Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/10/2003 S (LDC Amendments)September 1 O, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MEETING Naples, Florida, September 10, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in the Board of Commissioners Meeting Room, Harmon Turner Building, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: TOM HENNING FRED COYLE DONNA FIALA FRANK HALAS JIM COLETTA ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie Student, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Susan Murray, Chief Planner Joseph Schmitt, Community Development Russell Webb, Planning Services Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA September 10, 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 1S 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 1S 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 THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST 1 June,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 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 June,2003 September 10, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the meeting of the Board of Commissioners Land Development Code Workshop of September 10. Would you all rise and Nancy Siemion will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 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 - SF, COND PI~BI,IC HFJARING TO FtF, HEIJD OCTOFIFR 87 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good evening. We're here for our first reading of the LDC amendments for the second cycle of 2003, and Russell Webb, who is our LDC coordinator in the Planning Services Department will walk us through this. I think, given it appears that we don't have many here from the public and I don't suspect that we're going to have anything of great controversy here, I think it may be best between Russell and Susan, who is sitting on the other side there, we can walk through these probably one by one and go through as they appear on the spreadsheet, and if there are any questions we'll entertain your questions. I would -- just to refresh your memory -- we're here for our first reading. This is the first reading of the LDC. We'll be back here again for the voting October -- I lost the date. MS. MURRAY: October 8. Page 2 September 1 O, 2003 MR. SCHMITT: October 8th, thank you, is the second date. Susan, do you have any comments? MS. MURRAY: I don't at this time, Joe. I know Marjorie Student would like to read something into the record, though. MS. STUDENT: Yes. And I'd just like to say that I've been provided by staff with the Affidavit of Publication of the public hearing in consideration of this LDC ordinance tonight and I've been advised that it was properly advertised. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Russell. MR. WEBB: I guess we'll begin from the beginning, as Joe said. The first item for consideration is Section 1.6181 of your LDC handouts, on the handwritten page 1. This is certification of the Admission for Request Section of the LDC, Admission for Request for Interpretation. MS. MURRAY: Would you like a brief presentation on some of these. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. MURRAY: This one, as Russell said, is essentially just a clarification of our current requirements when people submit requests for interpretation. What we were finding was that a request would come in and they would be asking multiple questions, compound questions, asking us to agree with their opinion, that sort of thing. So what we attempted to do is just clarify in terms of how many questions you could ask with one submittal, and also requesting that they cite the specific Land Development Code or Building Code citation to be interpreted because we were getting a lot of letters when we couldn't discern what actually they wanted us to interpret. So we asked for specificity in terms of that, and also to clarify that each interpretation request must be accompanied by the appropriate fee. Page 3 September 1 O, 2003 So the changes aren't really substantive in terms of the regulations as they exist. It's more of a clarification to ensure we get the proper information and we spend the appropriate amount of time on each request. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions on this amendment? Move on to the next. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With approval at the end? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MR. WEBB: The next item for consideration is on page 3, Section 1.8.10.2.1 which is basically an exception to the 50 percent destruction requirement for a nonconforming use for docks and boathouses. MR. SCHMITT: What this issue was is that of nonconforming dock, when it comes in for renovation, we found that oftentimes they would exceed the 50 percent by just pulling off some of the decking or even the stringers. So it was changed to read that as long as they didn't change the original footprint of the dock they could do the maintenance work and still not exceed or violate the nonconforming use. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you saying they don't need, do not have to get a permit to replace planking and all the other stuff on the dock as long as they don't start putting new pilings in and -- MS. MURRAY: No. They would still need a permit to do any of that type of work. But what we were finding was the code says if you destroy 50 percent or more of the structure you have to conform to the current regulations. What was happening was these were existing docks and pretty much when you pull up planking most people were also replacing pilings, so that was exceeding the 50 percent. So they were having to come in and then make an existing dock conforming to the current code. MR. SCHMITT: Actually was forcing them to reapply, take out Page 4 September 1 O, 2003 the nonconforming dock structure and make it conform. MS. MURRAY: And in some cases they go through the dock extension process and all of that. MR. SCHMITT: This is not a boathouse; this is a dock. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, I understand. MR. SCHMITT: All this was, was trying to be a little bit more user friendly. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It says docks and boat houses. MR. SCHMITT: Both. MS. MURRAY: Yes. Actually, Joe, this does apply to boat houses. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Because it says -- MR. SCHMITT: That's if the dock had a boat house. CHAIRMAN HENNING: To start with; exactly. MR. SCHMITT: You can't apply for boathouse over a nonconforming structure. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Susan, did you say that if I want to replace a plank on my dock, I have to get a permit? MS. MURRAY: Yes, a building permit if you're doing construction on your dock. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Replacing planking, repair? MS. MURRAY: Yes, repair. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Repair, really? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seems like a lot of government. MS. MURRAY: So is there a threshold, maybe? MR. SCHMITT: No. You don't need a building permit. If the permit would have been kicked in place because it would have been a nonconforming structure, and you would have to go in and get the dock repermitted to conform. But if you're just doing operations and maintenance type work you do not need a building permit. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. I misspoke, then. Page 5 September 10, 2003 MR. SCHMITT: It's just normal maintenance. If you're doing structural work, yes. Work over water, if it was a major structural, you'd have to come in and get a permit. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying here is if the dock here in this case goes beyond 50 percent, then they have to come in and get the permit; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: Depending on what they are doing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: To bring the dock back into -- MR. SCHMITT: No, we're not asking them to bring it into compliance. It's a nonconforming structure, so they can leave the footprint as a nonconforming structure. At one time it was conforming but now it doesn't conform to the new criteria, we're not making them tear it out. This is trying to be government not being as obtrusive. And say you want to repair your dock, now you got to pull it out and conform it. We're saying no, it was good, it still is good. All you're going to do is replace some decking and some other things, and you can do it legitimately now without violating the code. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And pilings. MS. MURRAY: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, as long as the pilings are in the same footprint as they were. As far as the pilings, I'd have to get back to you on whether or not, because it involves work over water and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: That would probably take the Corps for that. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, that would take other permits. MS. MURRAY: The key here is that the original footprint is not being expanded, and that was triggering the fact you can basically retain what you have. If you're going to expand or alter in any way which makes the footprint different, then you would have to conform. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand. Page 6 September 1 O, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that one done? Before we move on, let me just say to the folks that are here, if you are wishing to speak on any item, the signup sheets are out in the hallway. And just put the item that you want to talk on and give them to who? Give them to Joe Schmitt over here, and he'll keep track of those and call you up when the item comes up. We have no questions on the dock issue, so we'll move on. No further questions. MR. WEBB: The next item for consideration is the permitted uses in the Industrial District, Section 2.2.16.2.1, handwritten page 5 of your packet. Basically there are three issues with this one. We're adding a use that was mistakenly omitted from a previous ordinance; and secondly, revising this section to include shooting ranges as an accessory use; and finally, we're adding two uses that are similar to those already existing in the commercial district. Those uses are number 24 and 43. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where are we talking about adding a shooting range? CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: In the Industrial Zoning District. MR. WEBB: Yes, in the Industrial District; an indoor shooting range. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Indoor shooting range. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just like the question you asked this morning about what prompted that, where are they planning on putting that, and the reason that it creeped in here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, I can tell you that I have been approached, where can you have an indoor gun range in Collier County. And before it was, I think, a conditional use or wasn't a use at all in any of the Zoning District. MR. WEBB: I believe that's correct. Page 7 September 10, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: So, yes. And we used to have one years ago in an Industrial Zoning District off Airport Road. Got to get someplace. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just not in neighborhoods and in people's backyards. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Keep it inside. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this also, it covers in depth, the very first one it says, "agricultural services in regards to pesticides being 500 feet from any residential zoning." Is that already in there or is this being added? MR. WEBB: Right. That's existing code language. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, please. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to make sure I understand what we just said. In other words, in all of Collier County there will be no permitted indoor gun ranges? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, just the opposite. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: In any industrial district. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I understand now. I picked it up wrong and I apologize. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Indoor being commercial districts and residential districts, too. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can't do it in your backyard. MR. WEBB: The next item for consideration is garages and driveways in the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District, Section 2.2.33.22.13, and this is on page 9. Russ Mueller is here from staff if you have any concerns over this particular amendment. Page 8 September 1 O, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: CHAIRMAN HENNING: MR. WEBB: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN HENNING: District? I don't. Makes sense to me. Where does it say Bayshore? You said this is in the Bayshore MR. WEBB: This is, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Says this is county-wide. MS. MURRAY: The section number referenced is the section that deals with Bayshore. I'm sorry it's not clear on there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we add that in at adoption -- MR. MUELLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- for clarification? MR. MUELLER: Actually, for the record, my name is Russ Mueller. I'm with Development Services. I think we can kill three birds with one stone here. I've got the identical item in three different locations, and the first one, that Bayshore District, had-- the Planning Commission added the word "at least 23 feet" the distance between the back of the walk to the garage. I think we need to add "at least" to the other two locations, which are on page 73 and page 79. They start on 66 and 74. But basically what this is, is to allow people enough room to park in their driveways without parking across the sidewalk. COMMISSIONER COYLE: My book says "a minimum," not "at least" or whatever. Does it mean the same thing? MR. MUELLER: That's what we're shooting for, is a minimum of 23 feet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is this just in Bayshore? MR. MUELLER: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's county-wide, isn't it? MR. MUELLER: It's county-wide. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just done in three different places. Page 9 September 10, 2003 MR. MUELLER: Three different places in the LDC, where it's for the Subdivision Section, the SDP Section and the Bayshore Overlay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I make a suggestion that we add the word or the phrase, "at least 23 feet"? Read literally, this says it must be 23 feet-- MR. MUELLER: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and you don't want it to be exactly 23 feet. MR. MUELLER: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think if you changed them all to "at least 23 feet --" COMMISSIONER HALAS: "23 feet or greater." COMMISSIONER COYLE: "At least 23 feet" -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: "23 feet or greater." That would cover it. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Right. MR. SCHMITT: The ones we have say that, the newer ones. I don't know if you got that one. MR. WEBB: Actually, the one pertaining to Bayshore says that. The other ones -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the other two don't. MR. WEBB: The other two don't; that is correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: May I ask, what is the purpose of this? MR. WEBB: Let me give you an example on the visualizer here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The one parked in the driveway is hanging over the sidewalk. MR. WEBB: In this case this vehicle is parked over the sidewalk and looks like it allowed enough room for the passenger to get out and walk in front of the vehicle and the garage, but someone Page 10 September 1 O, 2003 walking down the sidewalk would be forced into the street. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, this is a violation by code. The Sheriffs Department can enforce this. MR. WEBB: That brings up another one that I've got here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sheriffs car in the front. (Laughter) MS. MURRAY: There's two of them in that picture. MR. WEBB: If we don't give them enough room they simply can't fit their vehicles in between the garage and the sidewalk. MR. SCHMITT: Some communities have deed restrictions or other community type ordinances or rules that they discourage parking in the street, and so homes are being built and there is not sufficient parking for folks to park in a driveway. So what we're trying to do is -- this came out of the Pathway Advisory Committee, as well, to try and create the criteria that says you must have at least the amount of space available to park one car, as is now shown on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We could also be in violation for people that are handicapped, too, if we don't bring this into compliance. MR. SCHMITT: But Commissioner Henning is correct. It is a violation that the Sheriffs Department can enforce. It's a statutory violation; it's not a code violation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if we don't give them enough room -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on a minute. Let's go back to that one with the narrow sidewalk, please, the one with the pickup truck. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The SUV. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The last one. Now, do you think that the developer developed the property because the deed restriction says no parking in the driveway, parking Page 11 September 1 O, 2003 in the garage only? MR. WEBB: This is what I think happened in this subdivision is they came in, they got their setbacks and they designed it, and they found out that they had to build a sidewalk. So they came back and they fit a sidewalk in there not thinking about someone having to park over it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why did they have to build the sidewalk? Because-- MR. WEBB: Because it's a-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Land Development Code regulation. They did their plat and started developing, then they found out they needed to do the sidewalks. So let's throw that example out. MR. WEBB: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the other examples -- and all I'm saying is, there already is laws on the books to govern this, and what we're doing is increasing the lot size, increasing the price, and increasing the affordability -- or lessening the affordability for citizens of Collier County. There already is a law on the books and we're just trying to over-regulate it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if you put a sidewalk there and you can't use the sidewalk, what good is it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. MR. WEBB: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can use the sidewalk if the Sheriffs Department enforces the Florida statutes. That's what needs to be done. MR. WEBB: So actually, the deed restrictions or whatever, they wouldn't be able to park in the driveway. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me? MR. WEBB: They wouldn't be able to park in the driveway. Page 12 September 10, 2003 They'd have to park in their garage. MR. SCHMITT: Or in the street. MR. WEBB: Or in the street. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: Which is fine. I mean that's -- Commissioner Henning, you are correct. The criteria here was -- what has happened is the setbacks, we mandate the front yard setbacks, and then we come in now with criteria for the sidewalks. And the sidewalks, you cannot build sidewalks adjacent to the curb -- and Russ, it's two and a half to three feet now you have to be from the curb before the sidewalk. We now require in some cases a five-foot sidewalk; we stayed with the five-foot width. Used to be four, now it's five. And in order to park a car in the driveway now, we are now saying you've got to have another 23 feet. So yes, your summation is correct. We are adding -- this criteria will result, add more required frontage or at least depth to the lot, which we are again contributing to increasing the cost of a home. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So maybe if we go to some other examples maybe we can-- I mean, when you do, it's not a site development plan anymore, it's something else. MR. SCHMITT: Well, depends. This is a final plat or it could be an individual home. It goes through the building department for review. But if it's a final plat it will go through the engineering department and be reviewed through engineering, to make sure that the required depth and distances and everything are complied with. CHAIRMAN HENNING: If there's not enough room in between the sidewalk and the garage, why can't we require them to have a deed restriction and let them enforce it instead of increasing the price of living here in Collier County? You know what I'm saying? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, I understand what you're saying. That Page 13 September 1 O, 2003 would not be a deed restriction. I'd have to turn to the County Attorney. All we could do is require a code, but there is already a state statute that says we cannot block the sidewalk. Go ahead. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. Deed restrictions are private covenants between individuals and/or individual property owners in a given development, and there is constitutional provisions about governments getting involved and telling people what they can have in the contracts amongst themselves. Also, the county does not, you know, there's a provision in our code that we do not get involved in the enforcement of deed restrictions. I understand that's a little bit different, but something like that-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- their CC and R's and require that they put it in their CC and R's. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know what CC and R is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Those are the regulations of the condominium or other homeowners' association that would establish for governing the way things are done in their community. For example, it might restrict or prohibit the building of storage sheds on the property. MS. STUDENT: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You could also prohibit the parking of vehicles on the street and require that they be placed in the garage. But again, the enforcement is problematic because then you've got an issue where you're asking the government to enforce a private law between a homeowners' association and the members of the community. MS. STUDENT: We have a provision in our code that says that Page 14 September 10, 2003 the local government of Collier County does not get involved in the enforcement of deed restrictions. They are a private matter between the property owners in a given development. I haven't researched the point, but what concerns me a bit is for the government to tell private individuals what they must have in their contracts. And that's what concerns me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: This picture that we have right now on the overhead is a good example of what's taken place in the past as far as where a PUD was being developed and not having good control over -- in regards to sub-neighborhoods that were in a PUD whereby they put sidewalk in. They just put the sidewalk in but didn't take into account that there may be people that not only live in this residence that can put their vehicle in the garage, but they have people that come over and visit and they are blocking the sidewalk. That's what we're getting at here. And it's because of past improprieties that were involved in PUDs and I think that's what we're trying to address now to make sure that, any large PUD or development, that if you have access to a driveway that there is adequate space to put not only the sidewalk in, but also to make sure that there is a place for people to park if they come to visit. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Halas, that is in fact correct. I wouldn't call them violations. The houses were built in the oversights -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, say oversights. MR. SCHMITT: The setbacks that they were allowed to build in in the envelope. If you look at the lot and you draw the envelope that you can design the house in based on the setbacks. That is in fact what happened. So yes, I guess it's a combination of criteria or requirements have been added, and what's been omitted is just this measurement Page 15 September 10, 2003 between the sidewalk and the garage. So that requires now the designer of the home or the developer to now have enough space between a garage door and the sidewalk. And that's what this is creating. But it also creates exactly what Commissioner Henning referenced, was, it does force now, in order to maintain the setbacks, build the sidewalk and have the required depth of the driveway, you need now deeper lots. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And if you have homes for Habitat for Humanity, they have the criteria to make sure that people can park in the driveway without the vehicle hanging over the sidewalk. MR. SCHMITT: Well, yes. In Habitat right now they do not have garages and their driveways are sufficient enough to pull a car in. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I believe the new models coming out will have garages and room to park in the driveway. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We never had this problem before, did we? All of a sudden, they're trying to pack more of a house on a lot and get less and less setbacks, and who cares about the little driveway. So I think sometimes you have to step in when they take advantage of what we've had. You don't see older neighborhoods complaining about any room to park in the driveway. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've got one community in Naples Park-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Yes, a couple things I want to point out. We're talking about a whole bunch of issues and I don't think the affordable issue enters in this quite as strong as it may appear to be. If you take a look, these aren't exactly what you call affordable Page 16 September 10, 2003 houses. These are in the upper scale. And the developer is coming out very well by higher density. By adding a couple more feet to this whole darn thing, in the end, the development might have 3 or 4 percent less houses. But the truth of the matter is you're going to have the driveways that are deep. I mean, just think about it. If a person has a choice of 20 more feet between him and the road to be able to stay away from road noises and everything, I'm sure that they would love to have that. I think this is a good rule. Of course, it's not going to do anything to change what's already there. But future developments coming in will have to keep that in mind. MR. SCHMITT: This also does not preclude what you have here is the garage that is set in front of the house. You can redesign the home and move the garage to a depth to accommodate that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. MR. SCHMITT: Of course, you're not going to have -- normally what you got here is a room or some kind of a room behind the garage that isn't part of the home. But if you design the home differently you can set the garage back, to have that required space without -- of course, you are going to impact on the square footage of the home. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What is the advisory board's recommendation on this? MR. SCHMITT: Well, the advisory board, both that and the statutory is not to create a situation that causes the sidewalk to be blocked. Is that basically -- MR. WEBB: The advisory board speaker that weighed in on this other than Zoning, our Planning Commission were in favor of not parking on the sidewalk. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Which item is this? MR. SCHMITT: On your check list, on page 2 on your graph Page 17 September 10, 2003 here. And then you can see where the DSAC subcommittee, DSAC recommendation and the Planning Commission, there are notes and their comments in there, all of whom approve. CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: I'm seeing some in here, did not review, did not review, did not review, denied. These are in the subdivisions? MR. WEBB: That doesn't apply to this particular amendment. I see what you're talking about, Commissioner. That's the one below it, the Goodland and other various -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. That was only the Bayshore one included in this and some other language. I guess my bottom line is if the DSAC and Planning Commission approved this, I don't have a problem. If they have not seen it, I have a big problem, that it needs to go back to them. MR. WEBB: If they've seen it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: If they have seen it and they have no objection. MS. MURRAY: Commissioner, on page 66, and it would be page 7 of your summary, I think you have the same amendment for subdivisions; is that correct, Russ? MR. WEBB: Yes. MS. MURRAY: And the DSAC subcommittee did not review, but the DSAC subcommittee is actually made up of members of DSAC, so ultimately all of the members of DSAC that were in attendance got to review it. They did deny that, but the Planning Commission did recommend approval. This was for the subdivision section. MR. SCHMITT: Those are the two other amendments that Russ brought up. That's on page 7 of the chart. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One other thing we haven't touched on, and that is, they are trying to encourage in many areas Page 18 September 1 O, 2003 front porch communities, as they have done with Jubilation, so they have the garages in the back facing the alley. How does this affect that? Same thing, 23, it would have to be, to be able to use the alley to pick up the garbage. MR. SCHMITT: As long as they have the 23 feet, the space to park the vehicle, they are in compliance. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. WEBB: There would be no sidewalk on the alley in back, so the sidewalk would be in front and they would have enough room. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But that PUD would remain in effect as is, though, wouldn't it, for the remainder of the project? MS. MURRAY: Yes. MR. WEBB: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on this one? I have real concerns about approving this amendment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I really like it myself. I think it's a much needed step in the right direction. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Bayshore one, aren't those small lots anyways? MR. WEBB: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: They are small depth? MR. WEBB: Yes. There is very few garages in the Bayshore area. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Basically what we're saying is, on those small lots you can't have a garage. MR. WEBB: No. You build the -- the garage will be set back from the front of the house in most of those areas. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Most of those areas are 50-foot lots; correct? MR. WEBB: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if they built a garage Page 19 September 1 O, 2003 underneath. Some are doing that, right, put the storage room down there? MR. WEBB: With the stilt houses, yes. MS. MURRAY: They could still have the home itself forward. It would just be that the garage would have to be pushed back. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. As long as they have enough land to do that. MS. MURRAY: MR. SCHMITT: Correct. Since we're talking about this issue we'll go to the ones on page 66 and 74. That's on your summary sheet page 7, and those are the two that Russ was talking about. So Russ, you want to cover those two, as well? MR. WEBB: These are identical. One is for the subdivision portion of the LDC and the other is for the SDP portion of the LDC. MS. MURRAY: Actually the comment under DSAC recommendation on page 66 where it says denied, now that I'm reading this, I'm recalling -- I think their denial was just based on the fact that they didn't think this regulation belonged in subdivision regulations; am I correct? MR. WEBB: Yes. MS. MURRAY: I don't remember their exact reasoning. I don't know if you do, but-- MR. WEBB: And we feel that it can be a portion of the plat. It could be put in the general notes of the plat. They were thinking semantics along the lines of a subdivision. Normally, in a subdivision you just show the lots and the size of the lots and the street, and everything. There would have to be a general note in the plat that the garage has to be set back 23 feet from the back of the sidewalk. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. Stan Chrzanowski. I was there for that discussion and when you submit an SDP, a site development plan, it shows the building, it shows the Page 20 September 1 O, 2003 parking lot. These are like commercial type shopping centers, 7-Elevens, industrial buildings. When you do a subdivision you're just subdividing the land, but you're not showing any of the buildings. The DSAC thought that since you didn't show the building there was no reason to put on there that the driveway had to be 23 feet long, whereas on the site development plan, you submit a plan and it shows the length of the driveway. But we didn't agree with them. We think you can put a note on there saying that the driveway has to be 23 feet long when it's designed, and that our building permit people can enforce that, and they have agreed that they can. But that's why they denied. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Stan, SDPs, you don't submit one for a PUD anymore, do you? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, the PUD allows you the zoning. Then you subdivide the land and then you take that subdivided land and submit an SDP on each subdivided parcel, unless it's single family homes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What do you do for single family homes? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Once you have a subdivision, you can just build, you just go in for your building permit. The people in the building permit department look at the single family house and check it out for setbacks, and if we had this rule they would check it out for driveway length. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it does need to be in the subdivision section? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think so. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Well, I have concerns, but let's move on. MR. WEBB: The next four items for consideration are dealing Page 21 September 1 O, 2003 with the Goodland Overlay. The only reason I lumped them together is that we have public speakers on this particular issue if neCessary, but we'll still take them individually. MS. MURRAY: These are private amendments before applicants from the Goodland Civic Association. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the Goodland people are aware of the language in here? MR. WEBB: They are. MS. MURRAY: These were submitted by them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we hear from them -- MR. WEBB: We do have members representing the Goodland Civic Association. They're the public speakers. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to give us guidance on what we should do here. MR. SCHMITT: I have three public speakers. First is Dr. Matt Finn, to be followed by Mike Barbush. Mike, if you can be ready to speak next. DR. FINN: Hi, Matt Finn. We spoke briefly at a meeting awhile back about the need for clam nurseries as a support mechanism for clam farming initiative in Collier County. Now we've worked through with Russell sort of designing the framework for the language for the amendment, and it seems to be a pretty good thing to add onto the Goodland Overlay. I think after that, what I got from Russell is we use this and move it down towards Plantation, Chokoloskee, and bring in those areas, too, because they are going to want to have nurseries, too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Thank you. DR. FINN: Now, the last time we got together there was some question about what do these things look like, so I brought a couple pictures, if you want to see. You got a little curiosity in there? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. Page 22 September 1 O, 2003 DR. FINN: Now, these are not the best looking ones and they're not the worst looking ones. They're sort of middle of the road there. MR. SCHMITT: That's going to be more the right way to look at it. DR. FINN: It's something you put behind your house, it's got a little roof over it and raceway water is pumped up into them. All this great new technology, super. That's a small one. Any questions about this picture here? I think I've got another one. I don't even know what this one is about. This one has some water being pumped up into a box which is then used to flow up to the raceway. This is a different type of design. Everyone sort of creates their own, whatever works best for them under their given circumstance. A little shade roof on the top and then the raceways. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then we're growing mussels or clams in this bin? DR. FINN: At this point we would like to grow tiny little baby clams. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what you do from there is transplant them out into the estuary? DR. FINN: That's correct, out into the Gulf. We have a leased site, which is hopefully going to be allotted to clam farmers. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great. DR. FINN: Enough pictures? You got a good idea. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how do you start, where do you get the small clams from? Do you have a mating process here? DR. FINN: Basically that's true. You would go to the breeder, who would, you know, get the mama clam and daddy clam. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Don't get too vivid now. (Laughter) DR. FINN: Hopefully, we'll be doing that eventually ourselves. But at this point, I think because we're just young-un's in this whole Page 23 September 10, 2003 clam business, the best we can hope for is to get those from one of the producers, and those clams will be like pinhead size clams. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. DR. FINN: And then the nurseries just take them from that pinhead size, like your pinky nail size, and then they're ready to go into the mesh bags and go out into the Gulf. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. Appreciate that. DR. FINN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Finn, when you get your first batch going I'll be glad to buy them from you. I'll even cook them up for you. DR. FINN: I'll give you a good deal. (Laughter) CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't want any -- don't give me any deals. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Charge him the full rate and then some. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then some. DR. FINN: Eventually when we do start producing we'll go to a shellfish dealer, and that's where you'll be getting them. You won't be buying them directly from the clam farmer, there will be actually a shellfish dealer. We're all looking forward to it, even though this process is probably going to be a couple years before actually producing. That's the kind of time frame we're working on. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Next speaker, Mike Barbush. MR. BARBUSH: Good evening, Commissioners. I'd like to give you an overview of all four of the amendments that we're going for. The Goodland Civic Association has sponsored all four of these with the help of some of the businesses in town when it comes to the sign ordinance. Page 24 September 1 O, 2003 Good evening. My name is Mike Barbush. I'm President of the Goodland Civic Association. We are before you tonight to gain approval to four amendments to the Goodland Overlay. The overlay process is the most effective way to respond to the ever-changing nature of Collier County. Tonight we request approval of four amendments: Sign requirements, parking of certain commercial vehicles and equipment, allowing existing sheds on parcels of Bayshore Drive to remain, and finally, allowing clam farming. In February of 2003, Collier County enacted a new sign ordinance. While there is a need to regulate strip malls and other commercial area signs, Goodland signs have very little to do with many portions of the ordinance. The unique character of Goodland is reflected in its signage. Many of the existing signs are 20, 30 and 40 years old and have become part of the town. A unanimous vote of the Goodland Civic Association members initiated this request to be spared from enacting the sign ordinance and to allow existing signs to remain for five years. The sign maintenance is limited to painting only. Other maintenance and repairs will void the exemption and require the sign owners to comply with division 2.5. While we understand the need for a new sign ordinance requirement, it would change the character of our village and we want our signs to remain. Secondly, we are requesting that the commercial vehicles and equipment less than 35 feet in length be allowed to be parked and stored under homes, in driveways and in swales. We are a blue collar town and sometimes our commercial vehicles are also our personal vehicles. Again, a unanimous vote of the civic association members brought you this request. We care for and respect one another in Goodland, and it's tough enough to make ends meet in these economic times. We need to help each other out as much as possible. Page 25 September 1 O, 2003 We request approval of this amendment. Third, is the issue of storage sheds on parcels of Bayshore Drive in Goodland. While many of these sheds were constructed prior to the effective date of the code it is unique that a street bisects the lots on Bayshore Drive. The small parcels on the western side of these lots are on Margood Bay and there are many boat docks. Allowing the existing sheds to remain and require the 1 O-foot Bayshore Drive setback and the waterfront setback of 10 feet for the new sheds is a fair and equitable settlement for these property owners. We also request approval of this amendment. Finally, an amendment was added by the BCC to allow clam farming to begin again in Goodland. Goodland has a long history of clam farming, and to revive it would be beneficial for our existing commercial fishermen and successive generations. Commercial fishing in Goodland has suffered greatly since the net ban took effect several years ago. Stone crabbers had a very poor harvest this year and the blue crabbing is also down. Clam farming gives another source of income to a group of the hardest working people in this county. For all of the over-regulation in this industry, it's time to help the commercial fishermen in Collier County, and we request approval of this amendment. In conclusion, the overlay process has been an effective way to gauge a community's likes and dislikes. We wish to preserve the unique fishing village that is on the fringe of the tempest that has been brought on by the development and the changing times in Collier County. We request approval of all four of these amendments for the benefit of the people of Goodland. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You got my vote. MR. BARBUSH: I'd like to highlight one thing, and I realize there may be some concern over the signs. What we're trying to do, and we only have about six or seven different businesses in Goodland Page 26 September 1 O, 2003 who have to have their signs up. What we tried to do, and we went early on with Michele, Michele Crowley and Michele Arnold from Code Enforcement, this 5-year window will give us enough time to craft a sign ordinance and to get into the more specific areas to comply a little bit more. But if anything happens to any of these signs -- God help us if this hurricane comes through or anything like that -- if there is any repair work that needs to be done to the sign, it has to come into compliance with it right away. All we're looking to do is to preserve the signs the way they are right now and just paint them in order to maintain the signs. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think all your requests are reasonable. I can't see why it would be anything that -- I think we would all want to support your efforts, all four. MR. BARBUSH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We want to keep Stan's sign up. MR. SCHMITT: if Connie waives. MS. FULLMER: Fullmer for the record. Last speaker is Connie Fullmer. I don't know No. Good evening, Commissioners. Connie I'm President of the Goodland Preservation Coalition and Secretary of the Goodland Civic Association. Both of these organizations are in support of all of the amendments to the Goodland Overlay on tonight's agenda. I'll just read a brief statement that I did write. In the year 2000 the Board of County Commissioners directed county staff to meet with the residents of the Village of Goodland to draft a zoning overlay for the purpose of establishing development criteria suitable for the unique land use and character of the Goodland community. We are an historic fishing village, and we wanted to protect and preserve the qualities that make the village special -- crab traps and fishing related equipment on residential lots around the village, boats and boat trailers in the yards, and parking of vehicles in the yards, all Page 27 September 10, 2003 activities that the Collier County Code did not allow. At that time the commercial business owners were unaware of an impending change to codes regarding business signs. The overlay did not address business signage and now the businesses are facing the possibility of having to remove existing signs that predate most of the development in the Greater Naples area. As important as the business owners' concerns are, the Goodland Preservation Coalition and Civic Association also wishes to see the existing signs remain as they are today, as they represent a record of the history of our community. Collier County encompaSses hundreds of thousands of acres. In Collier County are many communities, each with its own personality or character: The Greater Naples area, beautiful, upscale, highly developed; Immokalee is farming and ranching; Copeland, based on the logging industry; Ochopee, an old tomato farm with camping and hunting and fishing; and Chokoloskee, another unique, very isolated area of the county; and Goodland, both settled by fishermen. The idea started in Naples to standardize all the signs, and that may be a good idea for Naples, as Greater Naples has its own personality, as well. But these standards don't necessarily fit the other separate and distinct communities in Collier County. Immokalee has an overlay and addresses signage differences not in the current county code; Bayshore has an overlay and addresses signage differences from the current county code; Goodland has an overlay and wishes to grandfather our signs. When destroyed by fire, as Mike was saying, or wind or destruction, they can be upgraded to the current code. We are hopeful that we are able to retain our signs as they exist today. I did bring some of the pictures that are of the signs. If any of you haven't been down for awhile, if you want a refresher on the look of the signs. Some of the signs are actually on old boats, like Marker Page 28 September 1 O, 2003 7, and the Pink House Motel. It's an old boat and it just says "Pink House Motel" on it, and that's the character and the flavor. Stan's, of course, we all know the unique signs of Stan's, and then Island Woman, of course. But there are many smaller signs throughout the village that represent the uniqueness of the area. We are looking at sea clamming and it appears that most of you are looking favorably on the sea clamming industry, and that's going to add an additional fishing character look to the village. To redo and bring the current signs up to today's more modem standards is really going to be changing the character. We're just hoping that you see the purpose and uniqueness of letting us keep that, and then give us some time to work on standards of our own. Thank you. Any of you care to see any of these little pictures? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll entertain a motion on these Goodland items so these folks can go home and they don't have to worry about us doing anything behind their backs. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion signify by saying "aye." COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER FIALA: COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. unanimously. MS. FULLMER: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: But tonight we're not voting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're not voting? You've got to Aye. Opposed? Motion carries Page 29 September 10, 2003 come back in October. MR. SCHMITT: I would take that as rest assured they probably will be approved when they vote at the next meeting, so we won't go through them in such detail then. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Good job. DR. FINN: Thank you very much, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Get together with Commissioner Halas and show him how to do that in Naples Park. (Laughter) COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Hire these guys as consultants. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The people down in Goodland can be called consultants down there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How to get an overlay study, or overlay, I should say. MR. SCHMITT: Page 3 now, of the summary sheets, we're going to go to several landscaping and buffering, Russell. Oh, we have to wait -- we could still do it. Keep going. MS. SIEMION: Good evening. I'm Nancy Siemion, landscape architect with current planning services, and I'm here to present our 10 landscape amendments. And there's just a few items I'd like to point out. These amendments, 4 up to 10, are relocates from Division 2.8, which is our Architectural Commercial Standards Section of the code, and then we have some that are a result of our BCC workshop almost a year ago on October 4th. So beginning on page 18 LDC Section 2.4.3.1. This is a change that provides a landscape deviation process for Collier County Public Schools. This is a deviation process that implements the interlocal between Collier County and Collier County Public Schools. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions on the deviation from Page 30 September 1 O, 2003 central services? That's what we're talking about, central services; right? MS. SIEMION: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Being none, let's move on. MS. SIEMION: Okay. The next amendment is on page 21. It's LDC Section 2.4.3.1. This is an amendment that came as a result of our BCC workshop held last October 4th. This is a requirement to install landscape buffers prior to vertical construction when we have nonresidential development being constructed next to an existing residential development. Now, this particular amendment went through the subcommittees and was not supported, and the professional development community I think had some good points. It's really difficult during construction to work around landscaping. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, I agree. MS. SIEMION: Everybody understands that. So this may be one that we might want to consider withdrawing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, why don't we withdraw. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, just to refresh your memory, that was one we were asked to put together because of concerns of adjoining properties in developments, but we noted the problems that arise, and the communities, if they can, normally at least try and put the landscape buffering in on the perimeters, even for marketing reasons. So we'll take your lead on it and withdraw this one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next one? MS. SIEMION: Next one at page 23. This is another Division 2.8 relocate. It's LDC Section 2.4.3.5, and the change is to move site lighting and landscape language from Division 2.8 into Division 2.4, our minimum landscape code section. The development community was supportive of this one. They just had a simple request that we write in a minimum dimension of Page 31 September 10, 2003 12 and a half feet and you'll see that at the bottom of page 23. That's a separation of a tree from a light pole. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we go back just for a second to provide landscape process for central services of Collier County. Do we have any examples of what that landscaping is going to look like at the schools? I know there was a discussion where some schools had some landscaping and others didn't have anything at all. So what was going to be the minimum requirements? Do we have any examples of that for schools? MR. SCHMITT: The school issue becomes a difficult issue because in the interlocal agreement they have other criteria that dictate how and where they can put landscaping. For instance, from an architectural landscaping standpoint, we would like trees near buildings. They don't want them there because they climb the tree, get on the roof, vandalism, and all the other, so they have a lot of different criteria and we're going to respect their issue or at least their initial designs in regards to how they put landscaping in and around the schools, plus the costs associated. But we still have a review procedure that we've agreed to and we will comment in regards to that. But to answer your question now in single -- yes, we're going to have a chance to comment, but in fact, they still control what goes on on the school grounds. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is it going to be basically a uniform type of package from one school to the next, so that when we look at the architecture, the landscaping of that public school that once we approve that, it's going to be similar to other schools? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, there ain't going to be any landscaping. MR. SCHMITT: In most instances, yeah. For instance -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe a bush or a shrub or-- MR. SCHMITT: Nancy can talk about the example of a parking Page 32 September 10, 2003 lot, you want to have shade trees. But some of the parking lots at a school are dual use, they need a place for the band to practice, those kind of things. So those are the kind of things where we're remaining flexible. And also, they are limited on what they can spend for the entire landscaping package. Above and beyond that, it would become the community's responsibility. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I guess the point -- and I'll just bring this to a close -- the point that I'm trying to make is some schools did have some landscaping, while other schools didn't have nothing at all; they were lucky if they had grass. MR. SCHMITT: We know that, and Nancy can comment on that. MS. SIEMION: Yes. I think it's going to be site specific. Like, I can name specific examples that they have given to us when they are going to need a deviation or an exemption. Like, for example, when they develop a ball field next to a school, that's considered a joint use, so they don't want to have a landscape buffer there. We've already talked about band practice and not wanting building perimeter landscaping next to the building because there are security issues with schools. As far as the perimeter buffers adjacent to what might be existing development, like subdivisions, the schools are going to go through a compatibility review. MR. SCHMITT: We will require the landscaping, the perimeter buffering. That was one of the things we were adamant about in regards to the interlocal agreement, which, we still can demand. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have we gotten to 26 yet? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Page 33 September 1 O, 2003 that. MR. SCHMITT: Not yet. MS. SIEMION: We're just about to go there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll have a question about CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's your question? COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's about the numbers on page 27, at the top of the page. This gets a little cumbersome, but try to follow me, if you will. What this really says is that if you want to eliminate one canopy tree you have to have three palm trees; right? MS. SIEMION: Unless it's a Royal or a Phoenix species, because they are larger palms. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you cannot substitute for up to more than 30 percent of the required canopy trees. MS. SIEMION: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With the following exception: No more than 30 percent palms may be substituted for required canopy trees. Now, 30 percent palms would essentially mean 10 percent of the canopy trees were being substituted with three palms per canopy tree; you see how complex that gets? What I'm wondering is if it wouldn't be better to say that no more than 30 percent of the canopy trees may be replaced by palms at the rate of three palms per canopy tree. Right. MS. SIEMION: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, that's your intent. MS. SIEMION: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think it would be clearer if you phrased it that way, because there is opportunity for a misunderstanding here. MS. SIEMION: Okay, I can do that. That's a great suggestion. Thank you. Page 34 September 1 O, 2003 MR. WEBB: If I could just interject, what was the specific language again? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No more than 30 percent of the canopy trees may be substituted by palm trees at the rate of three palm trees per canopy tree. Right? MS. SIEMION: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No? So the grouping of three palm trees will be the equivalent of one canopy tree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can come to the mike, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. See, that's why this is complex. MR. SCHMITT: Speaker is George Fogg. MR. FOGG: George Fogg, landscape architect. You're right and not quite. The Royal palms are -- and the Phoenix palms, the Canary Island dates, are considered on a one for one basis, that's the only reason. Your concept is right but the numbers don't work out, if the palm or palm equivalent, I.E., three Sabal palms are equal to one Royal Palm or one of the Canary Island dates. The way you phrase it we can work out the wording so it does what you want, but it can't be just exactly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Any kind of-- MR. FOGG: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand that certain palms can substitute one for one for a canopy tree, but -- the Royal and the Phoenix can substitute one for one, I presume, for a canopy tree. MR. FOGG: That's correct. a three to one. COMMISSIONER COYLE: canopy tree. MR. FOGG: Yes. Then the rest of them have to be on A grouping of three palms per Page 35 September 10, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would presume -- is it true that Areca palms would be three for one? MR. FOGG: They wouldn't count anyway; they're too small. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well anyway, you understand what I'm getting at, because the way it's worded right now, it says, "No more than 30 percent palms may be substituted for required canopy trees within interior," so forth. MS. SIEMION: Actually, I'm going to point you and direct you to the sentence before that that's not underlined. Maybe that might help. "Palms may be substituted for up to 30 percent of the required canopy trees." COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MS. SIEMION: Does that help clarify it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand it, it's just that the wording is a bit cumbersome. Nevertheless, you understand where I'm going with it. If you can think of a better way to do it, fine. MS. SIEMION: We'll look at that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Otherwise, it's not a big deal. