Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/01/2006 LDC August 1, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LDC MEETING Naples, Florida August 1,2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein (Absent) Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (Absent) Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff (Absent) Robert Vigliotti (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Catherine Fabacher, Principal Planner Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 August 1, 2006 (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome to the continuation of the Land Development Code Cycle 1 reading. This is our first hearing. And we hope to get through most of this today. We left off, we have completed two elements of the environmental section and the smart growth issues. And I'd like to start where we left off on the environmental and wrap up all the environmental issues this morning, if Mr. Lorenz and his staff are ready. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. FABACHER: I think we probably need to state for the record that this is a continuation of the June 1 st meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said it was a continuation. I didn't say the date. So yes, it's a continuation of the June 1 st meeting. How's that? Sorry. MS. FABACHER: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to do is go back to the method that we had used in the past to get through these, and that simply was less staff presentation and more questions, should the panel have any, and then questions from the public. The first couple issues, Bill, that you had were much more intense and probably less understood than some of the ones we're going to be going through now, so maybe we can expedite this by just getting you to respond to questions rather than make a presentation, unless there's some changes that you feel are necessary to put on the record. MS. FABACHER: I have -- I'm sorry, excuse me, Mr. Chair. For the record, Catherine Fabacher. I didn't get to distribute this latest version. Would you like to do that? Page 2 August 1, 2006 MR. LORENZ: Is this for the stormwater where we -- MS. FABACHER: Stormwater, where you just made some minor changes, Barbara, with corrections. Or is it not important? MS. BURGESON: That was really created for the DSAC meeting. MS. FABACHER: Oh, okay, good. Sorry. MR. LORENZ: And just for some more reference, that was also based upon some comments we received from the public. And we will try and work through ideas for the stormwater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that an issue -- we have not -- well, we discussed one aspect of the stormwater. Is there any others or is that the same issue? MR. LORENZ: It's the same issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd just as soon not give it to us today because we certainly can't digest it. Let's just discuss it on the final hearing when we go for our second hearing. MR. LORENZ: That's where I was going. And then the rest of the amendments all basically turn over to Barbara. Barbara will be answering the questions, or I may weigh in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Barbara, if it's convenient, we can take them in the order that they appear on the packet and then we can just work through them page by page, if that's okay. MS. BURGESON: When we met last, I don't believe that the board had any discussion on the stormwater amendment. I know we were running a little bit late and it was a little bit after 8:00. So the public was able to provide their comments before the meeting closed, but I don't believe that you got into any discussions on that. So I think that's where we need to pick up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Generally we would have asked our questions before the public came up. But let's go back to that section, take a second look at it and if we have any questions we didn't ask before, let's ask them right now and get them over with. Page 3 August 1, 2006 Do you know what pages those are on? MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, that would be on Page 93. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. BURGESON: Just to refresh your memory, what was discussed at the last meeting was a question of the three-foot control elevation. We did meet with staff and felt it was appropriate to leave that in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, I'm looking at my notes. I had asked all of my questions, so I know that we did have some panel interaction prior to the public then or after. This one takes us from Page 93 through 94- F, I think it is. MS. BURGESON: Next amendment is on Page 95. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's make sure. Is there any questions from the planning commission members on the issue of stormwater -- the stormwater issue that we had previously discussed? Does anybody have any lingering questions on Pages 93 through 94? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have one question. By allowing preserves to be used for treated stormwater, does this have the potential for just creating more impervious surfaces in developments? MS. BURGESON: It would in the fact that -- in the past you used to have more separated preserves and retention or detention areas. So the more these areas are potentially shared, the more potential there would be. Now, there are other regulations that say that you can't have more than -- and the open space regulations might be 60/40. I'm not -- that's more of a planning issue on open space. But I would say that this would create the potential for that, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. LORENZ: Let me -- I think that that's correct. MS. BURGESON: Or allow for that. MR. LORENZ: Because what you would be using the preserves Page 4 August 1, 2006 as, there's additional land area available to be utilized for storage of your stormwater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another way to ask the question, does this change the maximum allowed use of impervious area -- yeah, impervious area? Is there a maximum impervious area that one can apply to a site? MR. LORENZ: The way the impervious area factors into a system, and it would be good if I had a stormwater engineer here, so let me just kind of condition this to my knowledge, that the stormwater is regulated through the water management district through off-site discharge requirements, rate of discharge. That rate of discharge -- or that -- the amount of treatment that you have to provide to get to that rate of discharge will depend upon your impervious area. So to the degree that you've got more land available to capture those -- that stormwater to meet your allowable discharge rates, would then -- should allow that you have more impervious area in your development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, are there -- go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have another question. We had a discussion during the EAR amendments on the term benefit. Are we going to run into the same situation here? MR. LORENZ: In the EAR based amendments, we proposed and the board transmitted the term no adverse impacts. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. MR. LORENZ: And these regulations are being designed to give us the -- as much as we can in terms of certainty. As we apply these amendments, these amendments will give us that no adverse impact condition for the vegetative communities and preserves that will receive stormwater. COMMISSIONER CARON: And then one final question. How is it that you're going to monitor this? How are you going to know? Page 5 August 1, 2006 MR. LORENZ: The -- on Page 94-E, there is a monitoring program that's specified. And for the first five years, the owner, the developer, whoever is responsible for the system will need to be submitting annual monitoring reports looking at the various parameters that we've listed here. So that will be self-reporting to the county, and then we'll be evaluating -- if we're seeing -- for instance, if we're seeing lots of problems that are occurring, then obviously we need to come back and relook at the criteria. COMMISSIONER CARON: But it is a self-reporting situation. MR. LORENZ: Correct. MS. BURGESON: As a reminder, the EAC's recommendation on this LDC amendment was threefold: One, was to require stormwater be fully treated, with the second and third related more to this question. And that's to evaluate future need for stormwater quality monitoring, as opposed to the water quantity monitoring, which is really what's being addressed here. They were looking at stormwater quality monitoring, evaluate for that for the potential next cycle. And the last stipulation was that if vegetation monitoring identified a problem, then they wanted to require additional water quality testing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go further, Ms. Caron, there's one thing I'd like to ask you to do. And I completely forgot the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: And so did I. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. Page 6 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Sort of here. And Mr. Adelstein is absent. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here, I hope. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti and Mr. Tuff are both absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein had notified me that he may not be here today because he is a sixth-time grandfather of a daughter. So he's very excited and he's attending to family affairs, so he will miss the exciting meeting we're going to have today. Now, back to Brad. Do you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bill, if a site's designed out and we tend to maximize everything when we do it, and there was a problem with this and the problem would be is that the stormwater is kind of destroying the wetland, what would be the -- how would we solve that? What would we do to back away from that? MR. LORENZ: Well, at this point the requirement would be that the vegetation would have to be replaced with suitable vegetation that would meet the new hydrologic conditions. So you wouldn't be in a position -- I mean, the assumption I'd be making is that you're not going to be in a position to retrofit the stormwater system, and so therefore you'd have to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Change the preserve. MR. LORENZ: -- change the preserve character with regard to the vegetative communities that would be planted in there. MS. BURGESON: What's complicated about that is that you have a soil type existing and you're changing the hydrology. So we're going to have to evaluate what's the appropriate vegetation for one soil type when the hydrology might not be completely compatible with that soil type. So we'll probably be looking at having them restore or replant a slightly transitional community. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. Page 7 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead. If I could just follow up on one thing. But once you have to replace or make a correction, won't the same thing happen over again because you can't go back and retrofit the stormwater management system itself? MR. LORENZ: Well, the assumption there would be you'd be selecting a set of plants that are -- COMMISSIONER CARON: More tolerant. MR. LORENZ: -- more tolerant of the, quote, new conditions. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that same vein, if you're going to actually change the preserve and it's a matter of soil, would there be any basis, any good reason to change the soil as well if we're going to acknowledge that we're effective? Is this observed, maybe? MS. BURGESON: You really can't do that. We're talking about COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I mean, that's my point. It's absurd. So we really do have an ongoing process of replanting plants that are tolerant to water in soils that may not support it. That's what you're -- if I understand you correctly. MS. BURGESON: Hopefully that won't be the case. We really can't say. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions on stormwater? If not, we can move on to the first new environmental item in our package. MS. BURGESON: Actually, let's move back to the very beginning and go back to Page 1. I'll try to go quickly through this. The first one is very simple, it's just adding FLUCCS identification to the code that's not already been in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it may not be that simple. Page 8 August 1, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: Could I suggest that we start off on the right-of-way permits, vegetative removal permits, Page 83. I think that's your first substantive -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wanted to start and get Barbara's department done with through the book. And I thought she said Page 1 is hers. MS. FABACHER: Oh, okay, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, is it? I mean, whose is it? MS. BURGESON: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some of it. MS. F ABACHER: There's a whole bunch of it that's everybody else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Page 1 is just your FLUCCS code entry. That's the only thing you have in that. MS. BURGESON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will we be bringing Page 1 back for further discussion? MS. FABACHER: We certainly will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll hold our questions until then. MS. BURGESON: On Page 7 with LDC amendment, in the definitions and in reference, cross references to the potential services sections, we've identified and added a passive recreation definition. And if you have questions to that, I'd be more than happy to answer those questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, would this have applied to, for example, the Keewaydin issue? And if it did apply to the Keewaydin issue, because they were claiming passive recreation under the agricultural conditional use, I don't see a clubhouse listed in some of the uses that would include passive recreation. Although you didn't Page 9 August 1, 2006 list -- they're not limited to those listed, but I just was curious how it would fit in. MS. BURGESON: By this definition and our interpretation of this definition, that would not have qualified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought when I read this. MS. BURGESON: This clearly wasn't intended to reflect anything recently. This is something that has been an issue for a little while, and mostly has to do with Conservation Collier's concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you were to look at the Attorney General's site, you'd even see that the definition of passive recreation is not defined in Florida Statutes and has been a troublesome issue for his department as well, because it isn't defined. I'm glad to see we're defining it. It's also interesting that this would eliminate even applications such as the Keewaydin application. MS. BURGESON: Right. If they were limited to passive recreation, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County's going to be challenged by that soon too. Interesting. Brad, then Catherine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Catherine can go first. MS. F ABACHER: I want to say that this also applies to Conservation Collier lands, and that's -- essentially, Alex Sulecki worked with Barbara. So this is to also apply to those Conservation Collier and it comes from her too, so that's kind of why it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I realized that was the intent of its creation, but the way it's being entered into the code, it would be a definition under the definition section. It wouldn't be exclusive of -- MS. FABACHER: No, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Conservation Collier, so it would go across the board. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. Page 10 August 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, what kind of structures would be allowed? Some of these activities would require I think at least restroom facilities. So does this mean that no structures are allowed in passive recreation areas? MS. BURGESON: No. For instance, you do have small restroom facilities that are associated with some parks. You do have structures that are overlooks or for -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay. MS. BURGESON: -- watch towers, things of that nature. We've even had some very small chickee structures that could be used for educational purposes, if you have a small classroom learning situation. But you have to remember, there's -- passive recreation is one definition, and then there's preserve limitations, too. So even though we would allow passive recreation to be identified with more structures associated with it, those structures would not be permitted in the Collier County preserves unless they were identified in a different section. Unless they would not be causing that preserve to have less than native vegetation requirements. MS. F ABACHER: Beach -- so kind of jurisdiction, whether it be a preserve or whether it be in RLSA, or wherever it is, can still have additional language, like they did when you see the Conservation Collier, that they said passive recreational activities, but also others. Now, generally in Conservation Collier lands, if you're going to build something clear for a pad, you know, put in restrooms, then that would be a conditional use that they would have to come -- this is just in the preserves -- I'm sorry, Conservation Collier lands. So whenever it went in the code, it could be limited, and at this point if the meaning wasn't clear, because it says examples of passive recreation include but are not limited to, it's still open to kind of an interpretation. Plus wherever you put it, you could add other uses or Page 11 August 1, 2006 make other uses conditional. So if you're thinking it applies across the board, I just wanted to say that's how we would use it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it does apply across the board if you put it in the definition section. Jeff? MR. KLA TZKOW: I'll tell you, from a legal standpoint I'm not entirely sure what the intent was when we included the non-motorized access to that. And I don't want there to be later a misinterpretation of the intent and have some significant impacts or shutting down access towards Conservation Collier lands or preventing right-of-way through these areas or you being able to get there. I would consider passive recreation to be kayaking, for example. I don't know how I'm supposed to get there if I don't have a car that can carry my kayak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can do that. They weigh 42 pounds. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, they're kind of heavy, yeah. So I'm not entirely sure why we included non-motorized access in the definition, and I would ask that it be eliminated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any problems -- Bill? MR. LORENZ: One thing, and I kind of look to Catherine. I think that we've kind of worked this language through with Susan Murray and David Weeks to try to create a definition of passive recreation that would be the basis for utilization throughout the code. And then whenever some type of activity is specified -- is to be allowed, it would utilize this definition and then could go on further and establish some additional uses to tailor upon the situation. So I think that was kind of the thinking of how this was going to be the framework and structure. Again, I think it's probably worthwhile just to make sure we can confirm that with David and Susan. But if you think of that along those lines, if you don't specify any Page 12 August 1, 2006 additional uses when you say passive recreation, then you would of course be limited to this definition. MS. BURGESON: Right. And as it's written, it does state activities typically characterized by that. So it doesn't absolutely preclude motorized access but it says activities that are typically characterized by non-motorized access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As complicated as our code is to interpret and as different types of interpretations I certainly see, I don't know why we wouldn't want to take legal advice and drop those words. I don't see what it harms. And that would eliminate the confusion. And also the word below that, it says in addition these activities are not deemed to be harmful to the natural resources. Instead of the word harmful, maybe we want to look at the language that Commissioner Caron was previously referencing, not deemed to have negative impacts, something consistent with the language as we typically would have used so we don't have to get into what or how something is too harmful or less harmful or any degree of harm. I think if you made those two corrections, it would help. Anybody else have any comments? Yes, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think probably if we just got rid of the word access. And then you would state that it would be minimal site impact when we have non-motorized, we refer more to the activities. The access does sound like how you get to the activity. Your intent is I don't think you want motorized activities. MS. BURGESON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think if you get rid of the word access, I mean, how we design the parking lot would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: I understand where we're getting at. Perhaps we can get there by -- on the example saying, you know, Page 13 August 1, 2006 examples of passive recreation include, and then at the end, you know, but exclude motorized activities such as ATV use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't want any electric motors on boats or any motorized, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Barbara, with the discussion that we've had, do you see some ways that you could come back at our final hearing with some changes to this to clarify the intent? MS. BURGESON: I can. One thing I want to make sure is I understand your intent. From time to time you get requests for, for instance, a swamp buggy slow tour through a preserve area. Panther preserve utilizes them. That would be motorized use. So we're not looking to completely remove that, are we? Or are we? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't that require a variance to get that use? And then it would go before a public hearing, rather than be a permitted use? MS. BURGESON : Well, the conditional use process is included in the Conservation Collier program. But I would have to talk to David Weeks and to maybe Susan Murray to find out whether or not there's a conditional use or a variance to passive recreational definitions throughout the code. So we can look at it a little bit more. Is the intent to remove it if it's appropriate if there's another way to have motorized use of the property through a variance? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's an open avenue to anybody at all times, isn't it? I mean, anybody can come in for a variance -- MS. FABACHER: No, you can't vary a permitted use. You can only vary dimensional through the variance process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have to have a rezone. MS. FABACHER: You'd have to put in a conditional use, or it would be a permitted use, otherwise there's no way to do that. Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing I'd suggest, too, Barbara, is before you bring it back to us, ask legal to review it so that Page 14 August 1, 2006 we don't have any conflict in the language as far as whether motorized vehicles -- I don't -- I think that where we have allowed the motorized vehicles in the past, such as that Janes Scenic Highway one down off 41, that went through the public process, it was adequately styled to work in that facility. And I thought that was a positive, not a negative. So I think we ought to make sure there is some way to allow that. Do the rest of you have any concerns on that? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I mean, I think it should come back via conditional use. And I think that Mr. Schiffer's point on that first sentence certainly takes care of it, if you just say and non-motorized activities. Then Mr. Klatzkow can still get his car to the parking lot and get his kayak into the water. And me, too, I might add. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think with that direction, you can come back to us with something a little cleaner. What's the next one? MS. BURGESON: The next one is on Page 83, and that's amendment 3.05.02. We're adding exemptions for work in publicly owned right-of-ways and providing for clarification for exemptions for single- family clearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any questions from the panel? