Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/15/1997 W (w/Planning Commission) JOINT MEETING OF APRIL 15, 1997 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS AND THE PLANNING COHMISSION 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, and the Planning Commission met on this date at 10:30 a.m. in WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: BCC CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Hichael A. Davis Richard Nelson Hichael J. Brute Michael Pedone Donald J. York Edward J. Oates Gary Wrage ABSENT: Fred Thomas Russell A. Budd ALSO PRESENT: Harjorie H. Student, Assistant County Attorney CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Folks, excuse me. I want to remind everybody that we do have a court reporter that has to get down most, if not all, of what's said, so I want to try to do this one at a time in an orderly fashion, which with this motley crew is all too unlikely, but no, it's a pleasure this morning. I have to thank Mike Davis for suggesting the idea that these two bodies get together for the first time that I'm aware of to just discuss openly what issues that are out there for each individual body. Neither of us acts alone. What you do comes to us and is a big part of our process. And what we do obviously reflects on -- on what the planning commission does. So I think you can't -- you cannot separate the two bodies, but we act individually on a weekly basis or monthly basis. The big difference here is that you folks are not paid to take all the grief that you take. I think we, as a board, need to recognize that on a daily basis, and the first thing I want to do is thank each and every one for your efforts, both current and past, on behalf of this community. The length of meetings that you endure, we're very well aware of and it's done for the community's benefit, and on their behalf, thank you very much. We do have an agenda this morning and I want to keep things in a time frame in which we can accomplish all of this within about 90 minutes rather than letting things run on and -- and have a lot of side bar discussions. We have a brief agenda of a few general issues. Is there anyone that wishes to add to or clarify any elements of the agenda at this point? Okay. Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and kick off item one. Mike and I have been meeting since we were respective chairmen on issues, and one thing that kept coming up was the issue of compatibility, and as a planner and with a planning background, there's kind of a philosophy that this board approaches in land use decisions regarding compatibility that Mike felt would be helpful to talk about openly, to ask questions of, and even our own planning staff can help give us some direction there. I have encouraged this board, and it hasn't taken much encouragement because they're already doing it, that compatibility, when we talk about land uses, is just quite simply like uses, period, but we run into a problem when we start talking about, I don't want to bring up a specific land use that is in the mix, but there are ones out there that if you put one right next to each other, they're not compatible, you know. If you go putting outdoor storage next to residential, it's not compatible, but outdoor storage with a 20 foot berm where you can't see it, smell it, taste it or touch it, now, has got a chance of being compatible and what I try and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a little bit like Ross Perot there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Got any charts? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When land use petitions come up, and I'll ask the balance of the board to kick in at any time they feel appropriate, the thing I'm always looking for is, when we're talking one use next to another, is it the minimum step in intensity, you know. Are you taking a single family and putting it next to a multifamily of six or eight units an acre? That's more or less a single step in intensity. It's when they jump two or three steps of intensity that I think you have two options. The one option is to say, no way, and the other option is to mitigate the impacts of those steps, you know. Commercial to residential seems to be the biggest one we deal with, and a commercial use can be restricted and you can use the public hearing process to restrict the actions on that property in a way of mitigating the impacts. If noise is an impact, walls, buffers, berms, increased distances. So the basic rule of thumb on compatibility that I operate on has been one step. If more than one step, make mitigative requirements that will actually reduce those impacts. I know that it has been the history of the planning commission that, you know, you're not -- you're not elected and you don't receive, sometimes, many of the phone calls. We've been on Marco Island together, Rich and I, and Rich is one of the few commissioners on the planning commission I've ever heard encourage people to call him at home. It's dangerous, Rich, but I admire you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, but is he in the book? Are you listed, Rich? MR. NELSON: Yeah, I'm listed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So sometimes we will get a flurry of phone calls that you didn't get or have the benefit of as far as a neighborhood or community having concern, and a lot of times that enters a gray area, but the planning commission, in my perception, because I appeared before the planning commission as a consultant, and, Don, I think you were even on the planning commission when I did that, we always counted on the planning commission looking at the black and white letter of the law and not really exacting much more than that, but then we knew it was a crap shoot when we got to the board and that anything was fair game. I guess I would like to encourage you to let your gut talk for you on issues, you know. If there's something that bothers you outside of the letter of the law, bring it up as an issue, and a lot of times on compatibility, that's where, you know, that's where that can -- you know, if it just doesn't seem right to you, make it an issue. Talk about it. Get some answers, because obviously you smooth the way for our decisions, but if that person at the -- at -- who presents it doesn't even hear it raised as an issue and then they just get, quote, unquote, blind sided by the board, it makes the process seem out of sync. On compatibility, does anyone on the board -- have I expressed something that is not really a pattern the board has taken on that issue or -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, Mr. Chairman, I think you've verbalized really our philosophy and what we have been doing in the past, to some degree. Are you suggesting that we try to come up with a formal set of policies or written set of policies or rules to help us with this -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess what I wanted to ask really was, members of the planning commission, do you -- do you feel empowered to talk about compatibility in that respect with the applications and petitions that come before you? MR. YORK: Speaking frankly, Tim, in my opinion, it's just a matter of does it fit. If it fits, fine. If it doesn't, you know, it's just a common sense issue. And you're right, you know, if a -- if a person comes in and they can mitigate certain things, you know, if they want to put something there that really doesn't fit but they can mitigate it, if it makes sense, do it, but if not, you know, it's either no or yes. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: So common sense is a part of -- I, mean, you feel like that's within the purview of your ability to recommend approval or denial as it just doesn't make sense, and I think that's the good news and if -- and that common sense would be hard to codify, but that it -- you know -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This will make staff squirm a little bit, but just because staff says it's compatible doesn't mean you have to agree. I mean, you know, they are a planning tool and they're a resource, but MR. YORK: We have been known to disagree with staff. MR. BRUET: I think one of the major hurdles, Mr. Chairman, we have with some of those issues, when we're so eloquently reminded of competent and substantial evidence to base our decisions on, and then you try to fit in common sense with that, that gets a little bit difficult at times, you know. You want to say no, perhaps, to a specific petition, you know the community isn't really in favor of such a thing, but it's very difficult sometimes to come up with a reason to say no when you're thinking of competent substantial evidence. Those are the -- that's the tough hurdle for me, trying to wade through that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, if -- if -- I have to -- I always feel though that if something is really bothering me about a petition, a specific aspect of it, that you can present -- you can have an attorney or a planner at either microphone telling you two very different things, and both is telling you they're presenting competent substantial evidence. They're both probably shades of correct or one is absolutely correct, and one's absolutely incorrect, but it's when they're both telling shades of what you believe, that that gives you, in my opinion, the -- the ability to begin mitigating what, you know, what may not necessarily be wholly true versus what you think is, and that's a subjective part that, you know -- we've had the discussion up here before, and Commissioner Constantine, you said, it's not really the planning commission's job to be totally subjective, you know, it's competent, substantial evidence is the litmus test, but we have to go by that litmus test too. We can't act arbitrarily either. I guess all I wanted to do in -- in the issue particularly of compatibility is to encourage you to let your -- let the common sense and your -- your gut feeling about projects be known. It doesn't mean you have to exact things or you have to make requirements of them, but if you bring up that you are uncomfortable with an element of the application, many times