, you know, we can get the input from the public at the meeting which one we should do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I like that. Page 17 October 8, 2003 MR. SCHMITT: We have a cycle ongoing right now, the third cycle. What we can do is try and sandwich this in. I've got to get it to the development services advisory committee. But we'll come back during the third cycle, just another one. Russell is going, oh, not another one. But we will look at enhanced standards, buffering, landscaping, some development standards, looking at it as a permitted use. If you tell us which districts you wanted-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I was going to get to right now. MR. SCHMITT: -- and then we'll bring it back. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When we get right down to bare facts on this, it stands to reason this isn't going to end up in the most exclusive neighborhoods. The price of land would be absolutely prohibitive unless it was something that was over to one side before it was developed. So this is something that, if we come up with a design criteria that goes across the board, fits a number of needs, I'd like to leave the subject open so that it includes the incorporated area of Collier County. Now, there's a lot of places it will never happen because of the fact that it's already built up. They're not going to be able to find a location. And the truth of the matter, the cost of land is going to drive this factor. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't have a problem with it. Anybody else does? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So the direction is to go ahead and move this item and then let's clean it up ASAP. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That sounds fine. MR. SCHMITT: We will do that. MR. PETERSON: Thank you, Commissioners. MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next item. Page 18 October 8, 2003 MR. WEBB: Actually, we need to go back a little. We have a public speaker that just submitted a slip a couple minutes ago to the Goodland overlay sections, which are on page -- MS. MURRAY: Starting on Page 11 and 14 and 16. MR. WEBB: Right. Connie Fulmore is here to speak on those. MS. MURRAY: And 17. MS. FULMORE: Good evening, Commissioners, Connie Fulmore, secretary of the Goodland Civic Association. Mr. Barbush, our president, wasn't able to be here tonight. And really, as a previous petitioner, we're just here out of respect to be available to answer any questions that you might have regarding the four items that we've submitted to add to our overlay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: How's the fishing down there? MS. FULMORE: You have to ask a fisherman. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's been good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I might get a chance to come down to the island. MS. FULMORE: That would be great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think it's great. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't have any problems with any of these. I think that we should move forward with them. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate the fact that you spent so much time on this, you and your association, to be able to give us the guidance. They got all the crab traps in the water now? MS. FULMORE: I heard the cranes at 6:00 the other morning loading them into the boats, so they're headed out to the water. But we really thank you very much for passing this through the Page 19 October 8, 2003 process. We're very concerned about the character and wanting to maintain it. So thanks very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FULMORE: Appreciate it. MR. WEBB: The next item-- actually, two other items. The first is appearing on Page 67 of your packet, Section 3.2.8.4.1.16. And the second one is on Page 76, Section 3.3.7.1.9. And these are basically just sister amendments, if you will, to the Section 2.2.33.22.13, which was back on Page 2 of your summary sheet, I believe. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't have any objections to these. MR. WEBB: The final one for consideration -- actually, I believe this one is going to be pulled. This one was mistakenly included and we're going to pull this one :from this cycle. MS. MURRAY: That would be on Page 88, definitions -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're pulling that? MS. MURRAY: Yes. -- for build-out. That hasn't been through the regular review process yet, so we need to pull that one out of the cycle and send it back through the committee. So it was mistakenly included. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Great. Anything else, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: That's it. So Susan? MS. MURRAY: I believe that's it. MR. SCHMITT: I think-- we have no registered speakers. I think we need to go through all of these and either take one overall vote or-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we could take one overall vote. Right, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: If there are no objections to that process from other board members, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any objections from (sic) the Page 20 October 8, 2003 amendments? Entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. MS. MURRAY: I do need to read one correction for the record. And do I need to read each section into the record. Patrick? MR. WHITE: I believe that the past practice has been to do so. However, if all the Commissioners have reviewed them and they have no comments, based upon that I think we can go forward with the amendment that the ordinance as amended by the discussion today would be prudent. MS. MURRAY: I just need to make -- if that's okay, I'll go ahead and read my change into the record prior to your decision? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: That's on Page 3, under Section 1.8.10.2.1, dealing with docks and boathouses. The last sentence in that proposed amendment needs to be removed. It really doesn't change the content of the amendment, and actually it's really pretty incomprehensible. So the intent of the amendment will remain the same if that sentence is removed, and we would like to do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. MURRAY: That's the only change I have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's with the removal of the -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: With the amended language. CHAIRMAN HENNING: With the amended language. MR. SCHMITT: Just one more. Removal of the other ordinance that we're bringing back. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. MR. WHITE: And one last piece, Mr. Chairman, and that Page 21 October 8, 2003 would be that they be found consistent with the comprehensive plan. Just a finding to that effect. COMMISSIONER COYLE: My motion includes that statement. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My second also. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Thank yOU. We are adjourned. (The hearing concluded at 5:45 p.m.) Page 22 October 8, 2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:45 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL T OM'-H~~--'~an ATTEST: .:t?....;i.~ ....... ..,. DWIOH :-. s gO CLERK Attest as to Chafnnan.'s These minutes approved by the Board on as presented v" or as corrected //- /~?-03 , TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM Page 23