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions on this amendment? We will move on to the next one. MS. SIEMION: The next landscape code change is on page 28, it's LDC Section 2.4.5.4. This is another 2.8 relocate and it's also got some language in it from our October 4th BCC landscape workshop. The change is to add Section 2.4.5.5 and that's landscaping required for Division 2.8 buildings over 20,000 square feet. That's our big box. We also made a clarification about the amount of trees and palms that we will be requiring. And if you look at the bottom of page 28, -- actually -- it's actually the top of page 29, that's where we specify a minimum number of trees and palms for a certain amount, Page 36 September 1 O, 2003 250 square feet, of green space. So that's a slight language change. Then on the bottom of page 29, the double underlines, that's the relocate from 2.8, but the same language has just been moved over. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So this is an increase in the requirement? MS. SIEMION: A slight increase, and this is for-- it really pertains to the building perimeter landscaping, just making sure. It kind of is going to work with this next amendment that we're going to be looking at, where we have increased building foundation plantings for taller buildings. We want to try to get some vertical greening in and that would come in the form of palms and trees. So this establishes a quantity. And the next section will establish the width of the beds and the height of the plant material, depending on the height of the building. COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is for big box, so it kind of softens it. Is that the objective of this? MS. SIEMION: Yes, and that's from the October 4th workshop. We were concerned about tall buildings and how we might green them up. So we do require a little more space to fit the trees, hence the increased building foundation planting width. We'll take a look at that right now. It's on page 30. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wait, we're not done with this one. MS. SIEMION: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is this a 10 percent increase in plantings, 20? MS. SIEMION: it voluntarily before. make sure that it happens in all circumstances. CHAIRMAN HENNING: People were doing it voluntary before you weren't asking for it? MS. SIEMION: No. We would negotiate with them, we would encourage them to do it. It's kind of hard to say because they kind of did But it's always good to put it in the code to Page 37 September 10, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Development Code? MS. SIEMION: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: MS. SIEMION: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But it wasn't a part of the Land So we're creating rules? Interesting. MS. MURRAY: What? No. We're asking for the voluntary compliance to go over and above the minimum code requirement in certain cases. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Where did you say, page 30? MS. SIEMION: Yes. Okay, page 30, this has three components. One is a Division 2.8 relocate. The other is a clarification of the building perimeter landscape requirements and the other is a BCC October 4th landscape workshop directive. If we go down to the change where we state even more clearly the landscape requirements for building foundation plantings, we're moving the building foundation landscape requirements from Division 2.8 -- that's our architectural standards -- and we're moving them into minimum landscape code, Division 2.4, and then the section I was just telling you about requiring a little bit of additional space so that we can accommodate those taller trees and palms adjacent to the taller buildings. So go down to the bottom of page 30, here it is again, the minimum requirements of trees and palms, one tree or palm for every 250 square feet of landscape area; that's around the building perimeter, and if you go over to page 31, here's where we establish the criteria for a slightly wider building foundation planting width. And then proportionally we have increased the height of the trees according to the height of the building, and that's the chart you see under item (b). CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions? Please continue. Page 38 September 1 O, 2003 MS. SIEMION: Okay. The next change is on page 32. That's another BCC directive from the October 4th workshop to LDC Section 2.4.7.2, and this is -- the change is the shortening of the time period from 90 days to 60 days for an unoccupied business light to come into compliance with minimum landscape code. This came out of discussions of how we might be able to make some of those businesses along the East Trail come into compliance a little more quickly. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What do we have in the code that would require such a business also to maintain its property? I'm thinking about the Town Center mall and the problems that we've had with that for years. That property has not been maintained very well, and do we have anything in the code that would require a property owner to take care of that? MS. SIEMION: We do require that they maintain their minimum code required landscaping. And I think the challenge with Naples Town Center is that it's a very, very old shopping center and it falls under some very, very old criteria. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we were to add-- we can't apply newer land development code requirements to that shopping center? MS. SIEMION: Not unless they come in and add additional building square footage or-- I was going to say more pavement, but there is really no space to add more pavement there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any way that we can pass a land development code which would authorize us to apply new standards to some of those old developments? MS. SIEMION: I think that's kind of a Margie question. MS. STUDENT: They would have to come in to do something. They are legal nonconforming as it presently stands. Now, if there is a discontinuance of use and then they come in to resume -- Page 39 September 10, 2003 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess what I'm getting at, and it seems strange to me that we cannot require that a business maintain their property in a presentable fashion. MS. STUDENT: Well, I think that becomes a code enforcement issue then, as to what the requirements are that apply to them, and then making them adhere to those requirements. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have requirements for people to adhere to? MS. STUDENT: I'm sure there were. That is an old shopping center. That predates my time in Collier County. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I'm talking about, forget the age of the shopping center. If we were to pass a law tomorrow that says that all businesses have to maintain their property, then are you telling me that we can't apply it to all businesses upon the effective date of that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, I need to -- MS. STUDENT: What do you mean by "maintain," because "maintain" in my mind means that you keep the property in accordance with the applicable law. But if this is a permitted business or permitted commercial use that had certain standards applied to it when it came in for a site development plan, there is two issues here. If they are not keeping up with the regulations that applied to them when they came in for the site development plan, that's a code enforcement issue. To apply new ones to them, it's really legal nonconforming as to those requirements. Typically what happens if they come in for some sort of change, then they have to bring it up to the new standards. And there is also -- I mean, this goes beyond vested rights, because vested rights are when you're at a certain point in the development process and a new regulation comes into being, that you are so far along in the process that that regulation does not apply to Page 40 September 10, 2003 yOU. But this is a legal nonconforming issue that has some protection. I think it's something that probably you just have to look at and sort through Division 1.8. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Coyle, we in a previous workshop discussed this and we were tasked, and I've got Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director, working on exactly that, developing criteria for abandoned buildings, because that's really what we're talking about. The code does require at least the minimum as far as cleaning up the parking lot and those kinds of things; we can apply the codes today. But what we are specifically trying to deal with here is how can we require, for instance, the Town Center, an abandoned building boarded up. That currently meets code as long as it prevents vagrants from getting in, whatever. What we are trying to require and trying to do that if there is a legal way we can force them to maintain that building to look like it's still occupied. Now, we don't know. We're still trying to sort out whether government can actually enforce and make a property owner do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll deal with that later. MS. STUDENT: I think that's different and it's just -- we do have, I know, a housing code that requires certain things of individual property owners that own homes and having to maintain them in a certain fashion and keep them painted and the glass is in the windows, not broken. Without looking further in our, what I refer to as our Big Code, or the General Code of Laws and Ordinances, it would certainly seem that there should be something like that that would apply to commercial. I wasn't trying to imply somebody would be vested or exempt from maintaining their building. What I was talking about was enhanced landscaping provisions or something like that. Page 41 September 1 O, 2003 We have to have a hook to get them in to apply those. But certainly I understand your point about the maintenance and it would seem to me that there should be something on the books for commercial and other structures, as well as what we have for residential. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we get a report on that at some point in the future soon? MS. MURRAY: I think if I understand what you're asking for, you're asking if there's a provision in the code that requires maintenance of landscape buffers and green areas. Am I correct? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm talking about maintenance of the building, making sure it's properly painted, there are no rotting boards on the thing. There are a lot of communities that have these kinds of things and they have control over that and they can fine a business if they are not properly maintaining their property. And I think that would have protected us in many respects from the Town Hall (sic) deterioration. MR. SCHMITT: What we have is the criteria we can go in and condemn a building, and of course we can deal with that; that's our problem. But we are working on an ordinance that would require that and that was something that Commissioner Fiala approached staff awhile ago to work on that issue, as well. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. One thing back to the landscaping but again pointing to what Commissioner Coyle was saying. For instance, they might have their landscaping in place and it might not violate the code because it hasn't grown 18 inches tall. It might be dead, it might be overloaded with weeds, it still hasn't grown 18 inches tall, and the trees are dead but they are not falling over. But it looks -- it's a disgrace to look at it, and it seems the code doesn't have any rules to cover something like that. MS. SIEMION: They actually do. The plant material, we have Page 42 September 1 O, 2003 quality standards, it has to meet a Florida number one standard so when hedges become leggy or half dead they have to replace them. That's part of the maintenance of a site, and the same with the trees. So they need to always maintain at least that minimum code standard. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll have to ask Mr. Mudd or somebody from Code Enforcement to go for a ride with me so we can take a look at them up close and personal; right. MS. SIEMION: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for bringing this up, Commissioner Coyle, my hero. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Anything I can do to help. MS. SIEMION: Okay. Next change is on page 33 and there is a clarification I need to make. We have written here that we have a restatement of part of this code, but we have changed that, we have deleted that restatement. So the original language remains and the only change that we have is a relocate from Division 2.8, which is on pages 34 and 35: All of the double underlined language about water management areas and their configuration and the required amenities around them. So it's all currently in the code, it's just another section. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions? Are you shocked? MS. SIEMION: Okay, I was just watching Commissioner Fiala. We're on page 37 and the next change is to LDC Section 2.4.7.4, and that proposal was to remove the shared reduced landscape buffer language in commercial outparcels. A little while back a few years ago, it was actually 20 feet with each outparcel contributing 10 feet. We attempted to restore that original 20 feet, but the development community agreed to 15 feet, so it will be a contribution of seven and a half feet on each outparcel's part. Page 43 September 1 O, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions? MS. SIEMION: Our final landscape amendment is on page 42 and that's the LDC Section 2.4.7.5, and this was directed by the BCC several years ago, and their request was to incorporate the Golden Gate Community's Roadways Beautification Master Plan into the Land Development Code, and this language change does that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. SIEMION: And that concludes our landscape amendments. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next one. MR. WEBB: The next amendment for consideration is page 44, Section 2.5.5, permitted signs. This is basically an amendment to. allow barber pole signs, and basically that's it. As you can see, we have some dimensional requirements included in this. MR. SCHMITT: Let me correct Russell. It allows barber pole signs to rotate. We already allow barber pole signs. I know there is a misconception out there, but barber poles are in fact authorized and always have been. This allows them-- we allowed them to be illuminated, they are lit and now this one will allow them to rotate. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't think that if we allow them to rotate it might cause people to go blind? MR. SCHMITT: Good. (Laughter) COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a health, safety and welfare issue. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does this require four-fifths? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Four-fifths? (Laughter) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: COMMISSIONER FIALA: from here on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What -- Don't go to a local barber shop Do I look like I've been to a Page 44 September 10, 2003 barber shop? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, I brought up several months ago trying to get smaller lots to be able to have a monument sign. It's not here. It was months after that that we talked about the issue of barber poles. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, that's in the next cycle of LCD. We start these almost six months prior to you seeing these. We're already into the third cycle. The third cycle are printed and being reviewed right now and it's in that amendment cycle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are fortunate if you have -- the gentleman just came to the Board of Commissioners, I think it was in June on the barber pole stuff. He petitioned the Board of Commissioners, he was a barber, wanted his license back. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, and we were directed to include it in this cycle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. WEBB: The next amendment is item 2.6.9.1 and 2.6.9.2 on page 47. This is the Essential Services Section of the Land Development Code. And basically just adding fire stations, EMS substations and ancillary fire station services with conditional uses in the Ag District. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I thought we were going to make them as a permitted use. MR. SCHMITT: It was turned down by the Planning Commission and as a result, it was amended based on the guidance from the Planning Commission. And we'll certainly take your guidance on this, but this was also a result of what was discussed when we talked about schools, as well, that you wanted notification and you wanted it to be a conditional use. And that was based on that guidance for that, we went back and took the guidance from that plus the guidance from the Planning Page 45 September 1 O, 2003 Commission, and-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: There already is a conditional use. MR. SCHMITT: This is -- now this is a permitted use in A. Is that correct, Russell? MR. WEBB: No. Conditional use in B. MR. SCHMITT: Wait a minute. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The conditional is presently. MR. SCHMITT: It's a conditional use. This will -- adding fire stations, EMS substations and Sheriffs, is a permitted use in an Ag District. It's now a conditional use. What we're doing is making it a permitted use for Ag and Ag only, not the Estates. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may I can tell you gentlemen there is an area in this county where residents live, where they would like to be able to have the right of due process when something like this comes up. I'd like to see it, for one, remain a conditional use, for the simple reason that there are people who live out there. Even though it's agricultural land, there are homes out through the area. I'm sure they'd welcome it with open arms. But just because there is less of a population doesn't mean those people have any less of a right of due process. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, two reasons that I wanted to see it a permitted use is taxpayers' money. It takes a process to go through the conditional use process, and that takes time. I would think that people would be happy to have protection closer to their property. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In that case, I would suggest that we open this up to the whole county regardless of wherever and allow the same thing to take place. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, agricultural, you can't have four units per acre unless it's rezoned, and that in a sense, I would say Page 46 September 10, 2003 that yes, they should go through the application for a conditional use. But you know, we're talking about agriculture, we're talking about areas that are farming for -- they are doing trees or row crops or citrus or whatever, and it just adds too much cost for government to do business. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, it's easier to deal with a small number of people as far as putting something in their midst, rather than a large number of people in a more densely populated area would be. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, I'm not saying that at all. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm just trying to see what the difference is. Out there in what you call the agriculture, we're not talking 120 acres of agriculture, we're talking about places that are broken up into small farms and in some cases nothing more than a home on 10 acres, then there will be another home down the street. I'm saying that even these people have a right to due process. It adds a little bit of time to it and possibly a small amount of cost and this is another example of too much government coming in and shoving it down their throat just because of the fact they live on agricultural land. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Might I say also, agricultural, we have some right here in the urban area right off Rattlesnake-Hammock, for instance, by Polly Avenue, all that land back there is considered agricultural. So I think we still have areas, pockets of agricultural right here in urban Collier County. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, we had the fire department petitioned us back whenever, I don't know why you didn't share these feelings then when they were here. Shall we forward this through and get some folks in here and discuss it and come and give their viewpoint, other elected officials? Page 47 September 1 O, 2003 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not unless we open it up to the whole county and make it fair for everyone. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I need to correct the Board because this thing has evolved. On your spreadsheet on page five, the summary sheet, it says it's a permitted use in the agricultural district, and in fact I was correct when I said it's a conditional use. That was the recommendation of the Planning Commission and this was changed so it would still go through the conditional use process shown on page 48. I know you and I discussed it would be a permitted use when we looked at this for both the Ag and the Estates. It was denied for the Estates so we just went with the permitted use in the Ag District. And in fact, what was the sentiment of most everyone that reviewed it, it was rewritten here prior to coming here tonight, that it's a conditional use, and on page 48. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you confused me. As it's written right now in this amendment is it a conditional or permitted use within agricultural? MR. SCHMITT: It's a conditional use. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem with it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So can we forward it on with these amendments and deal with it at the adoption? MR. SCHMITT: We'll take your guidance now from the Board. That's what the purpose of tonight's meeting is, to take your guidance if you want to change any of this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Here's where I have my problem is, the Board gives direction and we have a majority or a super majority or unanimous, and then all of a sudden we flip-flop. So let's get the people in that asked this here to see what the Board does. MR. SCHMITT: The Board didn't direct this, Commissioner. This was from you, from the Chair asking the staff to look at this. Page 48 September 1 O, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was brought up at a Land Development Code hearing the last cycle. Now, you had a Chief and a Fire Commissioner here -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me help you with this, Commissioner Henning, because I seem to have the biggest objection. I hear what you're saying; you want to be able to bring this forward with the fire departments, with the Fire Chiefs here, and everyone else and be able to address it. I have no problem standing up in front of them and telling them I still think it's a bad idea. I saw some of the civic associations here and the people who live out in the rural area. If you would like, I will give you this wish if you also grant me something similar in the future. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's a public hearing, Commissioner, everybody is invited. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not talking about that. I mean about allowing it to go on and be able to make the decision later. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What would you like to do with this, Commissioner? You want it continued? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if I had a choice, I'd like to keep it as a conditional use. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm saying we're forwarding it on like it is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Keep it as a conditional. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to forward it on with the changes as is, as written. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Conditional. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item. MR. WEBB: The next item for consideration is on page 49, Section 2.6.11, expenses. I believe most of this is relocation, if I'm not mistaken. There is new language on page 52, although it looks Page 49 September 1 O, 2003 like it's relocated from Division 2.8. MS. MURRAY: All of this is relocated, Russ. There is no change. MR. WEBB: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? Seeing none. MR. WEBB: The next item is on page 55, Section 2.7.2.3.5, Zoning Amendment Procedures. This is a change to clarify the advertising requirement for the neighborhood information meetings. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we get a brief description of what that is? Any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may. What is this change from the way it is, that's what I'm trying to read. COMMISSIONER HALAS: They have added it in with the first underline, the additional verbiage. MS. MURRAY: This change talks about providing the -- let me review; I'm sorry, Linda's not here, I thought she would be. So I'm going to just get up to speed here real quickly. Previously we had the neighborhood information meetings scheduled after a preapplication meeting and prior to submitting the actual application. Now what we're proposing is to have the neighborhood information meeting after at least the initial review from staff, because what was happening was staff was going to the meetings and staff didn't really even know about the project, obviously, because it hadn't been submitted, so they were learning about it at that point, too. We decided if we held an informational review that we could provide information to the public, plus the applicant would get back staff's comments and if they needed to make any adjustments to their project they could, and they would have a better idea of how staff was feeling about the project in relationship to the code, and then they could give more accurate information to the public in terms of Page 50 September 10, 2003 what the project was going to be like. MR. SCHMITT: In essence, all it's doing is moving the neighborhood information meeting a little bit later in the process. And it provides both the applicant and staff could work out the bugs before going to the public. We would go to the informational meeting and we'd be learning something just as well as the public. We had no idea what was going to be presented. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I like it for one simple reason. When you get to them and you're too early on, you start to make changes. Later on, you go back, they think you're pulling a fast one. If you have a more concise picture which could be offered, I think it's a better product in the end. MS. MURRAY: The remaining changes, I believe, are just clarification to existing language. Nothing substantive; that was the only substantive change. COMMISSIONER HALAS: There also will be enough leeway in there so that if there needs to be any changes that are put forth by the citizens, that the process will still allow itself that that can happen; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. There is still plenty of time in the process. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just so that the citizens don't feel that it's already been a done deal and there is no way they can change it. MS. MURRAY: Absolutely, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's very, very important that the citizens have that ability, to make sure that they can put their input into it. MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Jim Mudd for the record. You had had a couple of times where developers had come forward to the Board, addressed the Board, and they had done the neighborhood information meeting, and because of the meeting, things had Page 51 September 1 O, 2003 changed. Then the homeowners' groups or neighbors would come forward and the developer would be presenting a plan that had changed from the time that the neighborhood information meeting had taken place, and therefore they felt like they had been deceived. The Board gave staff some direction to modify the time so that the neighborhood information meeting would take place with full information after a staff review, so it would minimize the changes to either the plan, the building, the landscaping or whatever that's being briefed at the neighborhood information meeting, so that everybody would have a clear picture of what was there, so that everybody would see it and it wouldn't look like something that had changed after the neighborhood information meeting. It almost got to the point where you needed to have the initial neighborhood information meeting, you get a staff review, then you had to have another one in order to get it done. It got very cumbersome and very awkward for this Board, and that's why you gave us direction to work on the time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand. Good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? Next item. MR. WEBB: Next item for consideration is on page 59 -- I'm sorry; is that the one we just did? No. It's on page 59, Zoning Amendment Procedures, and I need to point out that we also had some modification to the language and that's one of the handouts that I gave to you. It's also numbered page 59 to correspond with the original packet. It's basically just the language of the Development Services Director has been changed to Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator or his designee. Also, other portions of this language are in the process of being changed at the moment; it's sort of a work in progress. If you could bear with staff on this, we're still modifying it. Page 52 September 1 O, 2003 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. That's great. Speeds up the monitoring process. Next item -- I'm sorry -- any questions? Seeing none, move on. MR. WEBB: The next item -- I guess we dealt with the ones on page 66 and 74, so the next item for consideration is on page 80. It's the Definition Section or Division of the code, Section 6.3. MS. MURRAY: Russ, what about page 61, Section 277? MR. WEBB: Sorry, did I skip over one? Apologize for that. Page 61, Section 2.7.7 deals with the affordable housing density bonus, and David Weeks is here to speak on this. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, for the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff. In short, what we are doing is deleting a provision that no longer has any applicability. It would be like saying if you could have affordable housing only on property of elevation of 60 feet in Collier County. Well, that doesn't exist. We are deleting a provision that has no applicability. It's not taking away any opportunity for affordable housing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next one. MS. MURRAY: We'll be up to page 80. MR. WEBB: Yes, and the next item for consideration is on page 80. This -- also there's been new language added in one of the handouts that I passed out earlier to you. MS. MURRAY: This was primarily dealing with the interlocal agreement with the School Board and the definitions needed to be added to the Land Development Code pursuant to that. MR. WEBB: Right. This one and the next one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? Okay. MR. WEBB: The next item appears on -- well, it doesn't appear on page 82 of your packet. I mistakenly included the amendment that was on page 80 twice, but I've subsequently added, handed out a handout to you which is numbered page 82, so that is the one that Page 53 September 10, 2003 was supposed to be included. These are more definitions, as Susan pointed out, relating to the interlocal agreement. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What happened to page 81 ? MS. MURRAY: Page 81 was considered at the same time page 80 was. I think we kind of went over that a little quickly. We didn't have clear definitions about fire stations and fire station services, and we were adding language about that so we could clarify what the difference was and how to apply the specific code provisions related to that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. MR. MUDD: Do all the Commissioners have the 82 handout? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. All right. Any questions? No questions. MR. WEBB: Okay. The last item for consideration is an appendix which appears on page 83 of the initial handout. This is basically a housekeeping issue. The Appendix C was not included in the ordinance title page for Cycle One although it was presented to all the Boards. So we're merely presenting it now to address advertising concerns. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions? Is that it? MR. WEBB: That's the last one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other business? MR. SCHMITT: That concludes our run-through of the Land Development Codes. I just would ask, Commissioner, if I could, again on 47 you wanted us to put the page 47, the essential services, you want to bring it back as written or do you want to modify it? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I don't want -- I don't think it's fair to deal with it -- I mean, I would like it as a permitted use. MR. SCHMITT: It's written now as a conditional use. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And can't we address that at the adoption? Page 54 September 10, 2003 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Leave it in there and deal with it at adoption. Any other business? Yes, ma'am. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I believe it was already generally stated when our next hearing will be, but under state law it needs to be announced by the Chairman, the date, time and place of our next LDC hearing. So, just a formality. I heard somebody say the date October 8th in these chambers at 5:05, I presume. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But there was a problem that I believe David Weigel was going to look into because I was not going to be here, and there was another person that was going to be on medical leave, that's Commissioner Fiala. So there was a discussion what the formality was going to be and we may have to change the date. MS. STUDENT: That's correct because we need four affirmative votes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll be on my phone and in touch, but David didn't know whether that would be acceptable, to conduct it from my home but on a secret phone, or whether I had to be here in person. COMMISSIONER HALAS: leave, that's what I'm saying. COMMISSIONER FIALA: COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you're going to be on medical Well, I can do it from home. Well, if not, then I think we ought to change the date so that we're all here. If your presence is needed here, I think what we need to do then is change the date if it's possible. If-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, we've dealt with this before. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure. If her presence -- MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Jim Mudd. David was going to come back and let us know one way or the other on that Page 55 September 10, 2003 process. But as far as the planning purposes right now we're in good shape so far, and the announcement would be at the next meeting, the second reading is on the 8th of October at 5:05 p.m. in this chambers. And if there is anything different than that, we'll get the proper advertisement out and everything else. But so far I've heard nothing. I think it would be fine, Commissioner Fiala being there via phone. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, is there any way we can reach you by phone? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm probably going to be out of phone reach. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. Any other business? Seeing none, we are adjourned. Page 56 September 10, 2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:50 p.m. BOARD OF CO'UNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONT~ , . TOM HENN'-'J~, C~hai ' an ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK ' S~gnature onlY. These minutes/approved by the Board on as presented v/ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY KAYE GRAY Page 57