the petitioner becomes aware of it and can begin addressing that before they come to the board. Something we always pay attention to are split votes. When we get a split vote by the planning commission, I always ask, you know, what -- what was the reason for the split vote, because that tells me that somebody was uncomfortable with an element of the application. it's not just your whole recommendation that, you know -- for all the work you do, we get a paragraph, and that doesn't always embody what your concerns may have been and how those concerns have been answered in the interim by the petitioner or by the -- the affected party, but a split vote will sometimes cause me to ask that question. So I'm not encouraging you to have split votes just for the purpose of us noticing, but if you feel there's an issue out there that isn't necessarily one that is a deal killer, but needs some work, please, you know, bring it up and let the petitioner know you think it's an issue. They will find a way to solve it, in all likelihood, before it gets to us, but, you know, give yourself that freedom. MR. NELSON: I just wanted to add that I think the -- the subjective nature of that word compatible does us a lot of good if we defined it specifically and put a -- a list of criteria that would have to apply in order for us to define one way or another. That would probably take away some of the flexibility that we need, and Miss Student does a very good job of giving us, I think, a legal perspective. What would be wonderful, to be honest, and I don't think there's any way possible for us to get that, what would be wonderful is if we could see how the courts held on similar rulings, you know, in the last year or so on -- on a particular issue that we know is going to be controversial. I've researched this myself a couple of times and gone into the court records and read rulings and presentations and it was a real eye opener. I mean, it's -- often these issues are incredibly complicated. Often they bring up numerous things that none of us would have thought of, but that the courts, you know, because they're doing this every day, do, and that would be nice. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Student. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. Oftentimes on the types of petitions that we see that come before our board, they just look and see if there was competent, substantial evidence to support the decision, whether due process was accorded, and whether the essential requirements of law, which has taken out wider parameters over the years, have been followed. And then they would remand it back to the body to make a decision consistent with their finding, and for example, I'm trying to imagine how -- I haven't seen exactly a court definition of compatibility. It would be an issue, and I guess it would be helpful to have some criteria, possibly, but one of the things that concerns me is that when we write criteria, there's always the case that comes through the door that doesn't fit anything, and then what do you do? And it's hard, when you legislate, to cover every situation, and we find that a lot; in just dealing with interpretations of our comp plan, which I deal with a lot with staff and our land development code as well, but I'll see if there's anything, you know, I could find. Lots of times when it gets up to the reported decisions at the Supreme Court level or mostly the District Court of appeal level, the decisions are rather brief and so on, but I'll see if there's anything I can find on that point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In addition, the -- the planners we have on staff, and two of our most talented are sitting behind you, Wayne Arnold and Bob Mulhere, are tremendous resources in those areas, particularly if you have a question on compatibility, and if your perception or understanding of what you think is or isn't compatible is -- your own is based on competent, substantial evidence. You have, you know, an open query is right there, you know. Wayne or Bob are usually here for those items, and I encourage you to use them, particularly their planning skills, as a tool in those areas. I don't know that we can define compatibility in such a way that everything fits into it, because it is, in a sense, subjective. You have professionals disagreeing on whether something is compatible or not, people who spend their lives in the trade or the area of planning disagreeing on compatible, so whether or not we could -- we can define it, I don't know. What I would encourage though, and maybe out of this we can ask our planning staff to take a more active role in that discussion at the planning commission on maybe help building the base of compat -- compatibility or incompatibility, because as Miss Student stated, yes, the competent, substantial evidence and based on findings of fact and so forth is in your purview, but if all we wanted to know is does it meet the letter of the law, our staff does that for us. You are the first citizen panel of review that -- that will invoke that -- that common sense approach to the problem, so rather -- you know, the old thing was and I -- frankly, the planning commission at -- at a time previous was seen as a -- as a rubber stamp. You come in and you get a stamp and you -- you go out the door. It's not anymore, and I'm glad, but I want you to feel comfortable asking us questions. If you're not sure, go ahead, query our staff on it, query the petitioner on it and get a relative degree of comfort, because it's not just whether or not they meet the letter of the law. Again, whether things are solved or resolved in that forum, at least the petitioner's on notice that there potentially is a problem in that area that they can address, because I have had people who've come to me and said, well, the planning commission didn't -- didn't even talk about that, and that's going to happen. It doesn't mean you missed anything. It may mean that one of us got a handful of phone calls about it that you didn't get and it became an issue. That happens more times than not on things that are surprise issues, so to speak. So I would encourage you to use Bob and Wayne and Vince Cautero to the full extent you can on issues of compatibility to achieve your own level of comfort on them. Mike, is there anything that you and I discussed on that that I haven't bored everyone with yet? MR. DAVIS: No, I -- I think, Mr. Chairman, that the discussion on this issue is going real well reminding us of the common sense approach, and I was reflecting on a comment I heard Commissioner Mac'kie make a while back that I think we need to remind ourselves of, which is something, and I can't quote you completely, Pam -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good -- MR. DAVIS: But the point was made that a lot of people don't come to the meetings. They're out working or doing whatever they do every day and we elect the five of you, and then you, in turn, appoint the nine of us to be that conscience, and -- and I thought that was a very good point, and we need to remind ourselves of that, as the discussion has proceeded here, to look at the whole issue and see how it does feel, the gut feeling, as you said, and maybe remind ourselves that sometimes we can be a little bolder in voicing our concerns on an issue and -- whether it be compatibility or a lot of other things, so it's a -- a point well made. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Even if -- even if it doesn't fall into the specifics of your action that day, voicing those concerns is probably one of the most important things that -- that you can do because, again, it sends notice, and most -- I'll say a lot of decisions we make up here, I don't know about the rest of you, I assume it's the same, you know, I'll vote one way, but my stomach is churning. I mean, you know, it just happens sometimes. You -- you'd like for it to go another way, but you are bound by law eventually, and you've addressed all the common sense issues you can within the law, something still bothers you, you know. So that uncertainty is there. I mean, on these decisions you're going to have uncertainty, even on yes votes or no votes, but it happens quite a bit. Is there anything else on compatibility that anybody would like to discuss? Okay. The second item, density considerations. This is something that, when I was talking to Mike, I realized, a lot of times the planning commission, you guys will -- will make a recommendation to us and it seems like we just turn our back and go the other way, and what happens sometimes is, we will have given direction to staff to begin working on something. That direction, per se, isn't made known to you. In other words, we may have told staff, we want you to look at density considerations in X, Y and Z. All the sudden, two weeks later, an application comes before us in that same format. You weren't aware of the board's direction for staff to work on that, may not have been aware if it didn't come up as an issue in your hearing. So it seems as if we are running on opposite tracks or running counter to each other in the decisions we make, but a lot of times, it -- when the board gives direction to staff to work on something, we then have the, and I'm going to use this loosely, the legal authority to enforce that direction. You, many times, aren't aware of that direction, and I'm not sure how we can solve that. The density issue is a perfect example, and the reason I wanted to talk about density considerations are that there's been a lot of talk about it. There's a general feeling out there that urban density needs to be addressed. We are wrestling right now with how to address it, how best to address it, and what I wanted everyone in this room to know is where we are now in that discussion and where we see it going so that we can incorporate that approach into our decisions on the planning commission and on the board to the extent possible, to the extent reasonable, and with that, the last action the board took was, we were presented, I think, five options from staff. Not one of the options really attacked the core issue as well as we wanted to, so we eliminated a couple and asked staff to go back and refine two or three and to come back, and the goal here is -- the reason this came about was we started looking at our most limited piece of infrastructure, which is our transportation system. We looked at -- we looked at where our population projections were taking us, we looked at what we could fund for transportation, and there was a disparity, so something's got to give. Either you have to start charging more on impact fees or you've got to start doing something to bring the roadway system up or you've got to do something to bring that population projection down. The two have to reconcile. We aren't given any other choice. That was kind of what really started that ball rolling, wouldn't you say? And the -- before I ever got on the board, there's been an attention placed to density on residential projects that is very different than it was even ten years ago. To come in and request additional density in a PUD is almost taboo. I mean, you -- it's the death nail. That's kind of a prevailing attitude that this board has had. Not in all cases, but in a lot. So the density issue is real important and where it's going is equally important and, Vince, if you would be so kind as to kind of bring everyone up to speed on where we are and what kind of time line we have on arriving at what may very well be a new consideration. MR. CAUTERO: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vince Cautero from the Community Developmental and Environmental Services Division. I've -- I've spoken to the chairman about this issue, Mr. Davis, and I've prepared a memorandum for you to -- to give you an update of where we're at based on the conversation that you had with us several weeks ago. The staff has directed our traffic consultant, actually the HPO's traffic consultant, to do some additional work and provide a report to us on the transportation or traffic circulation impact that the reduction of some 18,000 acres from the agricultural area within the urban designated area would have, and we expect that report to be finalized by the end of April. From that, we would then bring you the report in whatever form is appropriate, either the board and/or the -- the HPO, but in looking at this, the staff has had several discussions with various members of the public and different organizations have contacted us formally, and we believe it may be appropriate for -- for the staff to take a broader look at this and not just look at the traffic component, which is a very important component, but look at some others. And what I've prepared is a memorandum to you briefly outlining what those issues are, and we'd like to have some technical workshops, I'd like to call them, with the planning commission, and one option that we would like to present to you is to possibly appoint a technical advisory committee that would work in a very temporary, short-term fashion to guide the staff and the planning commission. We're seeing some of this with some other work that the county is doing. Next week you're going to be hearing your utilities ordinance revisions, and my understanding is that the utility code subcommittee of the Development Services Advisory Committee is going to be utilizing something very similar, a technical advisory committee to work with that particular group. The very nature of the Development Services Advisory Committee meetings take on that flavor. Technical advisory people attend those. We're asking for something formal from the board for you to consider. If you don't feel that is acceptable, we could still function in that fashion by having some workshops on the issue with the planning commission, but I think it would be prudent for the staff to recommend to you to -- to take a broader look at the issue and talk about affordable housing and talk about the impact on open space and environmental preservation, talk about the legal issues that are involved, which could be voluminous, and we're just starting to get into that, the impact on -- that this may have on the private property rights act. The traffic circulation component of it, no doubt, is very important, but we would like to take some time to talk about the other issues, and we were looking at somewhere between four to six months, preferably six months, and as I said, I've discussed this briefly with Mr. Davis. I know it's an issue that we're going to be bringing back to you very soon as far as the transportation report is concerned, but I would like to just put that on the table for your discussion and some interaction with the planning commission as to what you think about it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Cautero, what product do you see being produced at the end of that four to six months? What will we have in hand that will allow us to move forward in a constructive fashion? MR. CAUTERO: What I would see is a -- what we would like to refer to in the -- in the planning circles as a white paper, a report on the impact that reducing residential densities could have on various infrastructure systems in the community and other issues that may be important like I've just mentioned that I mentioned in the memo. basically the final product would be that report, and then we would ask you to act on that and determine whether you think a comprehensive plan amendment or amendments should take place or whether other staff programs should be implemented or not implemented based on that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then we'll -- we'll get back to that in just a second. One thing that occurred to me is that in the meantime, obviously low density projects are desirable when residential petitions come on line, but we have a growth management plan that says, and the words are, up to so many units per acre depending on location. I know, Commissioner Norris, we've had some come in that have said, well, it says I can request -- I can have 12 units an acre, and that's not really what it says. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, yeah, that's correct. It says there -- there are provisions that will allow a maximum of 12. We have a couple of factors at work here. One of them is the marketplace. I don't think the way the marketplace is today that the densities are going to be up at the maximum of any particular zoning district. It just seems that whether you're talking about single family, I think probably our densities we're seeing are less than two and a half per acre right now, although they may be allowed up to four. The marketplace is dictating that. In the multifamily area though, it might be a bit different. There could be instances where, perhaps, with some bonuses and this and that and the other, that they may be allowed a maximum of up to 12 units an acre. That doesn't mean that they automatically get 12 units per acre. There's -- most petitioners understand that and are willing to use density as a tradeoff against perhaps some other concessions, or in some cases, they may be in a completely different posture and they may be offering concessions to even get part of that density approved to them because I think it's important for us to know that if they have -- that -- that -- that there's nothing that requires us to fezone their property. We -- we can look at that on an individual basis, which we do, and one -- it goes directly back to the first issue that we talked about. In some cases we have a compatibility issue, because if you had a very low density, moderate to upscale housing development and you wanted to come in the next adjoining property with a high density multifamily project, it may not be as compatible as some other usage. So we can't deny people, obviously, the usage of their property, but we can regulate it to some degree to make sure that it's in the community's best interest no matter what we do. So I think it's been, as Commissioner Hancock stated earlier, it's been the policy of this board to try to hold densities down reasonably, and I -- I know that -- that your work has -- has gone that way some as well. I just want to encourage you to continue to -- to look at ways that you might, when you deliberate each individual petition, see if there's some way that densities can be held down. I think it's in everybody's best interest in the long run to do that, so that -- that's really where we are. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One place that that -- the bonus idea comes home to roost was affordable housing, and I think you were really the first person to catch this. Properties were coming in and requesting the eight additional units per acre bonus for affordable housing, yet they weren't providing all of that bonus as affordable housing. They were providing part of it as affordable and the other part at market rate. So here we were granting affordable housing density bonuses, and the result was an increase in market rate rental units with a nominal increase in affordable housing. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I think the one that really tipped me off on that, if I can remember the figures right, there was a fairly large development, got their bonus for the entire project, but only put, I believe the figure was 30 percent of it into affordable, and the rest was market rates and they really -- you know, that's taking advantage of the system and it's something I -- we'd appreciate it if you would be on the lookout at the early stage when you see the project. I -- I can't see any point in 70 percent of the project receiving a density bonus to go to market rate. I mean, that's not the intent -- that was never the intent of the density bonus rating system. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'kie, you had something. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, just a couple things. One -- one is more generic and I don't know, maybe this is a question for Hiss Student or who, but as we're having these discussions, it's occurring to me, if I were on the planning commission, I would be unclear about what exactly is my mission. Is the planning commission's mission to look at the black and white and interpret and enforce, make recommendations based on the law or is it also within their purview to either use their own instincts and common sense or to also use -- to try to enforce these sort of policies, like -- like we're having a discussion here saying, we just want you to know that we think lower density is better than higher density, please try to factor that into your review. Is it -- is it their job to try to factor in the county commissioners' feelings or policies about growth or is it their job to try to factor in their own personal instincts about growth? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Commissioner Hac'Kie, I think the last part is, unless you feel that's what someone is trying to do -- I'm not sitting here trying to tell -- and I don't think I can tell these six people how to do what they do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Seven. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seven. There you are, Hike. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hike, you could tell. No, just kidding. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not trying to say this is the way the board has gone, so you should be in lock step with us. It's -- you know, these are individuals. They're going to make their decisions and that's why they're appointed to the planning commission as citizen commissioners to -- to do that, that function, but the purpose -- one of the purposes for this workshop was, sometimes there seems to be a disparity between the decisions and I felt it important for us to explain a lot of our philosophies on that, and the disparities may still continue in the same -- in the same way. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's what I would hope and -- and -- because maybe I was being a little overly sensitive to that, but -- but I -- I don't want the planning commission to hear, and I understand now that neither do you -- you guys, that we're telling you this is a board policy, please go and try to enforce it. We're not doing that. We're more or less explaining why we have seen some changes from their recommendations to our approvals. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How we approach reviews in these matters. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I'm more comfortable with that. The other more specific point that I had is on the -- the white paper that Vince is proposing and the -- the issues that you identified as critical issues to be addressed in greater detail that affect -- that may -- that will be affected by potential density reductions, and the only -- I -- I hear you that there is more here than just how wide are the roads gonna be. It's a lot more complicated than that. I mean, I don't want to spend a great deal of effort on -- I want us to use common sense. If you go down this list, impact fee revenue streams, we permit fewer houses, those are going to be reduced. Affordable housing, fewer houses, that's going to be reduced. Some of them, I don't know, property valuation, you could argue that one either way, there's going to be or there's going to be less, and if there's less, then what's there is of a higher value. But I guess, you know, commercial needs assessments, the market will decide. Open space environmental preservation, fewer houses more likely means an increase in open space. Population forecast more likely decrease, if we have fewer houses. Am I being too -- too basic here or is there really a need to study all of these issues or aren't the answers obvious, I guess is -- MR. CAUTERO: I don't think you're being too basic, but I -- I don't know necessarily that the issue's that obvious or that the answer's that obvious. For example, on affordable housing, if acreage is taken out of the equation, yes, that is less housing that would be built, in essence, but that doesn't mean less people are coming to Collier County. So the impact on where other people may find affordable housing units could be impacted and impacted greatly. That is an issue that probably would be one of the more serious ones that we would -- we would look at, but I don't think you're being too basic, but -- and I'm not suggesting that we take a lot of time. Our only goal is to give you the information that we believe you need to make an informed decision, and I think looking at just the traffic component would be too basic. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's too narrow, and we probably won't be surprised by a lot of answers, but it's information that we should have. MR. CAUTERO: Exactly, exactly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I can live with that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees. MR. MCNEES: From a staff point of view, I think where they're coming from is, the answers to the one -- questions they have identified so far may seem obvious. They want to first make sure that they are obvious, and secondly, they want to make sure they have asked all of the questions. They may not have thought of everything. They want to make sure that with some sort of a major type of policy initiative like this, that we have asked all the questions and we do understand fully the implications. I think that's all really they're looking for. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, and if we're talking about a four to six month period, I just don't want to over bureaucrat it, because, you know, some things we know are the right things to do and we have to sort of live with the repercussions and -- and, you know, avoiding extensions of the urban boundary, for example. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, bonus points will be awarded for anything less than an inch thick. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. I was looking for some -- some overhead projection slides with a few bullet points, myself. MR. CAUTERO: We can do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What about from planning commission members regarding the white paper, any -- any of the issues on density considerations, what kind of comments, questions? Rich. MR. NELSON: Just a quick point that I support looking at these areas that were brought up to be examined, I don't think -- I think that it can be more complicated than it looks. I don't know anybody that talks about build-out populations that doesn't shutter. I mean, it's just a fact of life, but then I also read in the last few days that bug zappers, which you would have thought would have been doing a pretty good job of generally eliminating insects are not working at all. They're eliminating only a small fraction of the insects you're trying to get rid of. They're getting rid of a huge fraction of the insects that eat other insects. In other words, here was something you thought you were doing and isn't working at all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unintended consequences. MR. NELSON: Yes, on something as simple as impact fees. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like that analogy. MR. NELSON: We end up cutting things down and we cut the impact fees as a result, and then we see that the cutting down of population hasn't really changed the infrastructure as much, but now we need more income, so we raise the impact fees. That cuts further into, you know -- you see what I mean? These things are all unrelated. It's very important that we know what we're doing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: My cousin back in Oklahoma is gonna be very sorry to hear that about bug zappers because his favorite recreation for the weekend was to grab a six pack and watch them zap. MR. NELSON: They kill a huge percentage of ladybugs. Can you believe that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's really John who does that. He's just saying it's a cousin. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, there are -- there are times when admitting your genetic links are not advantageous. But -- no, I agree with that, and the focus -- I have used the transportation network as a focus for -- to make a point. The point is the disparity that we all know and see every year and this board just looks at it and says, gee, that's pretty bad, next. And so it's not that that is the only thing I've ever wanted to look at, but it's the one that -- that is -- to me, creates the most gross inequity in where we know we need to be and where we know this can take us, and -- and that's why it has been the kind of the posterboy of -- of infrastructure difficulties and population projection difficulties. So I appreciate your comments, Vince, on that, and that's not exactly where I'm coming from, but I, you know, I -- I understand what you're saying as far as the comprehensive look. Are there any other questions or comments on this? MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, just for comment, going back to what Commissioner Hac'kie was talking about because I think that's important and important for us to think about today as we sit here having a discussion with you all, is that if -- if you approve a change to our growth management plan or our land development code, then obviously that's part of what we have to look at when we're deliberating over a petition. I think it's important that if you direct a change to staff to occur, and I think that's what you spoke about previously, Tim, that sometimes we're left out of that loop. If we're aware of it, then we can begin to see how that plays in our decision-making process. So that's something that hopefully the staff members here are -- are writing down as we're talking about it, but the more important -- probably the most important part of all is, is you -- you do set policy for our county, the five of you, that's what we've elected you to do, and the -- when you set a policy or are in the process of setting a policy, that's going to reflect on how we think, but ultimately, us being able to agree or disagree with you is -- is the healthy part. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. MR. DAVIS: And we don't ever want to get away from that because there may be times, even knowing that we may be in pretty much full agreement about an issue, knowing it's something you probably, the five of you aren't going to like very much, but it's -- we have to tell you how we feel and what's in our gut and what's in our minds. So we don't ever want to lose that, but this is still a healthy exchange because it tells us a lot about how we each do what we do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You can all go away from this and think to yourselves just how messed up this board is if you want, you know, because that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You wouldn't be the only ones. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- individuality's important. If we wanted a clone of this board, we'd just abolish the planning commission and just make all the decisions ourselves, if we didn't want the individual input of everybody on that commission and the collective decisions you make. MR. DAVIS: That's just the point. Sometimes in the BCC report, Mr. Hulhere will say to us, such and such a petition, you unanimously recommended approval, the board of county commissioners, five zero, denied it. Yeah, well, we obviously disagree, but a lot of times we want to know why because it's -- it's a learning exercise for us, and I think that's the important part of why we're here today. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And that -- you know, earlier Commissioner Hancock was -- was talking about, especially when you have a split vote on the planning commission, it would be helpful for us to know why it was split. I wonder if there's some way that maybe we could have -- if there's a split vote, a major split vote, maybe not with just one dissenter, but if you have a three to four vote or a three to five vote or something like that, if we could have the dissenting opinion in written form of why, why was it -- why was there some dissent? What was the issue, because we don't know that at this point and you may see something that we don't see or -- and we'd like to know that. Obviously, if everybody's in unanimous accord, whether it's up or down, we know what you're thinking. MR. DAVIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But when it's split, we need to know why. MR. DAVIS: A good example -- MR. OATES: Having sat upon the planning commissions, whether city and county and regional planning council for about 25 years, it's always been my understanding that the staff report was going to -- to say why the disagreement, but apparently you're not getting that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No, and it's because we really haven't given staff direction to do that, and on some cases you may not be able to encapsulate opposition. It may just be a -- a straight vote this way or that way, but if there is, I think, a clear side, we could ask our staff to try and present the dissenting opinion encapsulated, rather than asking a member of the planning commission to speak for someone else, for you, after a meeting, to have to make some notes, I think the staff should be there and cognizant of the discussion enough to be able to present that to us. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. MR. OATES: For a while, we did do that. We sent a representative to the county commission meetings back some years ago where they would present the minority report, so to speak, but that becomes rather time consuming also. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I assume you had absolutely no volunteers to do that, so -- MR. DAVIS: Actually -- actually we did, Mr. Chairman, and this, I guess, is the opportunity, you -- you had said lots of nice things about us at the beginning, and having been on not quite as long as Ed, but Ed's quite a bit older than me, having been on the planning commission now some six years, there was a time where, when we made a decision, we felt a need to come before the Board of County Commissioners to make sure that what we said and what we decided was presented accurately. That's not the case anymore. Staff does a wonderful job of -- while they often -- not often, but sometimes may not agree with us, we've gone against them or whatever, they still, my observation is, do a great job of presenting to you pretty much our feelings, and I applaud them for that, because being a planning commissioner in recent history has been a whole lot easier than it used to be. So -- so good for them and they're doing a great job. On your one comment, I think we can do that. We -- as an example, we have had ones where the vote was say four to two and there may have been two that felt with these two or three mitigating measures, it would be okay and the rest didn't, and I think -- I agree, that that would be good for us to pass along, and maybe to assist staff after the motion, we can at least have a brief discussion to make it clear to staff what the dissenting opinion was, if -- if it's measurable. As you say, sometimes it isn't. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the dissenters, certainly as you're getting ready to take the vote, can -- can explain why they're going to vote against the motion. My suggestion would be to either have the chairman, which you may want to jump off if you hear this, have the chairman write the dissenting opinion in and forward that in the packet or the staff could do it, either way. I think that -- that would be a call that this body could make. If you want the chairman to write the dissenting opinion, then you're going to have to, as you get ready to call the vote, you're going to have the dissenters voice, their -- their reasoning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why don't we let you work that out in the most compatible manner possible. MR. OATES: It would seem to me that the staff should write the report for this reason, the chairman could be in the majority -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. OATES: And not -- not like the dissenting opinion at all and color it somewhat. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That never happens. MR. DAVIS: But of course, we would never do that. MR. OATES: Not with Hike, but somebody else might. MR. YORK: I think one of the -- one of the areas that this -- it happens more frequently where there's split decisions in -- in the area of variances, and I think those are all important, and I recall that, historically, when we have major rifts, you know, with the planning commission, it's normally, for the most part, on the variance issues, and -- and those are all important, I think, to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They are. I guess my own -- my own philosophy on that is that, you know, people are people and people make mistakes, and a tenth of a foot or two-tenths of a foot is a mistake. Five out of seven is slipshod, and it's been my opinion that slipshod work should not be rewarded with an $800 fee and a neighbor who has -- who's stuck with something ad infinitum. Commissioner Norris suggested something that may help us out of that. Our staff -- I think actually maybe the County Attorney's Office is working on it, but it -- it deals with the ability to offer variances that run not with the land, but with the specific structure that the variance is awarded to. Because one of the problems is that if you award a 38 foot reduction or 40 foot setback, that runs with the land, and if that is blown down, torn down, that variance is still there and it can be reconstructed to that level. Miss Student? MS. STUDENT: That has -- Mr. Chairman, that has been taken care of in the upcoming land development code amendment cycle, which is now before the planning commission. They're going to have their second meeting on it, I believe, April 30th and will be coming to you end of May, beginning of June. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So this would be us lobbying them to recommend approval of that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Publicly lobbying them. Yeah, but that really, for me, has been the difference is, you know, it's really disgusting to have to sit up here and look at a contractor who just made a blatant, not just an accidental, but blatant shoddy work. You know, they went out and instead locating corner points, took a tape measure off the house, you know, and said, build the pool here, and then, you know, you've got to tell the neighbor they're stuck with something, you know, that much closer to their home that they're not happy with because of this guy's shoddy work, and there's no remedial measure. You can't tell the guy, that's a $5,000 fine. I mean, we're not a court. We're not judges. We aren't given that ability. So a lot of times it's been more or less, I think, a message to the building community, do it right the first time, you know, little human errors are acceptable, but gross errors are not, and I think that's kind of been an attitude of the board on variances as opposed to, did they meet the criteria of variances. That's what I think has entered in our discussions more than anything. MR. YORK: Certainly if you have a contractor or -- or someone that's repeatedly making mistakes or, you know, is errors, errors, errors, then you naturally are going to go the other way, but I remember an instance where there was like a seven inch encroachment into a -- into a setback and I asked the question, if they tore it all down and rebuilt it properly, could they then plant a tree where that setback was violated, you know, a big palm tree, and the answer was yes. So my mind was made up. There had been no history of errors on that contractor and, you know, he could plant a tree there once he tore the pool cage down. It made sense to grant the variance, but that was a split decision in this group. MR. DAVIS: We often -- in fact, staff now provides, by our request, any -- any frequency of variance request by a contractor because we identified sometime back that -- I think we had, in our memory, there was more recurrence than we'd like to see, so staff's been doing a good job of seeing if that's the case, and the -- the one change that we had -- actually, our board had requested in the land development code, or apparently it's been taken care of, where it would go with the structure and not the land, because you run into some situations where you've got an existing very old non-conforming structure that it makes sense for it to be for that, but you don't want to let them have that in the future, to tear that all down and build a new one and still be right on the lot line or something, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MR. DAVIS: -- it makes a lot of sense. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The other thing too is our staff does keep track of repeated violations and -- and has a system where they can forward those repeated violations to our friends over in the contractor licensing. We do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Next on the agenda is land use petition approval criteria. And, Hike, was this -- was this your addition? Can I turn it over to you or was that -- we've kind of hit around that and covered it in different ways, both compatibility and density and other things. Is there anything in particular on land use petitions that -- that anyone has heartburn with or -- and I'll tell you something that may help. How many of you are either members of or receive information from the American Planning Association? MR. DAVIS: Staff, once again. Recently, we have begun to receive some planning information. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. What I am going to do this year, and I'll encourage my colleagues to join me, if there is money left in the individual commissioners' travel budget, I'd like to roll that over into next year and begin making planning commission workshops available to you if you would like to go to them. The American Planning Association has, specifically for planning commissioners, has workshops available all over the US, but particularly here in Florida, you can go to Tampa and attend a one day seminar on introduction to planning commission, and a lot of things are things you already know of or have dealt with, but if you want to avail yourself of that, I am going to ask that I -- we earmark any money that can be rolled over from the travel budget this year to make those planning workshops available to you. I will warn you on the front-end, my opinion on the American Planning Association is that they are a little socialist oriented, but that the -- MR. CAUTERO: Such a harsh phrase. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A little socialist, whatever that is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A little social engineering oriented. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A little pregnant. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But the -- but in the end, there are a lot of planning techniques and exposure to case law and other areas that make all -- make us better at what we do on land use petitions specifically, and I think some of those workshops could be helpful, at least to give a broader base of familiarity and give you all those buzz words and neat terms that we all like to use in public hearings. So I -- I hope that we can make that available through the budget process this year in unexpended travel funds, maybe, you know, a few hundred dollars to allow -- to pay for the enrollment of those workshops, and if you want to partake of them, great, but it would then be there for you and you wouldn't have to do it out of your own pocket, which I think is asking a little much. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I was planning to use my travel money for my Leadership Florida classes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And anyone else's who didn't use theirs? How long is your term? Okay. I'm sorry. MR. DAVIS: We'd appreciate that opportunity and I -- I think there would probably be several of us that would take you up on it and attend it, and once again, we would attend them with a grain of salt, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The -- also the planning commission members do have -- there's a membership of the American Planning Association that is far less expensive for planning commission members than it is for professional planners. I don't know what that is, but, Vince, could we get information to all of them on that -- MR. CAUTERO: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and maybe even out of these funds -- MR. CAUTERO: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just -- I just think some of those publications to get -- to, you know, bring you up to speed on what's going on in planning all over the US is really helpful and, you know, I encourage my colleagues to do the same, but God knows you all have plenty to read, and I'm sure you do too, but I'd like to find a way to offer that to you if you -- if you want to take us up on it. We are to miscellaneous issues raised by either board, a very tough category. Take issues for $300. I've talked my head off. You know, this is kind of a nice opportunity if there are questions or concerns you have on the operation of the planning commission or, from your perspective, the operation of the board in reference to actions you've taken, this is a good opportunity to kind of throw them out there and see what sticks. MR. BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I've got one I want to throw out, conditional use applications. Those are something that we spend a lot of time over in debating amongst ourselves, and certainly I should say publicly, and we -- we would like a little input from you as to your view and how you view some of those, you know. I think we miss each other occasionally on some and -- the church issues are always out there, schools, day care centers, and very seldom do we get one that someone does object to, and again, it deals with the compatibility issue, I guess, which we've already discussed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask, first of all, Wayne, if I could ask for your involvement on this. The history of conditional uses, typically in any zoning category, are that they're uses that will -- may require a higher level of review in order to be compatible and that's why they are listed as conditional, and day cares are a good example. A day care that sits right next to a house that has a chain link fence between that and the house is going to be a noisier neighbor than one that is set far off with a six foot masonry wall to deflect noise to the neighbor, and I think it -- those types of site specific issues that the conditional uses lend themselves to. MR. ARNOLD: I think you said it very well. For the record, Wayne Arnold, but that's essentially staff's view and the definition that's contained in our land development code says that they're generally permitted by right within the district; however, because of their nature, they may be only with special conditions that may need to be placed on them before they would be deemed compatible, if you will. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's been this board's approach on conditional uses to look at, first of all, why are they conditional use? Why are they more intensive or different than what is just a permitted use in that zoning category? And then you take those impacts and you evaluate them individually, whether it's traffic, whether it's noise, whether it's physical appearance, aesthetics, whatever it is, you then try and determine if those are indeed compatible with what exists around it, and sometimes it is. Most times it can be in many of those categories, but usually there's one or two that just kind of stick out. Churches and day care. We had a run of churches that were requesting day care as conditional use, and it was someone else on this board that -- that began asking the question, is this to be operated as a church day care or as a -- or are you going to have someone come in and operate it as a private enterprise? Well, now we're really talking about a commercial operation under a conditional use as a church-related day care. The other thing was, are you going to build the day care before you build the church? Again, allowing a commercial enterprise into a residential area that is using another vehicle or another method. And it's because of the conditional use application that those questions were allowed to be asked. So, you know, that's -- that's how I've looked at it. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Well, I think the important point is that -- that the conditional use process has been set up because of some of the disparities in usage, and it's always the compatibility that's the major issue with conditional uses, and the board considers conditional uses important enough to have a super majority vote to authorize. So that gives you an extra layer of protection if you're an adjoining homeowner. It also -- another thing that it does though is force a public -- a series of public hearings before your board and before our board, and there's certain instances where, otherwise, they would not get that benefit. So the public does have a chance to come up here and voice their opinion, but the usages over the years that we have found to be the most controversial, perhaps, you'll find are the ones that have the conditional use application attached to them, and the higher level of scrutiny is certainly just for public protection and the best interest of the public, and you need to remember, there's absolutely no reason why you ever have to -- have to give someone a conditional use. That's certainly discretionary at any -- any time. So those -- those are -- are for you to look at very closely and to -- and just like we have to do, we have to try to determine if there's going to be adverse impacts on an existing usage out there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The other thing is, if you look in the land development code, you have your permitted uses and your conditional uses. Many of those conditional uses are permitted in the next most more intensive zoning category. So what you're really dealing with is a different step in potential intensity of use, but the lesser intensive of this higher zoning category can find their way as conditional uses here, and again, it's -- it's a middle step. So if you're, again, looking at compatibility, it's something that, by rights, is just strictly a permitted use, you may be jumping two or three zoning levels, but as a conditional with certain applications, it can be made compatible, and I think that -- that probably defines the -- the difference in conditional uses. You'll find many of those permitted in the next zoning category, yet we don't -- we wouldn't approve that zoning category next to, you know, an existing neighbor. Don. MR. YORK: Mr. Chairman, when we look at a conditional use and either approve or disapprove it, we complete a finding of fact form. Do -- do you all get to review those or does staff -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think they are -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, we get them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the finding of fact forms are in our packet. I'm -- I've reviewed them on -- I haven't reviewed them on every single one, you know, but on those that I -- that something catches my eye, I will go look at those. MR. YORK: I know when I -- when I feel strongly about something, either positively or negatively, I try to make a comment, you know, as to why I feel that on that finding of fact form, and I don't know if those are helpful to you or not. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They are to me, yes. Mike, did we answer that one beyond the call of duty? MR. BRUET: There's one other element. I've seen a couple come by that I think were actually speculative, you know, where a buyer owned some property and it fit the criteria of being adjacent to a park or a community street and so on, and he wanted to put that overlay on his 20 acres or so, to obviously increase its value, and I believe in the free enterprise system, but, you know, I'd like to see them have applicants and have a -- a true conditional use user, and we've seen that come by and they are -- all the pieces of the puzzle are not -- are not there, and I'm not sure we still have any grounds to look at it differently, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I can tell you, the people I hear from are more concerned with what physically ends up on the land than what the zoning is. Zoning is nebulous to the average citizen. It's what physically winds up there, and if they're in the approval process, I have no idea what physically is going to end up on the site or can't really look at it in such a way to understand its impacts, then I'm -- I think I'm doing a disservice to the adjacent property owners. And speculative zoning has really been minimized through -- before I ever got on the board, I think that trend began that, you know, the shotgun approach used to be that if you want a commercial zoning, you throw everything in there, see if anything got knocked out and then you'd just wait for someone to come along and buy the land. As we're looking at some of these sunset provisions, we're seeing those, and again, you look at it and it could become one of several animals, some of which are compatible, some of which are not, and we're trying within the property price -- rights act to refine that. So -- so, yeah, that's, you know, looking at what that overlay is and whether it's a practical one -- I think what comes to mind is a catfish farm, you know. MR. YORK: I remember that one. MR. OATES: We had that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was a fun one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sometimes -- after a vote sometimes you'll smack yourself in the head and say, why didn't I see that. That -- that happens. It happens up here. I know it happens to you guys, but COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question about conditional uses. It's sort of a follow up to what Commissioner Norris was saying about that there are never, ever circumstances when you have to approve a conditional use. I guess I'm troubled by that there are criteria for review of conditional uses and I haven't felt like I had that broad a discretion. I've felt like if they complied with the criteria, then if I don't like the criteria, I need to vote to change the criteria. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel has informed us that they are, in fact, discretionary for us. MS. STUDENT: Well, I don't -- there's case law about conditional uses and it's -- the burden first is on the applicant to show that they meet the criteria. Then the burden shifts back if you're going to deny them to show, you know -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For us to show '- MS. STUDENT: -- that they don't, and then it comes to a weighing of -- of the evidence, if you will, that's presented the competent substantial evidence because -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the evidence is based on the criteria -- for example, I mean, let me -- I'm -- this is just educational for me. If this is boring for everybody else, we can -- I can do this some other time, but I thought that my discretion in a conditional use was to, first, listen to see if the petitioner produces substantial, competent evidence that the criteria for approval are met, and then I can decide if I think they have or they haven't. If I think that they have not, then when I state my motion to deny, I assume it's part of my responsibility '- MS. STUDENT: To state the reason. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not just that they have not -- first of all, to say they have not made -- met their burden, but secondly, I think that the conditional use criteria are not met because A, B, C. MS. STUDENT: Right, and they haven't met their burden because they haven't -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we have to -- they're -- they're -- they are and they aren't, you know, completely up -- discretionary. They're discretionary if we can show here's why they failed to meet the conditional use criteria. I think that's a real careful little line. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just can't agree with that because if all they had to do was meet the criteria, you certainly don't need this board. I mean, if they meet the criteria, give them a rubber stamp, whack, and you're gone. But the point is that these two boards here are charged with some subjective measures as well, and that is compatibility being the top one. So just strictly meeting the criteria and the criteria that are laid out in the land development code doesn't get it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, but compatibility is one of those. MS. STUDENT: Compatibility is one of those and I think the point, Commissioner Norris, that you're trying to make is that within those criteria, then there's room to look either way, and I think that's the point that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just didn't want to see this sometime -- somebody to be waving this around in a courtroom where they said, see, these are completely discretionary, they can turn them down just because they want to, that's what they said in this meeting, and that isn't what we're saying. What we're saying is -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Although many times I'd like to turn it down because of the color of their jacket. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. What we're saying is that we know that we have a wide discretion to evaluate the criteria, but the criteria have to control the decision. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any other questions, issues? MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, on conditional uses and in particular, churches, a discussion that we've had and I think with staff too, that particularly on churches that we may want to consider some siting criteria of where we would like to see churches. We had one church, small congregation, I think they were finally successful on their fourth or fifth try. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think I know the one you're talking about. MR. DAVIS: And it's -- and with maybe some siting criteria that -- whether it be arterial collectors or, you know, transportation issues, that at least give -- give them an idea of where to look for property. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What -- what has caused me and the issue of churches the greatest -- the greatest problem has been that they have to have something like direct access to a collector arterial. Well, that access can be through a neighborhood, and churches are compatible with neighborhoods as far as typical operational uses. What becomes problematic to me is -- is the traffic. On a given Sunday morning when you have several hundred cars moving down a street with no sidewalks, I've got a compatibility issue relating to traffic there. You know, it's not that, you know, church people are driving like maniacs, but during the football season, it happens a lot. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Depends on when kickoff is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But -- so, you know, that has been a -- kind of gray area for us. We've had split votes on church location ourselves, and it's -- again, I don't have a problem so much with the use because it's -- I tell people all the time, if given my druthers, living next to a church is a wonderful option because it's, you know, it's just a good neighbor typically, but there are associated impacts of transportation and so forth that I -- I think if a -- if a -- for my two cents, I think if you're traversing a -- a predominantly residential neighborhood and it's a sizable church, then you've got a conflict, but I may be alone in that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'll tell you, mine -- mine is not the same as that. Mine -- I back up -- my house backs up to a couple churches and I know that on Sunday mornings there's going to be traffic problems and that's just the good news. I'm glad there are a lot of people going to those churches. I'm glad there's a traffic problem on Sunday morning. I don't mind it. So, for me, that's not gonna factor into my decisions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, there you have it. MR. YORK: One of the problems that I see with -- with the churches, and this happens -- if it's a church, church, for services, that's fine, but so many times they get into other ancillary things. Now they want to go to day care. Then they want to go to school, and the -- you know, it just builds and builds and builds, and the reaction we get from the neighborhoods are that we don't mind the church being there, but it's all these other things they didn't want to get into after they get -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And neighborhood churches of 100 member congregation are one thing versus Church World where you have 500 people -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Churchorama (phonetic). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- you know, showing up for four services on Sunday. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Try 1,200 with standing room only at St. Peter's. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Okay, even -- you know, even more, so COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Five masses a day. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think -- I think the intensity of a church does play into that decision, but as you can see, we don't even know what criteria -- we don't -- aren't basing it on the same criteria ourselves. So I think those are going to continue to be tough until -- until one or two petitions define a parameter one way or the other. Obviously my parameters are different than Commissioner Mac'Kie's, so I'm not going to be able to offer any -- any sage advice. MR. YORK: I wonder if it wouldn't be smart when somebody comes in for a church in a neighborhood that once they're permitted, that they be told at that time that it will be strict -- that property will be strictly forced church services and, you know, the development of a day care center and a school is not going to be permitted. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That comes up a lot in our discussions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those questions are almost always asked, including expansion plans. What our staff has been doing wisely is -- is asking those questions in the process so that they come in requesting the maximum they ever plan on building to so that we have a known quantity in front of us instead of coming in and asking for a ten thousand square foot parish with the intent of coming back in and tripling it in ten years and not letting us know that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you know, back to Mike's -- what I think was the genesis, hah, no pun intended, for the question is -- is it would be nice if we could give some direction to people who are desperately seeking a piece of property for a church and go and try and get turned down and get turned down and get turned down, if there were some sort of siting criteria that are better than what we presently have, because a lot of church committees spend a lot of time trying to find a piece of property only to find out, oh, well, good heavens, no, that one's not even close. Oh, another pun. MR. DAVIS: Yeah, that was -- that was just my point, and I think we're probably remembering the same -- same church that it happened time and time again to and I guess that's the thought of -- kind of give them heads up on here's -- as a community, here's where we expect them to be, because I agree with you, Commissioner Hancock, if it's a church that's outside a neighborhood, but yet that neighborhood's got to put up with all the traffic of the people coming and going, I've got a problem with that one, and unlike -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. MR. DAVIS: -- maybe in the City of Naples where the church is part of the residential community and a sizable amount of the people actually walk to the church because they live close by -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, St. Williams is one of the ones in my back yard. Those people are not walking and they have services -- I've never seen so many services and cars parked everywhere. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think everyone would agree -- MR. OATES: For your information, the Sunday before last we had 5,870 people. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I was glad. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They're all invited to Pam's house next week for punch and cookies. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't say that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's easy to say that if you're on an arterial or collector road, traffic is not going to be an issue. I mean, this isn't rocket science entirely. I mean, you know, although it could be. We've got one rocket scientist on the board. But, you know, that's -- but the criteria gets tougher and tougher as you get further and further from collectors and arterials. You start throwing neighborhoods in front of it, you're going to run into roadblocks and difficulties with those neighborhoods, and that's where, you know, we start getting the church versus the people argument on Tuesday and that's a lousy decision to have to make. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to -- to ask staff to, you know -- we always pass the hard questions to them, if there are some criteria that you can come up with to help these church committees narrow their focus, that's something that I'd like to see. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the direction that -- we can't -- we can suggest things at this meeting, but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, we're just talking. MR. HULHERE: We'd be happy to do some research and check with planning advisory service and see how maybe some other communities are addressing this issue, come back and discuss it with the planning commission and the board. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I think the day care issue with churches is a difficult one. Sometimes when they start out, they don't start out with that in mind, and depending on the needs of the church, of the people as they grow and -- and who ends up attending that church, they end up -- the people create this need within the church and the church becomes the obvious and we -- we could get into a philosophical discussion about whether this should happen or not, but you know, many of us would like to see churches go ahead and do and provide those kinds of services as opposed to government providing those kinds of services. So we get into in a catch 22 here about a neighborhood being involved in this kind of an effort as opposed to, you know, us doing that kind of thing. So it -- I think it is a tough question in regard to, you know, people move into a neighborhood and all of the sudden church A appears and it's just this non, you know, kind of a problematic situation. Then all of the sudden the day care comes, again though, but it's based on what the people, the congregation has pressed the issue for. So I don't know that there's going to be a quick fix answer for that kind of thing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There isn't, but let's suggest -- Mr. Hulhere suggested that they check with PAS, Planning Advisory Services. It's basically a databank of what other communities are and are not doing in different areas and ask them to first bring that back to the board. Let's determine if we want to -- to develop criteria for this, if there's material out there that will help us develop criteria that is reasonable, a little flexible, but gives guidance, and if so, we would then want to workshop that back to the planning commission and then to the board. So let's ask if staff would bring that to the board at some future date to determine whether we want to go through that criteria, and if we do, then we'll -- we'll direct it to be formulated and workshopped with the appropriate organizations, which obviously include the planning commission. I said that I would try and keep this to an hour and a half and I'm already a liar on this one individual issue. Are there any other questions -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You just said you'd try. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- concerns or complaints? I, for one, appreciate all of you making the effort to be here today and taking more time out of your individual schedules to accommodate us and that's more than I -- I think we could ask of you, and I want to thank you again for all the time you put in for the community. We appreciate it, and with that, Mr. Davis, is there anything -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we should give them a standing ovation for all the good work that they do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Here we go. (Applause) MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I thought he was going to walk out when you stood up, actually. MR. DAVIS: -- if I -- if I could, we appreciate the standing -- standing ovation. It is nice to be here with you. I guess we set history today in that this has -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Maybe. MR. DAVIS: -- never been done before, and it's my hope that in the future we can -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Never do it again. MR. DAVIS: -- continue to do this so we can -- no, no, history needs to repeat itself. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, I see. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. MR. DAVIS: But we -- we -- for you to acknowledge your appreciation for what we do as a body, we thank you for that. Sometimes we -- we forget -- we're kind of in the vacuum that you spoke about and we forget that -- that there are five people that appreciate what we do, so it's nice to come here and have you tell us that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Mike, I'll leave it to you and to me to remind our successors that this was a positive thing and that -- that it may need to be done again sometime in the next year. MR. DAVIS: Very well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Everyone, thank you very much. We'll adjourn the workshop. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:46 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING, SERVICE, INC. BY: Heather L. Casassa