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a note here for myself. Who's charged with the inspection and the enforcement on this? MS. BURGESON: The inspectors out of the engineering department staff would do the inspections for the single-family homes. And I'm not sure whether there's inspections for publicly owned right-of-way construction, but I can check into that, if you're interested. Page 15 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I think that's good for now, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On Page 84, on Item D, last line there I think is a redundancy -- it said existed and existing. You probably want to delete existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's existing language that he's referring to. It's actually the word existing for existing language. If you can change existing language, I know that's not the topic of today's but if one of those words are inappropriate and you could change it, you might as well clean it up. Anything else, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I did. On Page 86, item number six, and I guess the intent of this is this gives them the ability to do this over private land if there's an existing easement; is that right? MS. BURGESON: No, actually, the intent of this was to -- this is after the right-of-way for those lines or public utilities have been established and constructed. So you're looking at the county would already have acquired that land. The -- these two were added on as a result of state statute proposed change about two or three months ago. And at that point it was likely that the state was going to obligate the counties to adopt similar language. So we just took a proactive position to take the language -- this is practically verbatim from that proposed state statute. But it's to remove staff from the need to review publicly established -- and so that would be however you need to publicly Page 16 August 1, 2006 establish that you have that right-of-way, and whether that's by ownership or by -- if a road right-of-way can be an easement, I'm just not too sure. The other items, number seven, are similar in that the publicly owned, again that language, publicly owned right-of-ways and canals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that answer your question, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, they just have free rein then, you have no control over them? MS. BURGESON: Well, through the last sentence in each of those paragraphs, all the environmental permits and management plans have to be obtained prior to them doing any work on that land, particularly itemized here are listed species issues and wetland impacts. So they're still an obligation for those departments and agencies to obtain all those permits. We just will not -- we probably will not have any enforcement capability since they are not going to be required to get any permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of -- go ahead, Bill. MR. LORENZ: Just to add, these are within publicly owned road right-of-ways. So the intention here is you're going to be putting the road in the right-of-way, certainly for number seven. So in that sense, when, let's say, transportation, county transportation comes into the county's staff and they've got a right-of-way, the question we would have is it just seems to be a paper process for us to issue a permit for something that's going to occur. The county agency DOT still has to get, you know, federal and state permits for clearing through that right-of-way. MS. BURGESON: Right. And remember, this is also after both the languages here, after right-of-way has been established and constructed. At that point these have gone through Board of County Commissioners reviews in terms of typically the budgeting and the proposal for that construction. Page 1 7 August 1, 2006 If it's like electrical transmission lines, such as what FP&L is putting through right now, those power lines went through probably two years worth of meetings, public meetings and hearings and permitting processes to get to the point where they're ready for clearing. The only issue wouldn't be that they haven't gotten all the permits. The issues might be if in the construction they make a mistake or overclear or do something that we wouldn't have permitted, this takes us out of that process and we would have to defer to state and federal permitting agencies for them to do the mitigation or the compliance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question I think is on number six -- this is only for a right-of-way. In other words, they own the lands, it's not an easement. A lot of transmission lines are on easements. So this would not apply to that condition then. MS. BURGESON: They would have to create a right-of-way. I'm not saying -- MR. LORENZ: It applies to these -- MS. BURGESON: The first one doesn't specifically say-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, please. Let her finish and then I'll call on Jeff. MS. BURGESON: The first one doesn't specifically identify that it's a publicly owned right-of-way. But if there's some legal inferral that transmission lines and public utilities have to be in publicly-owned right-of-ways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: The way it's constructed, the right-of-way could be fear by easement, that's the way it's drafted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then it could be going over some private property via the easement. MS. BURGESON: Right. And that is how that power line, transmission line that FP &L created, they actually go through a lot of Page 18 August 1, 2006 private lands. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does the property owner have any -- what does he do in this case, he just sees this happening -- MS. BURGESON: I did attend those meetings for those transmission lines, and there were a lot of public attending those meetings and they presented their case. Some were clearly unhappy about major transmission lines going adjacent to their property and in some cases over their property. The negotiations were through, I think, some mediation between the agencies and property owners and then whatever process might be needed to finalize those transmission line routings is probably a legal Issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is specific, we have a, like a PUD, some of them we get there's a transmission line running through it. So what this states is that within that PUD, they would not have to get any permits to do any kind of activities that you're describing here? MS. BURGESON: Listed here, clearing within that power line. If they need to do clearing or maintaining or trimming of vegetation within that power line, we would not need to issue them a permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the property owner can do that, not just the utility? MS. BURGESON: When a -- by definition, the underlying owner is the one that is the responsible party. Whether FP &L permits the homeowners association to clear, it would have to be in conjunction with a need in that easement. It clearly is not the intent to say -- because there are some existing FP&L easements that are fully vegetated right now. The intent is not to permit anyone to fully clear that. The intent is only in the maintenance of those power lines and those utilities that the clearing and the trimming be permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, did you have something you Page 19 August 1, 2006 wanted to add? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, this language doesn't diminish or increase any existing legal rights that the property owner would have. It's simply saying that if you want to clean a power line of trees, you don't have to come to the county for permission. If our county right-of-way folks want to put asphalt down, they don't have to get a vegetative permit before they put the asphalt down. It only deals with the county. It doesn't deal with state or federal permitting. And it doesn't alter or diminish in any way the rights of existing property owners. These things are in easements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doesn't it increase their abilities? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think it does anything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because we do get plans where a lot of times parking is in there. So that means that once we approve it they can't go back and just asphalt the whole thing over and we have no control over that? MR. KLATZKOW: No, this is right-of-way. So if the county owns a pIece -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the right-of-way? MR. KLATZKOW: If the county owns like right-of-way along Immokalee Road that we acquired when we expanded, we don't need a vegetative permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not at all concerned about road right-of-ways. What I'm concerned about is there is a lot of right-of-ways that go across private property. I call them easements. You're saying they fall under the definition of right-of-way. And we do see that on properties where they don't build buildings and stuff, but they put a lot of parking, they put landscaping in there. MS. BURGESON: This is just to not require them to have to get that clearing permit. They would still have to -- for instance, it says trimming and pruning shall be in accordance with -- Page 20 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- enough said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have two questions, Barbara. Number 6, after the right-of-way for an electrical transmission line or public utility distribution line has been established and constructed, local government may not require any clearing permits. If it's already constructed, what would they need a clearing permit for? MS. BURGESON: This is, as I said, verbatim out of that state statute. And the purpose for it was so that with vegetation over the years that grows up within the right-of-way or if they're expanding and adding an additional utility line within the right-of-way, or they're just looking to maintain areas more free of vegetation, clearing a -- trimming trees down to the point where they're going to cause them to die is considered removal. And so the way that FP &L clears vegetation or maintains vegetation, it's actually considered vegetation removal. But again, this is strictly out of the state statute, this is as they -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, I understand. You've said that numerous times. I don't necessarily think our state statutes make sense most of the time. So I'm not coming from there, I'm trying to make our code clear and understandable. I don't -- could care less what state statutes say, as long as we somehow meet their intent. All I'm saying is if it's been constructed, as this one seems to indicate, we now are saying that after construction, if you want to go out and maintain it, clear regrowth, you don't need a clearing permit. Would you normally have need of a clearing permit? MS. BURGESON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you go clear property and if it grows back, you can't reclear it without another clearing permit? MS. BURGESON: If it's a commercial piece of property and you need a -- or a conditional use or public property such as the right-of-ways, they are required to get a permit for vegetation removal, if it's regrowth, yes. Single-family homes are exempt. Page 21 August 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but 1-- if the county -- I mean, I just drove by the east section of Vanderbilt Beach Road where they're going to remove all those homes and they've got some dirt piled up on the current construction area, and it's got a lot of growth on top of that dirt pile. They need a vegetation permit now to clear that growth? MS. BURGESON: Not on a spoil pile, that type of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what about on flat surfaces? I'm just wondering. It seems pretty absurd. If they've already got a clearing permit and they go ahead and put the lines in, now we're telling them to maintain that line area they have to get another clearing permit? MS. BURGESON: Not if their clearing plan -- if their site clearing plan for that project identifies it as that area could be cleared, then they can maintain that area clear. If the site clearing plan identified that area was not initially to be cleared, then they wouldn't be able -- they wouldn't have to maintain it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, then we're right back to my original question. If they got a construction permit -- a clearing permit originally, they don't ever need to get another one then? I'mjust wondering why -- it seems like we have to fix some absurd interpretation of a prior code by providing silly language just to make it fit. And I'm just -- it just doesn't -- if it helps the situation, fine. MS. BURGESON: Right. In most cases, for instance, site clearing plans that identify preserves as the only area to not be cleared are fairly recent items. Prior to the mid-1990's, you had a site clearing plan that showed only the infrastructure that could be cleared for your building and your parking and the necessary infrastructure. Everything outside of that on a site clearing plan you could not clear, including the vegetation that was between the buildings and the areas that were preserved. So in a case like that where you might want to come in and clear between buildings, your site clearing plan would require that you get a Page 22 August 1, 2006 permit to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, because it's new clearing. MS. BURGESON: Right. And it was not identified in the initial CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's a good interpretation, and it's always been that way. And that's -- anyway, this is going to attempt to clear something up, I'll go along with it. I just wanted to explain that, it doesn't make a lot of sense -- but anyway. Let's go on to number seven. MS. BURGESON: Well, actually, a freestanding vegetation removal permit is good for six months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number seven, the first sentence after publicly-owned right-of-way or publicly-owned canal has been legally secured, a local government may not require clearing permits for vegetation removal, maintenance tree pruning or trimming within the established road right-of-way. Okay. Well, how does that help the publicly-owned canal? Is the canal in a road right-of-way always? What's your intent here? Because you seem to address the first part of the sentence which says publicly-owned road right-of-way and you went on to further describe a publicly-owned canal like it was a separate thing. But then you said this exception is only for the road right-of-way, you don't re-mention the canals. MS. BURGESON: Again, I'm just taking that verbatim out of the state statute language. It would, to attempt to answer your question, from discussions I've had with the transportation department, the publicly-owned canals adjacent to publicly-owned road right-of-ways are part of that right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about all the canals in Golden Gate Estates? I can tell you, they're not road right-of-ways, they're canal easements. So would they be allowed to be cleared? MS. BURGESON: If they're publicly-owned canals, yes. Page 23 August 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't say that. It says only the road right-of-ways. And all I'm suggesting, since we can embellish it, why don't we make it clear, so when the public or somebody comes in and reads this we know exactly -- MS. BURGESON: This says or. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MS. BURGESON: This says or, and/or publicly-- MR. LORENZ: Just -- I think Commissioner Strain, you're talking about the last fixes within the established -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Road. MR. LORENZ: Say, right-of-way or the established. Ifwe just simply say within the established right-of-way, then it's the right-of-way for either the road or the canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. That's all I'm -- yeah, that way there's no question. MR. KLATZKOW: The established right-of-way or canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine. I just wanted to make -- it just makes it clear. Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On that very same paragraph seven, Commissioner Strain was using the white paper and I'm using the brown. And I note that he called it what it was previously, local government in the second line. It's now changed to Collier County. But my question has to do with the third line up where it says from the appropriate local state and federal agencies. Just for my information if you would, please, what are the other local agencies that might be involved in that? MS. BURGESON: If there's a county or a city. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You already took out county, so there would be city? In other words, city permits? MS. BURGESON: Right. Page 24 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just didn't know. Ifwe have Collier County that would seem -- you've indicated that previously it was listed as local government, now it's become Collier County. Okay. So I just wondered who the other local authorities were. MS. BURGESON: I don't know legally if there's any other entity that's considered a local agency. Whether the Department of Health -- I'm just trying to get to definition, whether any of those would be considered local agencies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wondered whether the local really belongs in there. That's the root of my question. MS. BURGESON: Probably not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You might want to think about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we move on to Page 87. I'm assuming that's the next section, that's yours, Barbara and Bill? MS. BURGESON: Yes. And that's just to clarify a reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that reference that you're clarifying here refers to the dimensional criteria. Wasn't that the shape factor, ratio issue that's going back for restudy? MS. BURGESON: It references the current language as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on Page 87? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I-- MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I think we have a public speaker on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray. Before the public speaker, let's finish the panel. Mr. Murray, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm not trying to quibble over words but I just want to be clear. I made a note to myself. Under A-I, emphasizing, and I put the word qualification, which was in question, around emphasizing. Is that standard language for you that you can emphasize the large -- MS. BURGESON: Where are you? Page 25 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, I'm on Page 87, A-I. It's the second line down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Existing language, Barbara, in the middle of the sentence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just curious of the word emphasizing. I'm trying to become more clear in my own mind, is the thing. Is that standard language, emphasizing? Is that fairly commonly used? MS. BURGESON: I would say so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. That was it for me on that language. Thank you. MS. BURGESON: We can take a look and see if that's GMP language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The one public speaker we have on that matter. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: Douglas Lewis. MR. LEWIS: Good morning. My name is Doug Lewis, I'm an attorney with the firm of Roetzel and Andress. I'm here on today behalf of certain clients. I wanted to comment -- echo your comment. In looking at it, it appeared that when we had addressed earlier on in the planning commission the withdrawal of the shape factor requirement, it appears this change, kind of a companion change, probably isn't necessary. I wanted to make sure we don't create future ambiguity in interpreting these provisions. It changed one of the subsections, and I want to be clear it appeared to be a companion item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with your concern, because I had the same one. Barbara, you're telling me this is describing existing dimensional criteria in the code? MS. BURGESON: Regardless of whether we made that change or not, this was an appropriate amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Unless someone points out an Page 26 August 1, 2006 error in 30.05.07, we're probably comfortable with it. If you see language in the code that is a conflict because of this in regards to the reference, let us know. MR. LEWIS: The concept with the shape factor criteria which has been withdrawn was that it is essentially the circle would be in fact be the largest contiguous area possible. And so that would be consistent with what they were attempting to do with the change. However, now that that shape factor has been withdrawn, the prior text read, creating essentially a carve-out to the standard where we had the largest contiguous area possible. And we had certain width requirements. So I think this creates a little confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I -- before the next hearing, I'll make sure to review that reference to the code for my clarification alone. Anything else on Page 87? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, I guess your next page, Barbara. MS. BURGESON: Eighty-nine has been removed. And you just went through stormwater amendments. So the next one is on Page 95. This is to delete the requirement to identify 75 percent of the preserves on the PUD master plan. And the reason for that is -- I'll give you a little history as to why it was in there in the first place. Before we had the current GMP requirements for where preserves should be located, it was really more negotiation between staff and the applicant as to where they should show their preserves on their site plans. Weare not requiring in this amendment any additional data or any additional submittals from the applicant to do our evaluation. We will take the current requirements, review where the preserves should be, identify that area on the site and ask the applicant to show all of their preserves. Page 27 August 1, 2006 And just so that you know, staff has told me that roughly 90, 95 percent of petitions come in showing all of their preserves anyway. This is just to preclude problems that we have on those that choose to use this language as a way to show just the 75 percent and then come in at the next development order and show us the remainder of that. Because the GMP language and the LDC language is so specific now, it's very easy for staff to identify where all the preserves should be. So we're asking that they be identified up front. It precludes some of the problems that we're facing right now where if you only show 75 percent of the preserves up front and in larger PUDs where pieces of that project are sold off, when the development order comes -- the next development order comes in, a property owner didn't have preserves shown on the piece they purchased but our analysis identifies that the remainder of the 25 percent needs to be on that property, we're confronted with that problem. And there doesn't seem to be a need for the -- for that to continue to occur. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there questions from the panel? Barbara, I have one. In order to show -- what you're saying is you want 100 percent of the preserves shown on the PUD. Which means when it comes to our review, we'd be seeing where there are proposed to be 100 percent of the preserves; is that -- MS. BURGESON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a fair statement? Okay. In order to show those 100 percent preserves, while you may not need much, the owner of the land will need a lot to either verify what your assumption is or show where you're wrong so that they can put the preserves in the most logical place based on wetland jurisdictional lines and other issues that come up from the agencies. What this would mean is, in my reading of it, because the 75 percent allowed some flexibility for a landowner to include the balance of the 25 percent based on wavering jurisdictional lines or EISs that came in or further studies that came in Page 28 August 1, 2006 afterwards, now they're locked into 100 percent. In order to get there accurately so they know what development they've got to have so they have to come back here for master plan changes, they're going to end up having to deal with a lot of agency review and a lot of agency permitting costs way before they know if they even got the zoning. MS. BURGESON: They're not asked to do any more than they're currently being asked. Currently you're obligated to provide an EIS. They're obligated to provide the South Florida Water Management District jurisdictional lines, the listed species surveys, the FLUCCS mapping and aerials and information regarding adjacent preserves. That's currently required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do they ever change between the time that they get a PUD and they actually come in for the SDP when they actually get their actual permit from the Corps and their actual Florida permit -- South Florida permit? MS. BURGESON: Yes. And there -- there's a process in the code to permit for insubstantial changes through master plan changes. And what we're proposing here is far greater flexibility than what's in the code currently by allowing for an administrative change, not a PUD master plan change for all of the preserves to be relocated, not just to be limited to the five percent number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and that bothers me, too, because the adjoining public and the staffs criteria for compatibility a lot of times is hinged on the amount of distance between neighboring and adjoining non-similar uses. And now you're saying staff, after a public hearing that the public relies on and the due diligence that would normally adhere to the public during that process, basically can be done away with by a simple tweaking of the changes internally with staff, and the public then wouldn't even know that the buffer they relied on for compatibility is no longer there. MS. BURGESON: This doesn't say -- it says in here, as long as they are -- does not exceed other thresholds that would permit the Page 29 August 1, 2006 change to be done administratively. So if there are other thresholds that would require you to do PUD -- master plan amendments, this doesn't preclude any of those. This just says that given that all of the other reviews could be done with an administrative change to the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, I do know what those other thresholds are. I've reviewed them many times. The threshold that you have now for preservation changes on a master plan would at least alert the public if a change is being made and there's a radical move to the preservations. In this case you're saying preservation changes on a master plan can be done administratively because you're now going to require 100 percent. You realize that there needs some flexibility in the final determination of those lines. I'm thinking in one way it doesn't work for the development community or the property owners because of the accuracy they need to be at before they go to their PUD, which is inordinate compared to today. And on the other side it doesn't work for the public, because you cannot rely on the public document that is a record of this hearing, because now you're saying that staff can administratively change the location of those preserves to a point where it may affect adjoining property owners. I don't see the gain in this. I think that at least if we have 75 percent shown and a change in that of any nature triggers a public hearing, that's better than having 100 percent shown with no trigger of a public hearing and the public's left in the dark. So that's where my concern is on it. And I'm expressing that. This is only our first hearing on this. We'll certainly have another discussion on it. But I'm -- unless you find a way to convince me, my position is not going to change too much on this. MS. BURGESON: For an example, there's an attorney in the room that could represent his concern on a proj ect we sat down with just a couple of weeks ago. And that's Grey Oaks. They're coming in Page 30 August 1, 2006 with their final parcel for development. And because the preserve areas are not identified up front, he has to go through the onerous, rigorous process of identifying, and accumulating and analyzing all the previous preserves that have been identified to find out whether or not he's required to do above and beyond the 25 percent or none at all on his parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, that's called due diligence and you do that before you go under contract. So I don't have a lot of sympathy for that. Any other questions on this one? MS. FABACHER: You have another speaker, Mr. Chair. Mr. Lewis would like to speak again. MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Doug Lewis. I'm with Roetzel and Andress and here on behalf of various clients of the firm. Although I think we understand the intent, there's a little bit of, I guess, questions and maybe concerns about flexibility, costs and timing as a result of what we're looking to do. First is from a cost point of view, an expense point of view. To the extent that there is required vis-a-vis agency permitting requirements, I need to alter the preserve area. It would require an administrative change, and that could be expensive, time-consuming. There's really no clear standard that I could see as to what would necessitate an approval. There's no guarantee or insurance. I think clearly it may be an enhancement if we can at least clarify where it's necessitated by a permit requirement. That would be something that would be -- would be an acceptable criteria for approving the change to the master plan. As you pointed out, the land development code currently provides a procedure for amending the master plan. Any substantial change, at least that would be the type of change that would be required, there's procedures that are addressed, there are very good Page 3 1 August 1, 2006 reasons to address that. I'm not real clear at this point how this would conflict or how this would interact with existing procedures to amend a master plan. The other point I want to make is we do have a PUD monitoring report requirement. And in the project that I've been involved with there are annual monitoring reports that are filed that establish compliance with the preserve requirements per the PUD. Clearly we have a system in place that allows and should allow us to monitor how preserves are being maintained per the PUD requirements. And I'm not clear exactly how that's broken or how that's not working and why we need to go to this extent on the front end. It's very difficult for many developments that have wetlands jurisdictional issues to have the rigidity of establishing in a fixed sense so early on in the process the preserve area. So from a fiscal impact point of view, I'm not sure if we really analyzed the cost and the expense to the development community. I'm not sure from a flexibility point of view if this provides the most flexibility to allow for -- clearly I understand that there are some monitoring questions in terms of determining compliance, especially when you look at a PUD that has different owners within a PUD, different developments within a PUD, in determining in an aggregate sense if the preserve requirements have been met. Clearly there is a PUD monitoring report process in place, and that could be something to look at. But those are the concerns and questions I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I -- you know, Barbara, and I think you or Bill have admitted that this isn't that badly broken. Ninety-nine percent of the people that come through or whatever percentage you said earlier don't have a problem with this process, and it seems that the ones that do maybe because of their lack of experience in doing adequate due diligence and they dump that burden on the county staff. Page 32 August 1, 2006 At this point, without that being broken, I don't see the necessity for this kind of change when the ramifications could be much more than we're thinking they are today. MS. BURGESON: We can withdraw this amendment. But just so that you know the process, we will not be asking for anything less or more if this amendment went in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's even more of a reason why we don't need to work up new language. At least that's my thoughts. If anybody else has any comments, you're more than welcome to say so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to get something clear in my mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I understood you, your intent was to help later on to avoid issues that might be -- that might fall on associations and the like, perhaps. To deal-- I'm sorry? MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry, it's to prevent property owners from purchasing property and having a difficult time with a potentially onerous preserve requirement that they were not -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aware of. MS. BURGESON: -- aware of. School board's got a couple of major issues right now on properties. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So your intent was basically to alert and find a means by which that people would know in the future what -- MS. BURGESON: By setting aside all the preserves on-site, not only do the adjacent property owners know what to expect, but the people purchasing pieces of the PUD know what to expect. The modifications that occur in terms of adjusting preserves through a master plan amendment, I can't recall a single master plan amendment that I've reviewed that's changed a preserve. So that just doesn't happen very often. And if it has happened since I've been here, other Page 33 August 1, 2006 staff have done those amendments. So this was to identify and assist the property owners. It doesn't __ I mean, as far as staff is concerned, we can come into the next development order and require that the preserves be set aside. But let's __ just as an example, the next development order on a 100-acre PUD is for half of it to be developed with a plat and plans. Now we're telling that property owner the remainder of the PUD preserve requirements have to be identified. So you're looking at two property owners going to have to either negotiate or work together to identify where those preserves will have to be for the remainder of the PUD and we have a very difficult time with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, why don't you look at maybe another level to pull this in at, if it's that important. Why don't, instead of making it the first development order, which is basically your PUD process, call for this at the very -- say you have 100-acre PUD, the first plat or the first SDP within that PUD then has to solidify all of the preserve areas, and therefore you've got it locked in before you go to that last plat that you're so concerned about protecting. MS. BURGESON: Well, it's the same issue. It's not going to be different than what we have right now unless you have a small property. If you've got your first plat that comes through on a portion of the PUD, now you're talking about getting all the property owners, because they're not always owned by the same person when the first plat and plans or first SDP comes in. When that first plat and plans comes in with one property owner who owns a quarter of the property, we're going to require that that person get together with all of the remainder of the property owners to evaluate where the preserves should be. And there's no -- through that process there's no obligation, for instance, if a plat and plans comes in for the 50 acres, where do we get a legal binding document to identify where the preserves will be on the 50 acres that's not in for review? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, you'd have 75 percent of the Page 34 August 1, 2006 potential preserves already shown on the site plan through the PUD process, that would be a public hearing and the public would know, for compatibility issues, where they have a house next door to a preserve instead of next door to a preserve that might go away the next day. For you to require the balance of the 25 percent to be solidified at the next level down after the public process to get some assurance as to what can be expected, all you're doing then is expanding on what's already there, not making it less generally. And that would allow at least you to lock it all in at the earliest stage of development. I don't know why a developer who has an entire PUD, as we see these come through, they're under single ownership or ownership of parties, but there's a single applicant, before they sell off their first plat, it would have been their obligation to clarify this for themselves, why wouldn't they? And if they don't, then that's a due diligence item that's up to the property owner to clarify. MS. BURGESON: We're just trying to assist here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to suggest a better way so that the public process is protected. Because I don't see administrative deviations to the extent that could occur here as protecting the public in regards to compatibility issues that they may have in the future. So if you could look at that as an alternative, maybe there's a solution there that would work for your department better, that's all I'm suggesting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Barbara, would it help if you just raised the percentage -- I know you wanted 100 percent, but what if you -- because it does give the developer or whoever a chance to work a fuzzy edge. What if it was a 90 percent? MS. BURGESON: That would certainly be an improvement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I understand what you're Page 35 August 1, 2006 saying is it could be a situation where the last buyer is stuck with all the preserve requirements -- or at least that 25 percent. MS. BURGESON: Right now the way the section of the code reads for amending a PUD master plan, if you -- if there's more than a five percent change, they have to do a PUD master plan amendment. So I mean, if you want to be consistent with the way the code is written, you could even say 95 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that would make sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, you're going back though and administratively allowing changes, which is -- MS. BURGESON: We're saying on an environmental basis, if it's consistent with the GMPs and consistent with the LDC, we're saying environmentally we have no concern with those changes if they still provide the best preserve area on-site for preservation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that you got the drift from the board that we have some concerns on it. Maybe you could come back with some improved language the next time around. Let's move on to the next item. Is there any other environmental issues in this package? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, page 201. MS. BURGESON: On Page 160, we're just deleting a required site visit for boat dock inspections. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You say 160? MS. BURGESON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, it's 159, I think. MS. BURGESON: One 160 on is the page with changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the issue starts on-- MS. BURGESON: The amendment is on 159. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions concerning this language? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- if I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. Page 36 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, in the reason, second line down, beginning of the next sentence, often. And it brought to my mind the question of the health of estuaries. Often but not always. The premise, okay, often the presence or absence can be determined. My impression when I read that was, okay, we can go out and we probably can see that a lot and we're okay, we can look at it by profile, we can look at it by aerial often but not always. And I wondered about what the implication of the not always would be. I need a general sense of an understanding, because I know that seagrass is a pretty important issue, the cleanliness of the estuary. MS. BURGESON: Right. We're still saying by the code that the location of seagrasses has to be verified. So if you cannot verify the location of seagrass beds by a definitive other means besides a site visit, then you're obligated by that site visit. You still have to verify that. We're just saying right now staff has felt compelled to go out and do site visits when they felt that they have other definitive means at their disposal identifying or verifying the presence or absence of seagrass beds. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm also a little confused by this paper. I'm looking at the white sheet here and I made a note for myself what was removed, because it ends at 4. This is not a brand new -- I was looking for the underscore language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second line from the top of the page. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It says by a site visit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: More words were omitted. That's the only change you're making. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the only change, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have a question, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. So once again, this is going to become rather a self-regulating situation and not one that staff __ Page 37 August 1, 2006 MS. BURGESON: This is where staff has been provided with data, for instance, another staff member in the county may have done seagrass bed mapping in that area in the immediate past and has been out recently and verified that. Instead of our staff being obligated to then go out and do a site visit by the way the code is written now, we want to verify that and save staff that site visit if it's not necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is the code now written to require the site visit only pertaining to seagrass, or is there other things they should be looking at? MS. BURGESON: The staff will look at seagrass beds and we will look at existing, for instance, mangrove fringes. There are zoning staff site visits, but not on every -- not on every boat dock review. So COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Will this change eliminate the site visit totally then? MS. BURGESON: It's possible that it would eliminate it for the environmental staff, but it does not deal at all with the zoning staffs requirement to do a site visit. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So you would not be looking into mangroves or any other issue that might affect the environmental? MS. BURGESON: We will continue to look at mangroves and do site visits when there's existing native vegetation on the site. But for instance, if we look at an aerial and somebody's looking to put a boat dock where there's a seawall, and we can clearly tell by the aerial, and we know the area because we do site visits periodically out there that there's no vegetation whatsoever on the property, then we don't feel a need to go out there and verify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what's your next issue? MS. BURGESON: Page 193. There's an amendment to the EAC Page 38 August 1, 2006 to clarify when the EAC reviews stormwater and preserves as allowed, and to correct a reformatting error and to add two alternates to the EAC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It struck me when I read this that the predicate for this really is whether or not we would agree that stormwater should be allowed in preserves. And I recognize it's concurrent or -- but it's -- it struck me that this is a little early to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I think we're on Page 193. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I am. MS. BURGESON: I'm on Page 194, number two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Anyway, it just struck me that it was -- that it was perhaps early, maybe we should be looking at qualifying the other first. And I know we probably can't do that. MS. BURGESON: In actuality, staff is on a case-by-case basis right now permitting stormwater in some preserves. And without adding this language, the EAC is precluded from doing a review of that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, interesting. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, there's one more piece on 194. Seems to be at the bottom two lines, each appointment shall be for a term of, and then it struck four years, and I don't see any other number put in place. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. That's just kind of the notation that Municode is using now. It's leaving the number, the numeral four and then spelling out the -- MS. BURGESON: But you've struck them both -- or I struck them both. Page 39 August 1, 2006 MS. F ABACHER: No, actually, this looks like that because of the way the four crosses. Not, but that's what it's doing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the number four subordinates the letters? MS. FABACHER: Well, it's the convention now according to Municode not to double up what we say, you know, FIV and then paren. five. So now we've kind of gone to numerals for the numeric part and then spelling out, like 50 percent, 5-0 percent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, we're using numerals. MS. FABACHER: That's the convention, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. It surely looked like it was deleted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, on Page 194 there under membership, you're proposing to add two new members to the commission or the council. That brings it up to 11. Isn't there some limit to the effective size of a group to review some of these things? And in lieu of using nine plus two alternates, what about reducing it to seven regular plus two alternates, it would still maintain a number of nine. MS. BURGESON: This was by Board of County Commissioners direction in an attempt to prevent or preclude the lack of quorum on the EAC in the future. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I understand the lack of quorum, but that could be obtained by suggesting using seven plus two rather than nine plus two. But this is at the commission's direction? MR. LORENZ: Well, we're taking direction from the commission to add the alternates to the existing membership. So we're not making any recommendations to change the existing membership, simply to add the alternates per the board direction. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: My only concern is the commission become so large that it's not very effective. Is there a Page 40 August 1, 2006 limit to the number of people that can meet on an issue and discuss it intelligently? MR. LORENZ: These alternates would be -- let's say we have a nine member -- existing nine member EAC. Two members cannot make -- two members cannot make that EAC meeting. The two alternates would come in and you would still have the nine member discussion. It's not -- they would not be added -- they would not be part of a discussion and make an 11 members discussion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But they do participate in the deliberations, according to this, don't they? MR. LORENZ: Oh, excuse me, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Do the two alternate members do participate in the deliberations? MS. BURGESON: That is how it's written in that the two alternates would only be able to actually vote if there's a -- if there's a lack of quorum and that they need to fill a spot. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I understand that they wouldn't be able to vote but they would participate in deliberation of comments or questions and anything else. MS. BURGESON: The way it's written right now, they could, yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: They would? MS. BURGESON: The way it's written right now, they could. MR. LORENZ: Yes, I stand corrected with my comments before, sorry. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But that's what concerns me, that this commission gets so large that it ceases to be effective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so Mr. Kolflat isn't alone, when it got to me my comments were going to be exactly what he has just said. It makes no sense I can see to have two alternate members participating in meetings. We've got 11 people up there yakking away and only nine of them can vote. They'll drag the meetings out and it Page 41 August 1, 2006 will require additional fiscal impacts that aren't listed here for additional packages of both the development community, the property owners and for staff to produce. So I think the fact -- if you have two alternate members, that's probably a good thing, but to allow them to participate I think is a real bad thing. The EAC, just like us, asks for attendance of their upcoming meetings. When it's obvious someone's not going to have -- they're not going to have a quorum, they then ought to solicit who's not going to be there, and those packages would be distributed to the two alternates on the premise they would be there. Eleven members would be cumbersome whether they vote or not. We have a new committee that was just, for example, suggested in the county, the horizon committee. They're looking for 15 members. That board will with be bogged down for its entire life. So I'm not sure why this 11 is here, but I certainly think that's a mistake. And I would have to echo Mr. Kolflat's concerns about that quantity or participation. MS. BURGESON: Right. We could rewrite that language to state alternate members shall only be eligible to participate and vote in order to maintain a quorum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the concern there is, I think, that if there's nine appointed members and one can't make it, I think an alternate should be able to come in and that wouldn't be just to maintain a quorum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wasn't it BCC direction to maintain a quorum? MS. BURGESON: That was their intent of this, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there will only be four guys who just sit around and only be called out if there's a quorum problem? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the issue that I think the BCC Page 42 August 1, 2006 was trying to correct. I'm sorry, Brad, did you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, but I think that these -- I mean, you want to keep the people active and knowing what's going on and everything, too. Assuming you don't want them to -- MS. BURGESON: Right, we would be required to sent send two additional packages out for each meeting. Those alternates would be treated as if they were full members with the potential for us to need to call them in at the last minute to attend a meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are the minutes of the EAC verbatim or are they summary? MS. BURGESON: No, they're summary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not quite sure, if they're having problems getting nine people, I'm just not sure that this is going to solve the issue. And besides, you only need five people for a quorum, so if one person's gone, you don't want to add in another person just to keep it at nine. You would only add these people in, correct, if it were only four people that were going to show up that day, and then you would -- MS. BURGESON: Ifwe needed to call on one person to make a five member board for a meeting was the original intent. COMMISSIONER CARON: And this has been a problem that you've been down to three EAC members so that you would need to have the quorum? I'm just questioning, I don't know. MR. LORENZ: Well, we had enough of a problem for the board to give us direction to provide alternates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's expound on what Ms. Caron is trying to get at. How many times has the EAC not be able to meet because of lack of quorum? MS. BURGESON: I think only once or twice in the past three or Page 43 August 1, 2006 four years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so for once or twice in the past three or four years we're going to add potentially two more members who would have to meet the participatory requirements, they would get packages created by staff, which would have to come from somebody in the public who wants to change, and the cost and all that just for a couple of times in the four years that might occur. And maybe now that they've been reprimanded, as I know they have been, by the BCC that this shouldn't happen, the attendance of the EAC seems to be -- you've got a lot of good people there who are showing up like everybody else who volunteers as often as they can. I think the fiscal impact of this far outweighs the -- is more negative than the correction that you're going to get from it. So-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Wouldn't it be better just to change the date of the meeting? I mean, they only have one meeting, correct, every month? MS. BURGESON: And then again, even the reason for the quorum was a medical emergency, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My thought is this doesn't fix anything. It creates a bigger problem than a fix, so -- maybe because that's the way it's written. I'm not saying the BCC was wrong in their intent, their intent was absolutely right, we need to have quorums. But maybe there's a better way to fix it. I don't think this gets us here. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: One way it could be fixed, you take the nine members there are now and designate seven of them as being regular members and the other two being alternative members. And then you would still be able to maintain your quorum, increase your opportunity to maintain the quorum, but still would keep it within the reasonable number of 11 members total-- nine members total. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know if-- Page 44 August 1, 2006 MS. BURGESON: Right now we have nine members that could potentially provide us with the five for the quorum. I'm not sure reducing that to seven -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gives you four for a quorum. MS. BURGESON: Well, the EAC ordinance is written differently. The EAC ordinance is written differently than your and then most boards in that you need five members of the nine to be a quorum for a meeting. And you need that same five for any formal motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we've expressed our concerns, although I'm not sure it's in as much in our corner as it is the EAC's. They seem to not have a problem with this. I just think it's a fiscal cost more than the problem that seemed to have occurred at least only once or twice in four years, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, the last thing that Barbara said I think is important. You're saying that they need five votes to approve something. So they really do need more people at the meetings. So I think if this does it -- I mean, the first thing you could say is get people that will show up. That doesn't always happen. Sometimes good people have problems. So I think this is a good idea to make sure that there's a lot of people discussing an issue before it's voted on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, what would it take to change the ordinance? MR. KLATZKOW: It's easy. Changing ordinances, once you get the process down, changing an ordinance takes a couple of advertisements and we're done. It's the LDC that's such a problem to amend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But could this solution -- could there a solution that would not be as impactful through packages and staff time and distribution and attendance and public hearings and hearing 11 people at every meeting express their views instead of nine. Could Page 45 August 1, 2006 there be a process through a change in the ordinance that would make this a little easier to do? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't see why not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would maybe staff get together with legal and maybe come back with a recommendation that would meet the intent of the BCC but would be done less and more simply through an ordinance change? MR. LORENZ: Let me -- we have to check. I don't think that there is -- the EAC now is a freestanding ordinance. The EAC is governed here in the land development code. So if we wanted to make a change to the EAC's perceived process in terms of voting and what constitutes formal actions, it would have to be within this land development code. MR. KLATZKOW: You can always pass an ordinance, Bill. I mean, that's an easy process, just pass an ordinance. MR. LORENZ: To amend the land development code? MR. KLATZKOW: No, pass an ordinance with respect to the EAC. You could do that. MR. LORENZ: Okay. We'll-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you guys work together on that? Because I just think there's got to be an easier solution than having 11 people go through a meeting on a continuing basis and having staff having to produce 11 documents. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Amen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Barbara, the 11 people wouldn't be here all the time, would they? Where would they sit, for one thing, somebody's lap up here? MS. BURGESON: The way this was created was if we have-- of our nine members, if we only have four that say they could make it at the next meeting, they would call on one of those alternates to fill that spot so they would not lose a quorum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, the way this reads is, the two Page 46 August 1, 2006 alternate members shall have the ability to participate in discussions during the meetings. And when you volunteer for something, hopefully you take it to heart. And I can't imagine someone volunteering to be an alternate knowing that they should be participating that they wouldn't participate. They should. MS. BURGESON: I'm not sure there was an intent to preclude them if they wanted to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But that does bring in -- a dedicated volunteer is going to be there for all the meetings and you're going to have 11 people. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they can sit in the audience and watch it. And it could be the farm team to become a full member. MR. LORENZ: Because the alternative is that those alternates would have to review the packages each and every time they come in, because we don't know when we would not have a quorum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can't see where this hurts anything. The Xerox machine just hit a number two higher and let it np. MS. BURGESON: From time to time you have six members attend a meeting and two that excuse themselves for personal reasons of not voting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On one vote. MS. BURGESON: Right. Not that you have a meeting quorum issue but you have a voting quorum issue. Again, this doesn't happen very frequently. This is just to preclude -- prevent it from happening in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've heard enough concerns, maybe you can get together and see if there is something that needs to be modified. W e'lllook forward to hearing that. What's your next section, Barbara? MS. BURGESON: Page 201. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this your last environmental issues for Page 47 August 1, 2006 today? MS. BURGESON: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. For the court reporter, I'd like to get through this before we take a 15 minute break; is that okay? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 201, does anyone have any questions? Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Page 201, in the paragraph under reason, you indicate more appropriate. What constitutes more appropriate? MS. BURGESON: If you'll look at page 204, for instance, we're saying that when you have a conventional rezone and you have no site plan attached to that and no proposed development plan, we feel it's appropriate for that EIS to be postponed to the next development order when we'll been able to evaluate it with a proposed site plan. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. Thank you. I had one other one, if I might. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I notice on Page 202 under A.2.A, there's indication of ST, is that an acronym? MS. BURGESON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's not listed under the list of acronyms in the beginning of the LDC. I mean, there's no way to know what that acronym stands for, if read that and you want to look it up. MS. BURGESON: We can certainly add that there. That's special treatment. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It should be in the list, shouldn't it? MS. BURGESON: Yes, I think it should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Page 48 August 1, 2006 Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Barbara, there's no circumstance you think that a rezone would have a difficulty based upon the environmental condition of the site? MS. BURGESON: If it were a conventional straight rezone? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MS. BURGESON: The only benefit would be to the property owner. If the property owner wants us -- and from time to time we have people ask us to do the EIS evaluation to identify where the preserve areas should be so they can look to develop around that. So that would be the only time where that would be a benefit. But we're saying that it wouldn't be obligation at that time. I suppose that if someone requests that we do that review for them, we still would -- I would think that we would still be able to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, a silly thing would be somebody has a site, it's total wetlands and they're rezoning it, they just didn't realize that. Wouldn't this just be a waste of their time and wouldn't that be something that would stop a rezone? Or are people not that foolish? MS. BURGESON: You know -- in a rezoning process they would still have to provide us with listed species information and wetland information. It could still be a part -- it would still be part of the staffreview. We're not precluding staff from doing a review, we're just saying at that point a whole EIS is not necessary. But we would still identify wetlands and listed species. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Catherine, did you have something? MS. F ABACHER: I just was reminding you we had another speaker on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we get to him and as long as the panel is finished, I have one question on page 202, the Roman numeral five. Preserve areas are not in compliance with current Page 49 August 1, 2006 growth management plan and land development code requirements. This is the applicability. But what struck me is up on top where it says it shall be unlawful and the applicabilities apply to even a building permit, my concern there is that if someone comes in for a building permit on a PUD that, say, is five years or 10 years old, they're not going to be in compliance possibly with the current growth management plan because our preservation requirements have changed radically over the years. So does that mean a building permit couldn't be issued? MS. BURGESON: Well, they could be in compliance. Just -- I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They could be, but they could not be, too. MS. BURGESON: This would be preserve areas that would have to be identified through -- this is just the EIS section of the code. This doesn't affect a building permit review. Environmental staff does not do building permit review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why do you have no building permit up in Number A-2? MS. BURGESON: That's -- right. That's, for instance, if you have someone that's coming in to do a site plan, an SDP, we would not allow them to issue a building permit if an EIS were applicable for that site, prior to doing an EIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but you would catch it on the SDP stage? MS. BURGESON: In most cases. And we rarely have SDPs that require an EIS, but yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Wouldn't you want to change the reference -- my concern is the word current in reference to existing PUDs, and up on top where you reference a building permit, because that's a pretty finite process. So if you're going to include building permit, I have a concern Page 50 August 1, 2006 with five. If you're going to modify A-2 so that maybe you mean an SDP and not a building permit, because that's the review stage at which you catch your elements. MS. BURGESON: Right. Let me take a look at that. This may be in the GMPs as regular building permit in there, so let me take a look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That may be -- MS. BURGESON: If -- building permit, we're not -- the intent is not to preclude someone from getting a building permit if their SDP was approved. But again, recall that those would -- all right, I'll take a look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I know what your intent is and it's probably not what I'm concerned about. But what I'm concerned about is someone else interpreting it in a manner that's different than what you intended. MS. BURGESON: I'll look at the GMPs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, is there any other questions? If not, we'll have our -- do you have a public speaker? MS. FABACHER: Yes, I do. Mr. Lewis again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just put him down permanently for everything. MS. FABACHER: Well, this is his last one. MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Doug Lewis with Roetzel and Andress, here on behalf of various clients. Just looking for a little clarification, just a little bit of pause when we look at a few of the changes. 10.02.02.A-2 sets out the standards where an EIS would be required and also provides that no building permit, conditional use, zoning change, plat, SDP can be approved without this. There were two new additional conditions that were added that trigger an EIS under A.2-D, Roman four, where you -- in the case where you have a prior EIS and the EIS is more than five years, Page 51 August 1, 2006 previous standard, in addition, they've asked and where preserve areas were not previously established. And currently the EIS requires that you determine, identify the viable vegetation on-site and demonstrate how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation requirement. And I'm not sure in terms of the meaning of that, trying to construe that when we talk about preserve areas are established, does that mean that they're putting conservation easements? What exactly does that mean? So I'm not sure what that legally means. So we'd like a little clarification on that. And five, the other standard that was added was the preserve areas are not in compliance with the growth management plan, the land development code. You identified one of the examples that -- in the context of pulling a building permit, changes in the GMP, we have PUDs that are in phased developments that are older PUDs. And we'd like to have some clarification on how this would impact current phased PUDs. And preserve areas that may not be required. It's a little difficult from the development community perspective when you identify a preserve area and you build your development around that, is this going to require that new preserve areas be established or -- and especially when you're dealing with multiple owners within a PUD. And so there's some real questions as to why we're adding these, what's broken, what needs to be fixed, what are we trying to accomplish, what are the fiscal impacts to the development community, how many of the developments in 2005 that would have to comply with this EIS requirement would be impacted, how many building permits potentially? Also, on Page 204D, you have the requirements under Section A, under A-2 where you have the applicability in terms of where an EIS is required and then there's certain exemptions, and we've added the exemption for the conventional rezone. It's more just of a question for clarification in terms of how it's worded but towards the -- in the third Page 52 August 1, 2006 sentence it reads after conventional rezone, it says but the complete EIS shall not be required until the time of the next development order submittal with the site plans. And I wanted to just clarify if this is only applicable to conventional rezone. And what about sites where a prior EIS was done in the five years, and, you know, there's no impacts to wetlands or species, you know, that where under the applicability section we would not be required to get an EIS. Is the intent to require the developer in the SDP phase or some other development order phase to obtain an EIS? So just some clarification questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. We'll endeavor to get your clarification. Barbara, why don't we start with D. Do you have a response to that issue? MS. BURGESON: Yes, the intent there is to permit the EIS to go to the next development order or submittal, so it would be an obligation of the next development order whether that would be a plat and plans or an SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's a way to make it a little clearer, maybe you could consider that. MS. BURGESON: We can cross out with site plans, and that would simplify that, so that it would be required at the time of the next development order submittal, period. That would just clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And his points on A-2-- MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chair, that's great, we appreciate that. The second part of that was is there a situation where, in a conventional rezone context, where a prior EIS was done and there's no real impact to species or wetlands, is there a scenario where an EIS would not be required at the SDP stage, or the applicability section, or is the intent here to in essence make it applicable in an absolute sense? MS. BURGESON: You'll find that under A-2, where it identifies when an EIS is required. If the site has done a prior EIS -- where a Page 53 August 1, 2006 prior EIS was prepared and approved for the same area of land and where the following exist. So they're saying that you've done a prior EIS and you've got greater impacts to wetlands or listed species, then we're going to require you to do another EIS. But if you don't, you are not going to be required to do another EIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: His comment about D-4, ifpreserve areas were not previously established. What is your determination of estab lishment? MS. BURGESON: We can change that to approved. The intent was approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And approved being -- again, that kind of -- would still probably give me the same question. MS. BURGESON: Staff would approve-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staffapproval. MS. BURGESON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. BURGESON: Staff would approve any preserve area through the PUD review process or through plat and plans or through SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as we clarify that, I think that would help with that. And then five, it's a good point. And that's where I was trying to come from in the beginning, is if you have a phased PUD or an older PUD, how does this -- how does Roman numeral five impact that PUD? MS. BURGESON: No differently than we're currently doing right now . You are required to provide a new EIS if you've got a PUD where, for instance, such as Lely Resort, there's a huge area of Lely Resort that is undeveloped when -- if we hadn't had a recent requirement for EIS, and they did have to update their EIS. When these portions of their projects come in and they're more than five years old, they need to provide us with a new EIS. So that they could Page 54 August 1, 2006 be assured that they're consistent with the GMP requirements for preserve locations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Lewis? By the way, I would hope that prior to the final hearing on this, maybe you and Mr. Lewis has had several comments on these environmental issues, you guys could at least e-mail or correspond prior to the next meeting and resolve, possibly look at some issues. Go ahead. MR. LEWIS: Sure. And clearly under the current LDC where you had an EIS that was dated more than five years, you would be required to provide an EIS for the development. So just a concern here is we want to first identify what the concern is, what we're trying to address and make sure that the net doesn't, as we've identified, doesn't create implications for owners who are trying to pull building permits or other developments where you have a PUD that may be, you know, predate some of the changes to the GMP that can be caught up in the web. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the better ways to have this board understand where you're trying to go is to suggest some language to Barbara and Bill, and they can come back, and if they don't like it, we'll certainly listen to them too, but at least we can get the language on the table. It's harder for us to reinvent the language up here. I like your suggestions, I just think they need to bring them through the process before the next meeting. MR. LEWIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barbara, is that the last environmental issue for you and your -- MS. BURGESON: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First I want to thank you and Bill for your patience and your time with us these, the last two meetings or three meetings. With that, I think we'll take a IS-minute break to 10:25 and when Page 55 August 1, 2006 we resume, we'll start with the canopy issue. Thank you. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think we're about to come back to order. Do you have a way to put us, turn our mic back on over at your location, or is it already on? Now, it's on. Thank you. And one slight change in schedule. The transportation department says they really don't have anything to do and they'd just like to sit here all day and listen to us business so they've deferred to the engineering department to speak after boat canopies. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question. In preparation for this, I didn't cover the gray issues. Are we going to hear the gray issues here today? Some of them are transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gray issues? You mean like the-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The ones that were gray in the book. The impression I got was that there would be further information or something coming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, some of the gray ones say withdrawn. MS. FABACHER: Yes, and previously the gray ones that you have just were the ones that hadn't finished with DSAC, and the one I had handed -- and my apologies, I had a family emergency and I didn't get to send you the second set. But the one today with the gray that I gave you the summary sheets today shows the ones that have been withdrawn for one reason but that doesn't solve Mr. Schiffer's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have plenty to do. It's not like we're going to run out of stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not all the transportation items were grayed out. I think there were one or two. We can defer those until the 8th if we need to and maybe that will help. And let's just go for the ones that aren't grayed out then. If we get everything done and we Page 56 August 1, 2006 still want to do more, maybe we can try to do the gray ones to finish up. But we'll see. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll gladly join in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, let's go into the boat canopy issue. And you want to tell us what page that one's on? MS. F ABACHER: That's on Page -- begins on page 151. And Mr. Chair, if it's all right, Catherine Fabacher for the record. I would like to give you a little background on this, because I worked on this with, you know, Alisa Kohler and Linda Bedlington, as far as we had four public meetings on this. This was directed by the Board of County Commissioners to come back to this issue again to just look at the possibilities because of the past problems with the boat canopy issue, and it wasn't resolved two years ago and the BCC asked we look at it again. We had four public meetings, we met up at Saint John the Evangelist, which was mostly the Vanderbilt Beach area. We had two meetings up there. And then we went down to the Isles of Capris and had a meeting there one night, a public meeting, and kind of explained and showed the language that you have before you, which the council kind of basically directed -- I'm sorry, the commission basically directed that they be looked at as a permitted use, whether you vote up or down. They just wanted to get it in here so that they could have discussion, public discussion we could make a decision on this. I think there's some history with a lawsuit, but I can't really -- I think that's been resolved. You probably know more about that than I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it's been resolved. I think there's a lot of issues out there yet. MS. FABACHER: I wish I hadn't said that then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe between this panel and the next, this can get resolved and maybe things will go away and be better. Who knows? Page 57 August 1, 2006 MS. FABACHER: It would be great. And, you know, we failed to discuss it on the 19th, which had been advertised at all the public hearings. But the other date that we did say we would discuss it again and finally vote on it of course would be the 23rd of August, so -- but we do have five speakers today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There may be questions from the panel. Mr. Murray, did you have any? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I do. On page 154, under seven, the heading speaks to roofing material and roof color, but then A, Band C and so forth refers to canopies. I don't want to be picky, but you've referenced here that it needs to be cheekie style or it needs to have certain colors. Would we not or should we not include the canopies within the heading there? MS. FABACHER: That's a good point. As far as applicability goes? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, ma'am. Because you -- and then the next several, or the next A through D references canopy, so -- MS. FABACHER: That's a good direction. I think the thinking when staff drafted it was that roofing material, the canopy could be a subset of a roofing material. But your comment's well -- point's well taken on this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. FABACHER: We'll try and redraft something there to add it in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think just adding something would be useful. MS. F ABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was it. You just have to qualify whether or not this applies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. Page 58 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What is the principal structure? How do you define that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to pull your -- Mr. Kolflat, you need to pull your speaker a little closer to you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Under the same paragraph seven, we were just talking about, you say principal structure in the first part there. What do you mean by principal structure? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. Catherine Fabacher again. Meaning the home would be the principal structure and the boat house would be -- or a canopy would be an accessory use versus a principal use. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And if there were several structures on the property, how would the selection be made? MS. FABACHER: Well, on residential it would be-- single- family would be one house. The garage would be an accessory structure. If you had multi-family and it was all one unit or duplex or whatever, that was all in one building, generally speaking. I can't think of -- this refers to single-family residential lots, basically. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, but it says roofing material shall be the same as materials and colors used on the principal structure. Does that mean that if the roofing material was tiled that the boat structure should also be tiled roof? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir, that's the current requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think where he's trying to add is the canopy is not going to be made of roof tile. And that's the clarification you need to make, based on Mr. Murry's -- MS. FABACHER: It speaks to Mr. Murray's issue, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: One other point. On page 152 under C-l up at the top of the page. MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: There is an acronym MHWL.t Page 59 August 1, 2006 That acronym is not included in the definition of acronyms in the beginning. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir, it will be. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Question I had is what really is a canopy? I mean, the concern I think it was is that people were covering their boats with materials unlike required for a boathouse. But I'm not sure, is the canopy ever defined or is it just a -- MS. F ABACHER: Well, it's a covered structure, so a structure would not be just a cover on a boat. A structure would be the infrastructure, the frame that would hold the canopy up. And then the cover of that would be the canvas. I don't think this covers, the way I interpret it, boat covers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially what we're really allowing people to do is the developed structure, they have different wind requirements than the other. MS. FABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the material is -- I mean, do we define what -- because essentially these are fabric structures. MS. FABACHER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should we note that is what a canopy is? Other than -- I'm not sure that someone couldn't be putting aluminum decking or something like that. MS. FABACHER: Yes, we can -- absolutely. We can make it, whether it's going to be cloth or plastic or whatever. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Is there anything in there that would protect -- in other words, what we really don't want is to get into some -- they want to downplay these covers, so we don't want something that doesn't do that. So should we note that the -- when I read this, there is a lot of things we could abuse this with, the material. Because that's what we're letting loose is the material not matching the Page 60 August 1, 2006 principal -- MS. FABACHER: Right. And as a matter of fact, I think Susan Murray-Stanlis (phonetic) commented that she wanted to just cut down to perhaps maybe suggested one color, instead of -- you know, we've kind of given natural habitat colors, beige, blue or green. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think you could find every color in the natural habitat. MS. FABACHER: Well, that's what I'm saying. So her recommendation would be to -- as I understand it, would be to cut it down to perhaps one color, so it would be uniform for all. But she'd have to speak for herself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we require house structures, roofs to be one color? MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, just curious. MS. FABACHER: Also, I think Ms. Murray might be here to speak on it on the 23rd. She may not -- you know, she may have her opinion on how she feels about the whole ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you finish? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think so. Just -- I think my impression of a canopy is not the same shape as a boathouse. Is the intent here that people could build large canvas -- MS. FABACHER: They're still restricted by sizes of the structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Same as the boathouse. MS. FABACHER: Yes, exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't the canopy a smaller thing that just kind of barely covers the boat? I mean, the pictures we've seen from the Vanderbilt area, they're not the size of boathouses. MS. FABACHER: And it's some question about some of these frames that have to be built to withstand -- what was it, the structure has to be built to -- Page 61 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The frame has to stay on for -- MS. FABACHER: For 140-mile -- yeah, that wouldn't be just some two-by- fours slapped up there. They have to be certified and that would be pretty substantive. They have, I think, the metal ones that go on that the frame will last 140 -- I think you're talking about some things where there are two-by-fours and lattice work and all or something of that order. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm talking about the size of it. MS. FABACHER: Oh, the size. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, the canopies that people have been obj ecting to are very small and they just barely cover the boat. According to this, don't you think somebody could build an awning structure the same size as the boathouse? MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't think that's -- that's causing a worse condition. MS. F ABACHER: Well, it's still the -- it still follows, that's why it was kind of kept under F, which was the standard for boathouses, so it would still have to follow those dimensional standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it could be the size of a boathouse. And my intent is that I think a canopy is a smaller structure, but maybe some of the neighbors will talk about it then. MS. FABACHER: Right. But I think it falls under the restrictions on the sizes, wherever they were. It cannot exceed -- yes, the 7.5 foot setbacks and then it can't exceed -- well, it's restricted by how far it has to be from the lot line, those sort of things -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree with that. But my intent is I don't think a canopy is as big as a boathouse. Even though it's falling under the requirements of a boathouse, you could now build a big awning, I think. Essentially you could build a boathouse out of canvas or awning material. Page 62 August 1, 2006 But let's wait 'til we -- some of the neighbors might have pictures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray first, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just adding to that issue, the purpose of the canopy is to protect the boat. And the issue, I would surmise, would be whether or not we develop a bunch of ugly structures to protect the boat. And I don't know how you can effectively set up the geometry for this. I'm talking about the canvas itself or whatever fabric is used. I would think that a boat owner would prefer to have as much surface area covered as possible, so I can envision from their point of reference that they would like to have something that creates an arc, if you will, and that will give protection and so forth. I don't know where we're going to go with this, obviously, but for me, I think it would be important to see if we could come to a conclusion about whether it's essentially a flat top, a molded top to a certain point or full -- or whether any of that's even relevant, ultimately. So with that comment, I would be interested in hearing what the public has to say, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, there are existing parabolic canvas covers that will cover more than one boat, for example, two boats. Now, this doesn't preclude that, does it, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, what did you say? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: There are parabolic covers for two boats rather than just one boat that exist with canvas and using over metal frame. This doesn't preclude that kind of construction, does it? MS. FABACHER: I believe it does, because it says maximum number of boathouses are -- I'm looking at F -4 on Page 154, and it says maximum number of boathouses or covered structures, which is Page 63 August 1, 2006 the existing language, per site, one. And then-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it could have two boats under one -- MS. FABACHER: Two slips? I suppose it could. I think you can have that now with the boathouses. Whatever you can have with the boathouses now you are allowed to have -- that's why -- I'm sorry, I was going back to see, the dimensions that restrict the boathouses are the same dimensions that are going to restrict the size of the canopy. Maximum height 15 feet as measured from the top of a seawall or bank, whichever is more restrictive to the peak or highest elevation of the roof. So your height's controlled now as far as -- that did address something about two slips, I believe. That's what I was looking back for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you have any other questions -- Mr. Kolflat, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I was just going to say, the power boat marina down in Naples lost most of its slip on one side. They covered it with just a flat cover. And they're contemplating putting in now some curved arches there that would be the canvas, but the canvas could be able to blow away should another hurricane occur without destroying the structure, hopefully. Now, this would not preclude that, would it? Or would it? MS. F ABACHER: It wouldn't have anything to do with what they do in Naples. I don't know, we'd have to look at, you know, what we want it do with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our ordinances don't apply to Naples. MS. FABACHER: That's what I said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We don't need to look at it further. Naples does not apply to our ordinances. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But I wouldn't want to impale any kind of restrictions in the county relative to the main use of the boat covers now with canopies for two boats versus one boat or one Page 64 August 1, 2006 boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I see. So you're worried about the application -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- comparison. Mr. Murray, did you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just had that one -- I spoke before, and Mr. Kolflat has also talked about arc. And Number 5 on Page 154, and it does say all boathouses and covered structures shall be completely open on all four sides. That would almost suggest to me an interpretation of a flat -- okay, now, I recognize you can short -- so that's why I bring again the question of geometry. MS. FABACHER: I see. I understand now. We could choose to restrict that ourselves and say that they could come down eight inches or something, which would actually be better as far as what the companies have told us provide more shade. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And probably more structure. MS. FABACHER: No, more shade. But then there's the issue then of the visual, the aesthetics of being able to see through it. So that's why I originally said the boathouse sides should remain uncovered, so it would be less obtrusive. But if you're doing it and you want to shade your boat, just adding maybe eight inches would increase the effectiveness of the shade. But it's up to what you would like to do. We're instructed to write this pretty much more or less like the boathouses, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. I have a few. Let's start with number seven, what refers to principal structure. What do you do if you don't have a principal structure? MS. F ABACHER: You don't have a canopy or boathouse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there are plenty of boat dock lots in Page 65 August 1, 2006 this community -- MS. FABACHER: Yes, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't interrupt, let's take it one time-- at a time. And those people purchased those lots with the intention of having their boats there. And they even have variances or special treatments to their particular location. And I know that a lot of this discussion originated because of those people with these boat dock lots. So why, if we're looking for solutions, why are we not including them in the solutions? MS. FABACHER: Because the board specifically said we address this and not that issue. That's a different issue. So they said speak to this issue in this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the heart of the issue, but okay. So they didn't want to address boat docks lots. MS. FABACHER: Well, this is the limit of our direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: To just do the canopies now because of all the canopies. But that would be another issue that we would need to receive direction on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what about the existing canopies that are out there today? And there are a series of them throughout the county. Are they all going to be made to come back through an expensive process that is, by this requirement, a public hearing process to go before the planning commission and the BCC? MS. FABACHER: That's what it takes to establish a boat. Now, I don't know what, we could do something about making them legally nonconforming if they met the standards. But my understanding is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me interrupt. MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You started your sentence by saying that's what we need to establish a boat. What do you mean by that? Page 66 August 1, 2006 MS. FABACHER: That process, when you said they had to come back and go through the board for permission for the canopies. I said that's what you have to do for a boathouse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. Okay, so you meant the boathouse. I'm sorry, I thought you meant that they have to come back through just to put a boat in their dock. They don't have to do that -- MS. F ABACHER: No, no, I just meant that the process of establishing a canopy over your slip would be the same as a boathouse, you'd have to come and have a hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a canopy that costs $1,200 or whatever has to spend the equivalency of a public process, which is a planning commission hearing and a Board of County Commissioners hearing and submittals to staff, and God only knows the engineering and everything else that would be submitted with it, just to get a canopy over a boat. Is that what staff is saying? MS. FABACHER: That's what staff is saying. That's what this language is saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this was determined to be a reasonable solution to the actions. Okay. What about the fact that these canopies didn't even require a building permit in the past and they exist today? MS. FABACHER: Well, I think that was the issue of the lawsuit or something. I'm really not -- you'd have to talk to code about that. I'm really not versed on the issue of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to know from the county attorney's office what is the legal opinion on grandfathering issues that didn't require building permits in the past that were put up, and today all of a sudden we find ourselves in the perplexing situation of having a code that doesn't address those potentially grandfathered issues. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think dealing with the boat canopy issue, that's why we have this lawsuit. And from my limited Page 67 August 1, 2006 understanding of this lawsuit, our LDC is very confusing on this issue and these things need to get worked out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Jeff, knowing that there is an issue out there and we're not addressing it by the applicants that are involved, I assume, in the lawsuit. And that is we've got these boat dock lots and we don't even seem to be addressing that, and we're putting them through a criteria that is more costly to them than any number of canopies they could put up. And I'm wondering why. I mean, how do we see this as a solution? Was that the intent, to provide a solution? MS. F ABACHER: I think the intent of having the public hearings is to allow the neighbors and affected people along the water body, just like the boathouses, to have a comment, to have some input and to have a say before a canopy just goes up next door or across the way. If that's the question you're asking. As I said before, the lots that can't have boathouses because they don't have a principal structure, that's a whole nother issue, and we'd have to get another direction from the board or so forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't realize they singled that out as an issue not to address. I thought they wanted to see the whole -- MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- thing addressed. MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They definitely didn't want it? MS. FABACHER: Yes, that's our direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there is no -- well, I guess the issue about the fact that they didn't require building permits before, that isn't going to be addressed in this language? I mean, there's no -- MS. F ABACHER: Well, we may need to look at that. It's my understanding right now that people are either up in violation or they've taken them down, because unfortunately I think part of the lawsuit was that code had gone out and written a lot of people up. So Page 68 August 1, 2006 some people have kind of left them up but nobody's been forced to go to court or deal with it right now. But they're under violation, and some are taken down and -- I guess we'd have to talk to legal about-- if we wanted to grant the intent, you know, what is your intent, what is your direction as far as the existing ones that are up? I mean, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm trying to go. They're up -- and you're saying they're up in violation. They're only considered in violation because someone changed the interpretation of the code. The code was never interpreted this way before. That's why they were put up there legally in the first place is because they didn't require a building permit. N ow they do because all of a sudden everything is a structure, including, I understand, the box that houses your gear on your deck was purportedly part of a structure, which we're getting into the extreme of interpretations. And I'm just wondering how this fixes any of it. It doesn't seem to, it makes it worse. Anyway, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And on that point, Mark, I'm confused. So you're saying that all these boathouses, or these little canopies were legally built? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's my understanding that they weren't required to have permits in the past. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the code says that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the code didn't address it in the past. The code's interpretation today seems to be that everything is a structure and therefore it needs a building permit. It's not the way it used to be in this county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think state building code would require permits for that too. So I would hate to have thought in the past that structures were being built without engineering review and stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll tell you right now, the building Page 69 August 1, 2006 department did not require building permits in the past for these structures, if you want to call them structures, for canopies. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The next hearing, could you verify that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I think you'll hear testimony later on about that. MS. FABACHER: I think this is part of the suit, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm just concerned about the code. MS. F ABACHER: I don't know -- until the suit's settled, I can't verify it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we have the public speakers, if you could, ask them. MS. FABACHER: The first one we have is Mr. John, I think it's Gettinger. Forgive the pronunciation. MR. GETTINGER: John Gettinger. I'm owner of Waterway Boat Lift Covers in Punta Gorda. Didn't know I was going to be first. I'm just -- I was invited down by the Collier County Boat Owners Association. I'm basically just here to answer any questions about what I do or about what I know, the history of the boat canopies. What we've gone through with Charley up in -- and Wilma in the southwest area, mainly, in Charlotte County and Lee County. You addressed a couple of issues I can speak of just a little bit. And the one you just finished here was were these permitted or not permitted. I bought this company in 19 -- or 2001. It was in business before that, put up most of the canopies in Collier County. But I want to address something. In the State of Florida, I send some up to the Panhandle. And I got another competitor that's in Perry, Florida. His is classified as a permanent structure and they have to get a permit for them. The marine contractors up in the Pensacola area and that, they like my unit because the state classifies it as a non-permanent structure Page 70 August 1, 2006 because I do not drill or weld into the boat lift, because they're put on the boat lift. So therefore, mine are classified as a temporary structure, not a permanent structure. And that's why some people say there's no building permit needed. You have some people -- this is an argument point, that says no, it still needs a building permit. But in my opinion the majority of people say it's a non-permanent structure because it's the way it's fastened on the boat lift. A couple of points I heard you say earlier. Now, I'm here to answer any questions I can for you, mainly not to sell anything. But I went through this with the City of Cape Coral, and a couple of things like color, I know their attorney finally told them, hey, look, you can't tell somebody what color to paint their house, you know, so they left the color out of the issue. I don't know what it is -- whatever you think. But 99 percent of the people that get them, they want their residence to look good, and they're going to take a good color, something that blends in. The biggest issue when I go out, they want something to blend in with the sky or their boat or their house. So I don't think color should be a big issue for you. As far as the roof coming down, the City of Cape Coral first came out with an ordinance of coming down on sites 15 percent. Six months later they changed it, they could come down 25 percent. Due to a lot of people talking about boat covers blocking views or anything, I came out with a different model. Again, I'm not trying to advertise or anything. There's a lot of covers that I build that doesn't have any sides, it just has an overhang like your roof does on your house. And I personally feel that does an adequate job as far as not having to worry about the sides coming down. I could stand here and talk with you about a lot, but I'd rather answer any questions that any of you have. Page 71 August 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of this gentleman? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. When they classified it as a temporary structure, in the code we do have temporary structures but they're up for a limited amount of time. So what happens to your structure then? I mean -- MR. GETTINGER: Well, you know, I'm not in the building department, but it can be taken down. Like my covers can be taken off. In the City of Cape Coral, they -- the City of Cape Coral is the only one in Lee and Charlotte County. In Manatee County it requires you to have a permit, and that just went in a couple of years ago. But the covers unfasten and they make you take them down if winds are so high. The rest of the structure -- I understand exactly where you're getting at. I'm not trying to fish around it or anything else. Temporary structures are up there for a certain amount of time. Temporary structures are also -- some people think is it's not in concrete, it's not welded, it's not that. So it's different interpretations. This is why you have a foggy point here on your interpretations of what is temporary. Is it temporary just to be up there for the week tent sale or what? But it's not in -- if it's in concrete or bolted down, then it's a permanent structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It sounds more like it's a frangible structure. MR. GETTINGER: Right, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Codes -- and the only one I know of allowed in the code is where you're going to do explosives. The other question is where it goes over walkways. Or does it go over the walkways? MR. GETTINGER: Well, you've got a beautiful one right out here on your walkway. Page 72 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A beautiful walkway? MR. GETTINGER: A canopy over your walkway out front here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the thing we're talking about here is this canopy, do they go over the deck area, the dock area? A lot of them I've seen they really essentially go between lift to lift and they don't really go over the dock. Is that what you produce or MR. GETTINGER: I hate to keep going back to Cape Coral, because they're the only ones that have a permit. Now, in certain places like in Port Charlotte, I've built them over the I -beams or over the lift. And then I have some people say no, I want my dock covered too. And I'm able to do that there. In the City of Cape Coral, they will just let you do the boat lift and come out 30 inches beyond that. So like a roof over a house. When you write the ordinance, I guess you got the prerogative to do whatever you want. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I'm just curious. There is a common product that covers the boat, maybe has a side flap, but it does not -- let's say since you're building between the lift, it does not extend past the lift, it stays within the lift area, essentially the boat area. MR. GETTINGER: Right. That's what Cape Coral says, I can go out 30 inches beyond the pilings. So therefore, it gives the boat the protection like the roof overhang on your house. Most of our houses have a 24- inch overhang and then you have your gutters another six inches or so. But they won't let me go out farther than that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So within the dock area, you're within the -- where you have the lift, and the important point is you're not over the dock, and then you can cantilever out to cover the rear end of the boat that's sticking out of the lift, so essentially cover the full boat within the width of the lift area. MR. GETTINGER: Yes, sir. Page 73 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Okay. MS. FABACHER: Wait, I had a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Catherine, I'm sorry. MS. F ABACHER: Catherine Fabacher, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I heard your voice, I didn't see where it was coming from. MS. FABACHER: I'm trying to behave myself today, Mr. Chair. The definition of structure: Anything constructed or erected which requires a fixed location on the ground on in the ground or attached to something having a fixed location on or in the ground. And we look at it as part of a dock facility and therefore it is a permanent structure. And Commissioner Schiffer is totally right, a temporary structure has to do with the time it's up, in our code. So if they want to put it up for a week and then come back, get a permit and put it up for another week, it would be a temporary structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's just what the public needs. Thank you, sir, appreciate it. Next speaker, please. Whoever that is, Catherine. MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry. That's going to be Mark Allen. MR. ALLEN: My name's Mark Allen. I'm a resident of Collier County. This is my 50th year here. I learned to drive on Vanderbilt Beach. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mark, would you mind pulling that speaker a little closer to you? MR. ALLEN: Yeah. My name is Mark Allen. This is my 50th year here in Collier County. We were the third house in Naples Park, if that means anything to you. I learned to drive on Vanderbilt Beach. Raised my family here. I'm a product of Lake Park Elementary, Seagate Elementary, Naples High School, the old annex, product of the football teams, baseball teams. Love to fish, love to hunt. And Page 74 August 1, 2006 those things are becoming restricted. I have some children that I love dearly and we were able to buy a boat dock lot in Little Hickory Shores. And armed with that boat dock lot, our access being cut off to the beaches and to the Gulf, I was able to put in a boat dock with two boats. I was able to buy a new boat, which is a silly thing to do, but I did. I don't have a new car but I got a new boat. And I wanted to protect the boat. And there had been questions about these canopies. Being a surveyor for 30 years here in this town, I deal with setbacks, I deal with structures, I deal with mean high water, riparian lines, view rights, I deal with it every day. They seemed to be an issue on that. There seemed to be a question. So I took the time to straighten that out, I thought. On August 20th of 200 1 I had a meeting with Mr. Ed Perico; he was the director of the building department at that time. Not only was he there, Mr. Tom Kuck was there, who was the director of the building department at that time -- the planning department, myself, Mark Allen, Bob Davies, who was a neighbor down there, and Brandon Quant, who was the owner of Waterways Boat Covers previous to Mr. Gettinger here. We all met with Mr. Perico. And I told Mr. Perico what I've told you, and I said I'd like to cover this precious boat of mine, I'm making payments on it, I'm keeping it insured, I'd like to do that. I went down there armed with plans, structural designs. I went down there with -- I took the contractor with me. And after we discussed this, Mr. Perico said, and I quote, these are non-permanent in design, non-permanent in nature, and these do not need a permit. That's exactly what I was told. I went ahead with the procedure. I had Mr. Waterways Boat Covers put up my canopies to cover my boats. All was well. The neighbor across the street put one up and he seemed to not get along very well with the neighbors. Before long he was in a match with the Page 75 August 1, 2006 neighbors over the canopies and then it became a big fight and of course then the county got involved and we have had violations and ordinances and all kinds of things going on here. So then we decided well, what can I do to make this right? I mean, I'm here in Collier County, I'd like to do it right. So I came back to the county, and the county said, Mr. Allen, you are in a platted subdivision, you are one of 33 lots that is known as a boat dock lot facility, and I'm sorry, because you cannot match the principal structure, the lot will not support a structure, so you cannot have a canopy, you cannot have a boathouse, you're in violation. So there I sit. Don't know what to do. Thought I've made all the right means with this, I believe, taken all the right steps. It is so comical to me that this has gone on. Your question I enjoyed about the area covered. I agree. I believe there should be an ordinance, but there is no canopy ordinance that addresses this issue. There is a canopy ordinance that you can put a canopy in your yard, you can put your boat under that canopy in your yard, but voila, if you put it over your boat dock, it now becomes a boathouse. Now, this is the interpretation that staff is using, and I just can't go there. That's not what it is. That's not what it is. To -- after I was cited for this, I decided to file a lawsuit, and I'm involved in that lawsuit. But anyway, I put my canopy back up. And then came -- I don't know which came first, Wilma or Katrina. I think it was Wilma first. The hurricanes were brewing. It did the prudent thing, I went to my boat dock, pulled the cords, dropped the canopy into the boat, took the boat to the lift -- or to the ramp, put the boat on the trailer, took everything that was -- that would be bothered by a hurricane and I took it home and I secured it. Lo and behold, I get a violation for having the support structure of a canopy, not a canopy but the support structure. Well, the reason the canopy was down is because we were having Page 76 August 1, 2006 hurricanes. That's the prudent thing to do. It's not in the bay, it's not damaging anybody's house, it was secured. So I find it comical that we're going to that extent to write tickets for things like that. I don't know what's going to happen to me. I do know that this is supposedly a land development code change that should take care of Collier County. I am in Collier County. I am Lot 12, Block H, plat book three, Page 97 of the public records which shows a boat dock lot. Why can I not cover my boat? I do not understand why we're doing this to me. I don't get it. Why? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Allen, thank you. We may have some questions for you. And Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we're here to fix that. But let me ask a question. Let's go back. When Ed Perico -- and the word of the building official is gospel for building code issues. When you got cited, he was still the building official. Why didn't he come to your defense? And the mistake you made also is you didn't get it in writing, I mean, and that's like pulling teeth. But-- MR. ALLEN: I have a letter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: From Ed Perico? MR. ALLEN: No. I have a letter that I wrote to Mr. Perico, attaching pictures, telling him thank you for his effort, thank you for his time, dated certified mail, appreciating him for that information. Mr. Perico was the guy that you talked to. I used to deal with him on a daily basis. Ed, what are we going to do about this setback, what are we going to do about this? Ed Perico wasn't a man that you had to go in and say sign this. I didn't do it on that occasion, but I did take the time to write him a letter and say thank you for your efforts, I feel better about what I've done. And this letter is here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sometimes that's the best you can do. And that's impressive, I'm not downplaying that. But the Page 77 August 1, 2006 problem here is really zoning issue, which is not under Ed's domain. I mean, Ed could argue how the structure's built, but he can't argue whether you're allowed to have a structure or not. So at the meeting was there anybody there from the zoning or planning-- MR. ALLEN: Mr. Tom Kuck was there. He was the interim Director of Planning at that time, previous to Susan Murray, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did you write him a similar 1 etter? MR. ALLEN: No, I just wrote to Mr. Perico. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To cover these boats, is it necessary to cover the dock? MR. ALLEN: No, sir, it is absolutely not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So a nice low boat cover could extend down the side. But essentially it's covering and wrapping the boat. And I wouldn't mind seeing that -- MR. ALLEN: May I come forward? As you notice, I don't cover the entire boat, I couldn't cover the bow, I don't cover the transit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other concern would be how do we control the height of the thing? MR. ALLEN: It is governed by the particular code, 15 feet right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what ifit didn't need -- I don't think your thing is 15 feet. MR. ALLEN: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what I'd like to do is somehow keep it as low as we can. Because here's the concern. I'm not worried about the owner of the property, I'm worried about his neighbor, who's got this thing blocking his view down the canal. MR. ALLEN: In my particular case, there are no neighbors because there can't be any neighbors. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And you're special, I know that. But we're going to write an ordinance and you'll be Page 78 August 1, 2006 probably covered by that. But can the height be limited to the height of the boat or something -- MR. ALLEN: The height of the lift. Regulate it ten inches above the height of the lift. The lift is permitted -- this is what I don't understand as a surveyor. This is what violates me. We go through all this procedure, doing spot surveys, building location surveys to put this dock in a precise location and this lift in a location. Now why are we going back through this whole process simply to put what is essentially what is a boat lift canopy. It's not really a boat cover, it's a boat lift canopy that the boat is underneath. And furthermore, the thing that I don't understand, I would like someone to show me the definition of permanent in the land development code. A structure is in my mind something that is permanent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, Mr. Allen, we try to limit speakers to five minutes. Then we can get into questions from the speakers and that could take a little longer, at the discretion of the members asking the question, but I want to try to get to the bottom of this and get through the five public speakers we have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to say one thing quick. You don't have to respond to this. What we're trying to do __ code is silent on the issue, and that's why we're trying to give it requirements, to prevent your frustration. MR. ALLEN: Am I allowed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can respond to his questions, I just don't -- MR. ALLEN: Because what I'm saying is the issues under F, a lot of those issues and the canopies, they go back to the structure, which eliminates me, I'm screwed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We won't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Mr. Allen. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here's your paper, sir. Page 79 August 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And one correction, and Brad, I don't know where you intend to go with this, but I'm sure open to, as we go further on here today, I think the BCC, from what I can tell from what Catherine told me, they did not want to get into the issue of the boat dock lots. I wish they hadn't have gone that way, but if that's the only direction we've got, I don't know if we can do anything with that in the end. Maybe we can make suggestions to them and I hope that's what comes out of this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The boat dock lots came before us, and in that application they suggested canopies that weren't what we were talking about here, they were much larger, essentially property line to property line. So I mean, had this ordinance been in there, we might have allowed that kind of a canopy in that location in the proper process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Ifwe just -- as we get through today, maybe we can work on that. The next speaker? MS. FABACHER: The next speaker is John Purvis. MR. PURVIS: Hello. My name is John Purvis and I'm a resident of Collier County. I've been here about 20 years on and off. Now I'm permanent. I have a canopy. I spent 35 years in emergency medicine. My background is safety issues, safety environmental-- safety issues, not environmental. And in 1997 I purchased me a boat, as all smart people do that, and they keep throwing a lot of money into it, repairs and so on and so forth. And then I saw, you know, we need something to protect this boat. I was going to get a snap-on cover, and I found if you snapped the cover on, all your electronics will draw the humidity and in two years you're putting all new electronics back on. And a guy said, you know, you ought to think about a canopy, you push a boat up, the air flows through, keeps it dry, it protects your boat. I said, sounds like a great idea. But me being in this safety Page 80 August 1, 2006 mind, I thought, you know, let's look at this. So I looked at it, and I investigated and I thought, great idea. So I put it up. The prior -- let me back a little bit. I went through the procedure on a permit for my dock. I have an excellent PVC dock, first class. Everything, the pilings put in under permit, under regulations. I had drawings of the canopy. We took it to the permitting. They have pictures there, they have all the setbacks, they have everything. It's permitted. They said well, what about the canopy? Waterways is going to put it up. Oh, you don't need a permit for that. Now, when you say temporary -- a temporary struc -- you say it's temporary. How temporary is it? Well, it's temporary for the fact if a hurricane's coming you take it down. That's -- it's no longer permanent, it's coming down. All of the folks are going back up north and you're going to store your boat, it's coming off there. And that's what we say of temporary. So how temporary is on the environmental and the weather conditions and the availability of the person being at this facility. So with that said, they said you don't need a permit. We put it up. 1999 or 2000, somewhere around there, they said, you know, you've got to have a permit for this. We're going to issue on -- it was on Good Friday. We're going to issue you a citation because you have an unpermitted canopy. I said, let me see the ordinance. Oh, this is a boathouse. I said, who said that? Well, they say it's a boathouse, so it's a boathouse. I said okay, let me ask you a question: We have a hurricane coming, right behind my house is a boathouse. Go take that -- how long is it going to take you to take that boathouse down? You're not. That's a structure. Mine comes down in 20 minutes. Now, also, we don't have debris as they had in Punta Gorda, Port Charlotte, of tiles and wood from boathouses in the canals. It's gone, it's out of there. So they said to me, this is going to be -- the issue is a safety Page 81 August 1, 2006 issue. That's what their song was there. So I stayed through four hurricanes, videoed all the canopies, everything. We lost two canopies. And the canopies were lost because the structural was compromised from some corrosion where they fell into the boat. N one blew away. But we lost roofs, we lost everything else. But my point is we're in favor -- I represent, and I got together __ I got together, because I felt I was being persecuted by the county and by certain people in the county that didn't like canopies. So I got together a Collier County Boat Owners Association, became nonprofit. We have about 80 members. We're a boating community. We want to protect our property and we're being deprived of that. And we hired an attorney and we joined in a lawsuit. And we're going to continue that lawsuit. But I support ordinances, I support regulation, but I think it's got to be in fairness. And I know you people -- I mean, I appreciate the time that you're putting in to sit to listen to all this. I know you've listened to thousands of other programs, and your time is -- you know, to listen, it's complimentary to all of us citizens. I would like you guys to do the fair thing. And I appreciate you, and I want us to move forward and get this thing under an ordinance that's fair for all the citizens. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: Our next speaker is Mr. (sic) B.J. Savard-Boyer? Oh, I'm so sorry, and you've been here every time. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: That's quite all right. But I do have a couple of pictures, so can I go over there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I need your name for the record to start out, too. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: And I have not been sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This isn't legislative. Page 82 August 1, 2006 MS. SAVARD-BOYER: I don't need to be sworn in? Okay. My name is B.J. Savard-Boyer and I live on Palm Court in the Vanderbilt Beach area. First, I'd like to thank the staff for trying to clarify the requirements in the boathouse codes. There have been many different interpretations and it's caused a lot of time and effort on everybody. I have two items of concern in Item F, standard for boathouses. Number seven, roofing materials shall be the same as on the principal structure or palm frond, chickee style. And Number C under seven is canopy cover material shall be limited to colors that will blend in with the natural habitat such as beige, blue and green, and not yellow, orange, red, et cetera, because those colors are not found in the natural habitat. If we are to have boathouses and canopies, it would be pleasing to see consistency in color. Not a variety of shades of blue or green, but one basic color of beige. It's the color of sand, it blends in, it's not a bold color, it's a quiet color. There are many different shades of blues and greens for canvas. And as far as structured roofs, the material can be tile, tin, shingle and the colors can go anywhere from orange, green, white, gray, silver, turquoise and so on. These colors are not common in the native habitat as stated for canopies. So how can you have one standard for canopies for a color and a different standard for boathouse for roofs? And again, one color would be consistent and a view down the canal would be pleasing to the eye and not look like a circus tent. What you're looking at, that picture there just has the natural color. There's only one boathouse there. But on the other side you see a cover on a boat of blue. So if we had blues and oranges and greens -- there's another. Now, this one has the boathouse structure is the same roofing material as the house. And the houses are all beautiful. I understand that from the road they look lovely. But if you're going to have 20 boat covers, whether they're roofs or whether they're Page 83 August 1, 2006 canopies, and they're all different shades, it's not going to look very pleasing. So my idea is why can't we just -- if we're going to have them, why can't they just all be standard and look nice. One exception to color might be for a gated community. If they have a basic color on their buildings and they want their canopies or roofs to match, perhaps wording could be inserted in the code to address that preference. And I'm thinking particularly of Baker Carol Point, their colors, they have one color of an aqua on their -- on all their buildings. And it doesn't -- at least it blends in with their buildings. So if you wanted to make an exception there, then that would be okay. My other concern is safety. And Mr. Purvis alluded to the removal of his canopy in hurricane season. However, not all of the homeowners, our neighbors that go north in the summer, remove their canopies before they leave. Nor do I -- well, I don't know if they have someone come in and remove them or not. But there were a lot of canopies that were left over the docks when they left last year. Some of them remained standing and some of them didn't. And one of them went over into Naples Park. So that's all I have to say. I thank you for your time. Do you have a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. That's a pontoon boat that's down there that has a blue cover? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: The other picture? COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes. Well, you see it in the other picture, it's closer -- it's a pontoon boat. The third picture you put up will show it. Now, that cover's blue. Sometime, maybe there'll be a green and somebody else will have some other color. Would you expect the pontoon boat owner to change the boat cover that he has on his boat? Page 84 August 1, 2006 MS. SAVARD-BOYER: No, because people that have covers on their boats, you know, if they have a burgundy trim on their boat, they have a burgundy snap-on boat cover. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So those colors are all right. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Well, you know, what can I say? Everybody has -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm trying to understand your standardization, what you're intending to achieve. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Well, that's -- you know, a cover on a pontoon boat is a lot smaller than something that's going to be 15 feet in the air, don't you think? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just asking, ma'am. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: You know, I would think that a canopy 15 feet in the air covering a boat dock is a lot larger than a cover on a pontoon boat. I didn't get into pontoon boats. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First thing on the canopy issue, are you guys concerned about the ability to cover a boat with this small canopy that covers just the boat? I mean, I guess it's been referred to, which I like the word, boat lift cover, which is a small, not a tall version like those things with a roof. I think the height should be 15 feet. But do you have a problem with these covers over the boat if they're down low onto it? You know what I mean? MS. SAVARD-BOYER: No, as long as they are within the code. If they are open on all four sides, if they're all one color so that it looks halfway standard. Lou Schmidt, who is following me, will have some pictures of different canopies. I don't have any. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only concern is like, let's say you did put that waterway with all one color, like a beige or something, wouldn't it start to look like a military base or something? I mean, the variety might be -- add a little to the neighborhood. Page 85 August 1, 2006 And then -- you don't have to answer this. The next question is would this be -- the color choice be something that a homeowners association that governs these canals, would that be the place to have the color -- MS. SAVARD-BOYER: I don't think the homeowners association wants to get into that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. MS. F ABACHER: Lou Schmidt. MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning. I'm Lou Schmidt. I live at 405 Pine Avenue, in the Vanderbilt Beach area. I am the vice president of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association. We have 850 dues-paying members. I kind of work for B.J., and I'm certainly glad to be under her tutelage. But I want to tell you first on behalf of the association, we thank you for your outstanding public service. I imagine you don't hear thank you very often, and I wanted to begin my comments by a personal thanks, as well as a thanks from our association. I then want to tell you that the association has not taken a position on coverage. We are neither in -- covers. We're neither in favor nor are we opposed. But we are concerned, and we would like to bring some of our concerns to your attention. And it has to do with the code and the wording of the code and what will go into the code. And we do believe you need a code. The first picture will illustrate some of our concerns. And the first picture I'm going to show you -- and these pictures were taken right after Wilma. This is a picture of a boat cover -- boat dock on Flamingo, which is off of Vanderbilt Drive. It's one of the northern finger streets off of Vanderbilt Drive. As you will note, this has been -- this boat cover had a catastrophic failure. I don't know what the winds were, but you will Page 86 August 1, 2006 also note that there is a pool cage adjacent to it on the property, adjacent to it, two panels are missing, but the pool cage survived. If you'll notice, there's no apparent damage to the boat. But it's obvious that the cover did not survive. Contrasted with this one, I have a -- I have a picture of a boat cover on Heron, that's on the same canal, it's one block south or one street south of Flamingo. It must have been exposed to the same winds. And as you will notice, this cover has no apparent damage. And our question is, why are two similar structures so different? Why did one fail and why did the other survive? The cover for this __ or the canvas cover itself was found reportedly in Naples Park. That's the one that B.J. referred to that must have blown across the road into Naples Park. We think that if you were going to have a code, you need more than specifying engineering. These are manufactured structures. We believe they must be engineered, tested and certified to meet the wind load that you've established of 140 miles an hour. We think that certification -- testing and certification would give the neighbors and the owners some comfort that these structures can survive in a hurricane. We're all concerned about collateral damage. We all know about insurance. We know that the hurricane insurance rates are going out of sight, if you can get hurricane coverage, and deductibles are becoming astronomical. So we need something that can withstand the hurricane. We have one other concern, and that concern happens to be with the requirement that the cover, the canvas cover, be able to withstand winds of 75 miles an hour and that the canopy shall be removed when storm winds are predicted to exceed 70 miles an hour. How are you going to enforce that requirement? Is somebody from code enforcement going to cruise through the area and find out if the owners have taken them down? Can I call code enforcement and say Page 87 August 1, 2006 my neighbor has not taken his canopy down and something be done about it? I don't think this is an enforceable requirement. I think there perhaps is a solution, and the solution may be that the cover over this frame must be designed to break away. If you have a 70-mile-an-hour wind, it's got to break away. The structure you see, the cover apparently broke away, blew away and the structure survived. The other one did not. I don't know where the cover went. Probably with pieces of the material that were blown around. So we think that you need to include those two items in the code to protect the owners and adjacent property owners. As to aesthetics, let me show you this -- this is another picture of the same dock. This is a recent picture with the cover put back on. You'll notice that it's open at the ends, with the bow and the stern, but it has a side skirt that comes down. I'm not sure how far, but it's certainly more than eight inches. You'll notice that it is the width of the dock. Actually, it's not all that obtrusive. It's an interesting situation. If you'll notice in the other picture, there were three boats stored on this property during the hurricane. One was picked up with the davits that are there, one was under the fixed structure roof, and one was under the canvas roof. I don't know that this meets any of the codes. You have two structures here, the fixed structure probably is grandfathered in, but it does not match with the house. That's a dilemma. Would you permit this? I don't know. And how would the people in the permitting department know that this is what they are approving? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you need to kind of come to a conclusion. MR. SCHMIDT: Okay. I thank you very much. That says what I have to say. One thing to appearance I'd like to suggest, and I think I understand where B.J. 's coming from. One of our members said, you Page 88 August 1, 2006 know, if you look down the canal and you have all of these multi-colors, it begins to look like a carnival or a circus. And that's the concern about colors. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any other public speakers? MS. FABACHER: No more speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Final comments from the planning commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't know how to go about this. What I'd like to kind of like to do, my opinion is, is not __ to go back to six and let those words stay in there, and have seven totally cover -- and I think we should call it a boat dock lift. So that __ and then add to seven's requirements the fact that the boat dock lift shall not proj ect over the walkway. Because otherwise, what this is allowing people to do is build big awning structures, and I don't think that's the intent. The intent is to allow what they've showed us as these small boat dock lifts. If we don't do that, then somebody could come in, because it's going to be a space- framed kind of structure, it's going to be really tall and huge to be strong. I think the requirement of why you take it down before the storm, that really comes from all awnings have that same requirement. Whether people do it or not, there's no way to enforce it. What people do do that's smart is they go through and they cut the awning, leave it there. And that's probably what the fellow did there so that the awning, if the wind comes, will just take it away and not pull the structure down. But my suggestion is to kind of within the boat dock, the boathouses, which is solely because that way we'll get to have a hearing for it -- and we may discuss whether we want to let these by right -- and put in there a section on boat lifts. Page 89 August 1, 2006 I also think, Mark, that in six we should put an exception to that which states that the exception be boat dock lots. That is, if the county has zoned those lots for boat docks, I think that the regulations for this should apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would agree with most of what you say. I do have a question. Since you're well experienced in the building code, does the building code regulate canopies now? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, one of the biggest -- I think you've cleared up the issue of the boat dock lots. And the existing structures, if they were to be qualified by the building code standards to be -- and get a building permit, that would solve their problem. The part of seven that I find most onerous and offensive is the reference to 5.03.06.F which forces these various property owners to go back through a public process at two levels that costs a fortune and is far more expensive and burdensome than the canopy itself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I would be comfortable myself to have these -- the boat lift canopies, I'm going to call them that from now on. And again, one of the requirements of that is that they cannot go over the dock itself. I would be okay with those to be by right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going, so-- MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, can I correct the record here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct the record? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I apologize for being late. Many other duties and responsibilities. But just so you understand, this is not a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and before the planning commission. It was written as with a boathouse. You are the approval authority for a boathouse. The reason this is a boathouse is because it intrudes into the visual space, just like a boathouse would. That's why boathouses come to you for approval. Page 90 August 1, 2006 Now, if you don't -- if you do not want to take that in consideration, that is the whole principle behind the boathouse itself having to be approved through the planning commission is because of the intrusion in the visual space of your neighbor and the neighbor having a -- the right to comment. Likewise, the boat canopy, the only way you can, through any public petition, is define it as a boathouse, which structurally is really what it is, from a standpoint of intruding into the visual space above the boat. And I also want to make sure you understand -- and I would ask Commissioner Schiffer because of his experience with the structural issue, let's not confuse the land development code with the Florida Building Code. All I can do on this is qualify and quantity requirements in the land development codes. As far as the certification, product verification, that's up to the manufacturer, and that's up to the manufacturer to receive state certification to the structural integrity of this product and whether the product is going to withstand hurricane force winds. That is something we do not do nor does my building official do. They accept the certification from -- it's product certification. It's nothing we do. The only reason we have the wind load in there is because exactly what Commissioner Schiffer says, it does somewhat indemnify the county for the responsibility of, number one, having to remove them and, number two, being liable for any damage that is caused. Because we know from a standpoint the manufacturer's statements that I have right now show that the only thing that structurally meets the wind load is the frame itself. The frame with the canopy does not meet the wind load. And there's no manufacturer that has brought anything forward to the building official to validate that. And in regards to the boat dock lots, and I know I'm going over Page 91 August 1, 2006 history here, but Mr. Allen is well aware that his petition went before the board and the board denied boathouses on those lots. It was a petition before the board and it was denied. And to attempt to include the boat dock lots into this portion of the ordinance, that's a zoning issue dealing specifically with the uniqueness of those boat dock lots. There is a specific language, and I'll defer to Susan on that and the other part of -- and other portion of the code that deal with the boat dock lots. This was not an amendment to deal with that. Even though Mr. Allen and Mr. Davies both approached the board regarding boathouses and in lieu of boathouses the canvas or vinyl covers, this was not an attempt by the board to try to correct that problem. This was a direction by the board to canvas both the -- I'm sure Catherine gave you the background, to canvas those who live along the waters whether they preferred to have or allow for these, but also it was an attempt to vet this publicly to see if there was any opposition to it. And that's really all this is. So the question comes down to, from a standpoint -- the permitting issue we'll have to deal with through the Florida Building Code and the through product certification. The zoning issue is whether the planning commission wants to interj ect itself into this or simply just allow them to come in, apply for and receive a zoning permit to allow for the construction of the covers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. My position still stays where Mr. Schiffer previously suggested. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Joe, one thing -- there's one thing I disagree with, one of your concepts, is that this is different than a boathouse to me, these boat lift canopies. In other words, they're a different creature. They're a smaller creature. And I don't think -- you know, the fact that they're under here I think we can maybe live with just because it will provide the hearing if we find it necessary. Page 92 August 1, 2006 But the only thing they have in common with boat lifts is they're built over waterways, which are public property. It's a privilege to be able to do that, it's not a right. MR. SCHMITT: I don't argue that. It's not that staff disagrees. What we brought forward is exactly what the board asked us to bring forward. And that was to allow for -- create an ordinance to allow for the use of these in Collier County, and then establish a process. And if the planning commission believes that it is not -- does not want to involve itself in this from a standpoint, as Mr. Strain just pointed out, does not want to consider these a boathouse, that -- but that frankly will -- I will ask Susan to clarify, because we already had an official interpretation, that was vetted, and that's where we are with this. That was deemed to be a boathouse and that is -- certainly that's what led to the lawsuit and all the other things associated with this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's why we're here. MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So is the code silent? We want to give it some words. MS. MURRAY: Silent on what? Susan Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On these canopies, I guess. MS. MURRAY: Well, no, that was decided already through an official interpretation. And let me ask you this, too, because we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How come we don't have that? I'd like to see that, if we're going to make -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who provided the official interpretation? MS. MURRAY: I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do we have a copy of that? MS. FABACHER: No. But I can get it for you. MS. MURRAY: The other question you're not answering is the Page 93 August 1, 2006 code as it stands now includes any roof structure built on a dock. So-- and one of the reasons why that was put in there, and I'll give you a little bit of background. Originally boathouses were approved by the Board of County Commissioners through the conditional use process. And the board at that time when this was changed, and I don't remember the date, it's probably seven years ago, asked to eliminate the conditional use process but still have a public hearing process because of the concern over view. And so this is where this language that you're seeing now with the exception of the underlined portions came into being, and that was when the provision for the roofing material was adopted at the same time. So rather than going to the Board of County Commissioners for final approval through a conditional use, it was thought that they could reduce the time and the cost by just simply bringing it to the planning commission for final approval, and this boathouse petition was developed at that time through this code amendment. That also included other roof structures on docks, because the commissioners were getting complaints about people, for example, building like tiki bars with tiki roof structures, not necessarily covering a boat but out on the dock and blocking somebody's view. So they wanted to include that at the same time. So you've got kind of three different things going on here with respect to structures on docks. And if you -- and if that's the recommendation you want to make, and I would need clarification on that, because I don't understand what you were saying. You said as long as it just covers the boat. I don't really quite understand that. And the other thing you have to address is you've still got a setback requirement here. So as far as the boat dock lots go, which is a completely different issue, those were addressed under a separate resolution. They are not addressed under the land development code. They have completely different issues that were adopted under a separate resolution, they Page 94 August 1, 2006 could still not meet that setback requirement, regardless of what you propose. So I'm not sure where you're going to with that either. If you want us to carry forward a separate recommendation that says the boat dock lot should be allowed to have boathouses, that really is going to have to be something that's addressed under a separate process with separate setback rules and everything else because they can't meet this criteria right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me answer. One thing that I think is important and we really have to do and that maybe in your mind you have to do it too, is separate these canopies, which again, I'll call them boat lift canopies. And what they are is they don't go over the dock itself, they only go over the boat, essentially. MS. MURRAY: And where are they attached? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To the boat lift. Or pile -- I'm sure somebody could attach it to the structure. But the important part is that the geometry of them, how they're structured and configured, that's going to be covered by the building code, that's not our issue here. Is this going to be covered by the support or the pile system or -- which is usually what boathouses are. Or there's testimony that they can cover supported by the lift itself. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, are they subject to the same height requirement as -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think that's something we should discuss. I don't think it should have the same, I think it should have a lesser height. And I think it should be really based on the boat that it's protecting. MS. MURRAY: So what I hear you saying probably is you want to define a different structure type with a different set of criteria for setbacks and height, perhaps? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The setback should be the same. But what we said is to use the wording of this LDC amendment, not Page 95 August 1, 2006 scratch it and rewrite it, is to keep the wording in six, which pertains to boathouses, and to make a subset of boathouses which we'll call these boat lift canopies, and set the criteria for that, which is essentially what you have in there with the exception of adding the wording that it does not cover the walkway. And then I think that gives the people the ability -- now, if we want to bring it before the planning commission, I mean, let's do it for awhile, and then if we decide that that's a nuisance -- how much would that cost somebody to do? MS. MURRAY: Go through the boathouse procedure? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, or this canopy we're talking about. MS. MURRAY: I think it's like 1,500 or $2,000. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't there a way we could -- first of all, it would have to have a boat dock to do it. So therefore, they met the requirements of a boat dock. Isn't there something we could do simpler than that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think there is. I just think it's -- my first concern, and I'll let Joe weigh in on this too, is that really wasn't the direction given to us by the board. I'd be happy to take your suggestion to them and say do you want us to develop this further. MR. SCHMITT: Can I ask Commissioner Strain then, I guess, from the standpoint if you want to take out the criteria under 5.03.06F, is there another criteria you want to add or just say they can come in and apply and simply demonstrate that they meet the Florida Building Code and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: He didn't say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did say that. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He addressed it to me. COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought he said Mr. Schiffer. Page 96 August 1, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he addressed it to me. MR. SCHMITT: Because I'm trying to answer both because I see a difference of opinion here, and I want to understand the planning commission's direction that if you do not believe this should be a public petition, is it simply an application process. MS. MURRAY: Administrative approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad has said there are building standards that apply, and we're imposing standards here that would regulate the way these would be built as far as heights and everything else goes. And if they meet all those criteria, why make them pay up to $2,000 to come before us again? MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Then I ask the follow-up question then: Why would we ask them to come in for boathouses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a much bigger facility. It covers a lot more than just a boat lift and it's a structure, not a canopy. And I do not agree that a canopy is a structure. And I think that's probably the crux of the whole problem. MR. SCHMITT: Let me go back and ask -- you said Brad mentioned that the building code would cover these. The building code really doesn't cover these specifically in the code. There's nothing -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no, but there is things in the -- there's nothing in the building code that allows you to build a structure that does not have engineering to withstand wind loads. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is a structure. There's no minimum threshold. I mean, this would be a structure. Now, the designer has a choice. He can design it based on the assumption like you would like an awning, that I'm going to take it down. Because these canopies in a hurricane, they're not roof structures, they're wings. So you could take the wing down and then the structure could go through the storm. Page 97 August 1, 2006 I mean, I don't think anybody would design it to remove itself. I mean, the screen patios are designed where the screening comes out at 75 miles an hour. Unfortunately three sides come out and the fourth side tears it down. MR. SCHMITT: These are designed for the canopies to be removed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think they would have to be. But an engineer could design one to withstand loads -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, he could. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in construction. So I don't think that's an issue at this table. There's no way you could allow these without a permit. MR. SCHMITT: All I would require is manufacturer's certification that it meets the criteria as defined in the Florida Building Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they could be individually engineered and reviewed by your engineering staff. But I think we should set the requirement. Mark, could I ask one of the persons -- the fellow who came to the company that installed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna has a question before we go back to the public. COMMISSIONER CARON: Let him finish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He wants to bring the person up here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The fellow from the company that makes them. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Gettinger. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The problem I would have is how to set the height on these things. In other words, I think 15 feet is much too tall and I don't want to see some -- MR. GETTINGER: I'm inclined to agree with you. When I go out on a sales call, I have the customer say raise your boat to the Page 98 August 1, 2006 highest level you want it with high wind -- with high water, and then I measure up so we got the boat covered. We want to keep the top as close to the boat as possible because you get more sun protection that way. I can only remember in the last four or five years maybe one top that went up 14 feet. Most of them were going up, I'd say, 12 feet, the most of them. But, you know, it gets into -- and once in a while I have to refuse to build one for somebody because he's got this huge yacht, and I'm not going to cover something that's up there two stories high or something, you know. And most of the time they're not on boat lifts. Most of this stuff that's on boat lifts is not a big yacht, you know. That's the one that's really blocking your view. But Cape Coral has 14-foot high, 35-foot long and IS-foot wide. And they let me go out 30 inches past the I-beam or piling, so you have that roof overhang like you do on your building, your house. It's not covering the dock or anything, but it gives you this sun protection when the sun is here at 11: 00. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that could be done by a side flap better, don't you think? MR. GETTINGER: I have found it's not. Because if the boat is down here and this awning is here, directing to the side flap, to me, I build them but most of the time side flap is just catching the wind. That's my personal opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think, Brad, we might want to take a look at the Cape Coral rules to see how they would fit here in Collier County, since they seem to have a stricter rule than parts of the state but it seems to be one you can work with? MR. GETTINGER: They argued over this for several years up there and it took them 18 months to come up with theirs -- MR. SCHMITT: And there was a lawsuit as well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. But maybe we can learn something from them and not waste a lot Page 99 August 1, 2006 of our time. MS. MURRAY: Can I ask one question about the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat had -- did you have a question of this gentleman, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Not this gentleman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead. MS. MURRAY: I'm just curious because I know of course when people have roof structures over their boats they want to be able to get to their boat and work on their boat. I mean, they're in the shade. Is that height adequate? You said 14 feet was Cape Coral? MR. GETTINGER: Yes, Cape Coral has 14 foot above the seawall. MS. MURRAY: Above the seawall, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All of this conversation is about boat lifting canopies, which indicate are small boats. If a person has a boat that's 44 feet long, it stands 20 feet high clearance, and that person seems to be -- should be entitled also to put a canvas top over that area if he has a place to dock it. And nothing that you're talking about covers that issue at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a comment, too. I'm sorry -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the end of your comment. Just say that again. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I'm talking about a boat that's 44 feet long, has a clearance generally of about 20 feet high, and has reason to put a canopy over the top at the dock to protect itself. There's nothing in here that pertains to that. All the conversation has been concerning boat lift type of awnings which are for a much smaller craft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And so what happens there? August 1, 2006 Are they just excluded from this ordinance? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think that it's our job to make recommendations, and when we get to that point today you ought to include any recommendation you have in that regard. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, the problem I have with it is if you tell somebody the height's going to be 25 feet, you now are limiting somebody that purchased their boat that they must clear 25 feet clearance or 20 feet or 14 or 10 or whatever size you go. And should the land development code really restrict the size of a boat that a person can own or dock at his property? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how to answer that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It does. It has to fit within your property line. But I think that anybody -- if we do write an ordinance that is by right, anybody that wants to do something above that would come before the board -- would come before us and get that approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, I'm sorry I've missed you. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that Mr. Schiffer has some good points. I believe that keeping boathouses separated from either boat lift canopies or any kind of other canopy rules and regulations is a good idea. If some of the requirements in boathouses need to be transferred down to boat canopies, then we need to write those regulations accordingly. I am very much opposed to taking out the public hearing process on this. The public hearing process is about view corridors, and that's absolutely true. However, for it to cost somebody $2,000 seems excessive, and I think Mr. Schmitt, you should be looking at how we can make it a reasonable fee for people to come before this board on that issue. Looking at the Cape Coral statute, since they've obviously done lot of research, is probably not a bad idea for us to take a look at it and see what they came up with and see if there's anything missing or Page 101 August 1, 2006 anything we want to add or anything that we would subtract. And I would certainly do that before we go much further on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Any other comments on this issue? Mr. Kolflat, I think you've made -- you've expressed your concerns and Brad and I and Donna and all of us, and Bob. So with that, does staff have enough to go back and rethink this and come back with some more suggestions? And we can probably put this to bed for today. Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: Just clarification. And again, I'm dragging up history here, but we went over great debate -- and I'm getting mixed signals from the planning commission and I just wanted to be sure. We went over a great debate when we did boat dock extensions, and you made it very clear you wanted the view criteria, I can't think of the wording that was in there, but that was -- we added that language, that was very definitive and it was our understanding that, again, with boathouses you would want that -- it's not in here specifically, but it's certainly part of the public petition process, and I guess I'm trying to feel for where you want to go down now. You don't -- I've got one commissioner, I believe, that says -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. I said something different. But let me correct you. Her point about view corridors is a good point, yes. But then we need to address where it doesn't affect view corridors. And my specific issue is those boat dock lots. There needs to be an exception to the public process there. They don't affect view corridors, there's no upland views. They're boat dock lots. They were created for boats. And I think if there was an exception for those in relationship to the public process to address views that don't exist, then I don't know if we have a problem. MR. SCHMITT: Well, I'll differ with you on that, Commissioner. I'll bring back the public record. It was discussed Page 102 August 1, 2006 extensively during that public petition about the views, that the series of boat covers or boathouses on those boat dock lots would create nothing more than a kind of a seesaw effect all the way down that area. And it is clearly part of the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MR. SCHMITT: So I -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The boat dock lots have to be kept separate, I believe. And -- because I think they have multiple issues, not the least of which is the view corridor issue. But also the size of these lots. I think lumping them in with the canopy issue is not a good idea. It just -- they are worlds apart. Now, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to do this, but I think it needs to be in a separate -- again, a -- MS. MURRAY: And they are already, simply because, you know, obviously you can't have an accessory structure without a principal. And their setbacks, their lot width is much narrower, and so they had setback issues as well. And so all that was addressed in a separate resolution. And I apologize for interrupting. MR. SCHMITT: I don't debate the merit of this. I just have to go with where the board put us at the last time this was debated. I will bring this all back -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me just stop for a minute. I'm going to ask people to refrain from speaking until I ask them or recognize them. So Mr. Murray was next. Please, Mr. Murray, go with what you were going to say. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, simplistically, stated simplistically, people buy homes that adjoin a canal or abut a canal. They anticipate buying a boat. A boat is a piece of property. Property has value. Value needs to be protected. You protect it by some form of shading in this instance. Page 103 August 1, 2006 Structure is the question. What is structure? I don't know how many -- I don't know how many angels are on the head of this pin, but it seems to me that the intent is to provide -- as long as there's going to be a boat lift and a boat, it would seem that it should be a permanent intent. The structure itself may not be permanent and it may be subj ect to removal and reinstallation. That is to say the canvas or other materials. So coming to the board -- coming to us and spending $2,000 to go through the whole process may satisfy everything quite legally, but I think it is a matter of equity. People who are entitled to protect their boats who do not bring the issue to the level of a boathouse should not have the same level of requirement as has been offered here. I can't -- I mean, I've listened very carefully and tried to figure out. I think this needs a lot more work. And I'm not criticizing anybody. This is a little more complicated. And I will say, if you have mixed signals from this board, I will tell you mine then. I believe, whether the board -- whether the commissioners or not agreed to it, I believe that those who are in those lots have the same equitable right to have some kind of protection for their boats. And if that means that we can have some kind of a protection in the form of a canopy for them, then I would be an advocate for that. So I hope that qualifies that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. With that, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Would you like us to develop two options? Option A, as I just heard some commissioners saying through the public petition process, we'll modify this. And option B, where maybe some criteria that would define what and what would not qualify or just simply an application for a permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Mr. Murray's comments were very accurate in the sense that this board is really confused -- not Page 104 August 1, 2006 confused, but has different opinions on this. The more you can do to clarify that and bring back options for us to pick from, I think would be a better way for us to get to a resolution. MR. SCHMITT: I'll do that. And I would like to include in this the resolution that was developed to resolve many of the issues at the boat dock lots. There's only one place in Collier County, that's in Little Hickory Shore, where we deal with these. There's no other place. And we'll make sure you have the background on that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they platted? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means they received county approval, including Board of County Commissioners. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Joe, just one thing we'd like to do, just to add onto what Bob was saying, is that we really want to separate these canopies from the boathouses. So what we want to do is offer people two ways to cover their boat: one with the full-blown boathouse and one with these canopies. So the more we mix it, the more that gets confusing. MR. SCHMITT: I understand. And the canopy certainly is the least expensive, probably not as structurally -- I mean, there's other things -- the canopies will have to be removed. But we'll come back. We'll structure it and look and it and come back with a couple of options for you to debate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolf1at? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The other thing about canopies, Joe, I think you ought to not limit it to a specific height or size of canopy, it should be all-encompassing so it does not exclude any particular range. Page 105 August 1, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: If I could comment on that, though, you can't build a boathouse that high. So are you asking for a canopy to even go higher than a boathouse? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, we're talking about having the canopy separate from the boathouse. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. So you're talking about unlimited -- no limit on how high the thing can go over the boat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, there is a limit, but it's certainly higher than the limit we've been talking about here for these boat lifts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And I don't think those boats should be excluded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, Mr. Kolflat, with all respect, I think Brad had said earlier one of the solutions to that may be in those special circumstances where someone has a yacht. Why they would cover it with a canopy, I don't know, because they probably have enough money to buy an entire building for it. But if they have a yacht that they want covered and it's bigger than what we would normally attribute to a boat lift, then I think certainly that has got to come back through a much higher standard of process than a boat lift -- than a small canopy that we're talking about here. I'm not sure if the other panel members -- I don't know what your opinions are on this, but I would hate to see staff go and draw on the language based on these larger yachts when I don't think any of us would want to see that, except maybe one. You need to look and see what all of us want. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And also, these boats wouldn't be permitted on the geometry of these lots anyway. Your yacht isn't going to be in one of these canals. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In addition to it, the draft of a boat that size will not likely pass through any of our areas, and it's Page 106 August 1, 2006 very unlikely you'll find it. But I respect what you're offering. But I agree with Mr. Strain that we would like to, and we should, go through a full process on that, should that ever occur. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I recognize that the ordinances for the county differ from the city, but I only again reflect that in the city they are currently contemplating this kind of construction, which will cover boats of that height, be covered with canvas canopies. And that might occur sometime in the county in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, staffs heard us. I'm sure they'll come back with something trying to address all the issues as best we can. With that, I think it's time to go to lunch for one hour. We'll be back here at 1 :00. Then we'll resume with the county engineering department. (A lunch recess was taken.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We left off with a very noncontroversial issue of boat canopies. Let's go into the engineering issues. Stan, if you could guide us to where the first one is in our packet, that sure would be helpful. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. I think it says -- the first one is on page 2, but that's just an acronym, NA YD. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think what -- yeah. And I think what we'll do with page -- the acronyms is after we get staff mostly done and we're just sitting here with Catherine we can go through the acronym because there's probably 50 acronyms that are going to have to be added to or questioned so ... MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If I have the-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let's go with engineering. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon. I'm Stan Chrzanowski. I'm with the Engineering Review Department, and the first item I have is Section 4.03.05, subdivision re -- design Page 107 August 1, 2006 requirements. It's on page 97. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what we need. Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. What we have in Collier County at the present time -- and this issue, even though it's being written now, goes back to the time of Ed Perico. F or a long time we've known that we have a little problem with fill pads in Collier County. They -- they are getting larger and larger because of -- sometimes, like in the estates, it's actually their requirement to build so far above the road, and then you have to worry about being so far above the water table with your drain field. And your septic tank is above that, and then you have a cover over your pipe to fall back to the house. The -- the thickness of the slab -- and you end up with a slab that -- that in the estates a lot of times is four to five feet above the road. In Pine Ridge we have a couple of sites where the topography actually shows a mound the house pads are so high. One of them I would -- I would say standing at the road appears to be higher than the top of my head, and I'm six feet. And that's the pad itself. That's not the -- the fill pad. That's not the elevation of the finished floor. So we've been mulling this over because as you -- as you build a pad higher the -- the amount of fill required increases geometrically because you're dealing with volume, and we have a four-to-one side slope. And it's like a truncated pyramid. The more you add to the bottom of the pyramid to get the next two feet is substantially more than it took to get the first two feet. And this encroaches into floodplains. We have issues with floodplain compensation to where -- an example would be if you had a bathtub with so much water in it and you go dumping a pile of fill in there it raises the water up. You dump a little more fill, it raises the water up a little more. Well, most of our sloughs and wetlands around here are like Page 108 August 1, 2006 bathtubs. We end up throwing fill in them, and each -- each effect that goes in is what they call de minimis. You know, you can't really gauge it, but by the time you do -- like, in the estates there's probably 15,000 more homes going in. By the time you do those at 1,000 yards apiece you've done 15 million cubic yards of fill into a floodplain somewhere, and that's going to cause something. So we -- like I said, we've been looking at it for a while, but the -- the issue really hit the fan within the last year. We had some -- a lot of complaints about the size of fill pads and -- and how they occupy quite a bit of the lot, and we tried coming up with a solution. The solution we came up with is -- simultaneously we're dealing with FEMA, and FEMA wants us to have our floor -- base flood elevation, floor elevation higher. If we get everybody in the county to build a foot above BFE, our insurance rating goes up, and -- and the amount of insurance -- you get a discount off your house insurance, so we're working at cross purposes here. But we figure we've got a solution in that what you see is -- is an ordinance where we're going to try to limit the height of your fill pad so you're not using a whole lot of fill, but yet we don't limit you from building your first floor higher. We just recommend that you do stem wall or some kind of structural slab over a foundation that can support it or something like that. That's -- that's the entire thrust of this amendment, and if you have any questions I'll be glad to answer them. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Brad, I see you do. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stan, first of all, why don't we -- why don't we eliminate pads altogether? When FEMA -- we came through and we reviewed some of our FEMA stuff. One thing we did vote on -- and I don't know what happened to it after it left here -- would be we have one feet of free board, so we have that now, and then we also put in there an amendment that actually makes the slab strong -- I mean, the -- the pad stronger, the compaction and all that. Page 109 August 1, 2006 The requirements for how to build a pad we toughened, so, therefore, they're kind of more expensive. And then we also have the requirement that every bit of area displaced by a pad including the septic tank pad has to be replaced with a depression; in other words, essentially the same amount of water would be held. So why don't we just eliminate them and make life easy for everybody and not have people digging ruts all over the place? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We thought that was a little extreme. We -- we could go -- I -- I wouldn't have a problem with that, but I don't think you -- I think you'd have a lot more people in this room talking against that because in the estates when they dig that little hole in the back, the containment area, they use the fill to raise the pad up that first little bit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: This way you'd allow them to do that. You do need some dry ground around the house. A lot of those areas -- if you have a water table that's at or above the ground, then digging a hole doesn't contribute anything because the water was there anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I wouldn't have an objection to it, but I don't think -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think that's a bit extreme. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then Caron, then Mr. -- oh, I'm sorry . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me say -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I didn't know you had anymore. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question that is -- where is this actually measured to? In other words, there's going to be 18 Page 110 August 1, 2006 inches on a paved road, I guess 24 on a gravel road. What are we measuring actually to? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Where -- where your driveway meets the road, the center of the road at the point where your driveway meets the road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But, I mean, the -- the upper dimension. The lower one I'm okay with. In other words, where do we measure? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, that -- that is the upper dimension of the pad. You can build your pad to an elevation 18 inches above -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then you measure the -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- the crown of the road where your driveway meets it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But are you measuring the pad where it touches the building? In other words, the pad's obviously going to be under the building out in the site. So are you going to measure to the grade at the building? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And -- and the definition of grade has always been a tough one. It's tough in building codes and stuff. Can we use the same definition in building codes? It's a grade plain? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, there's a way in which you define it in the building code. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The plain that exists 18 inches above the crown of a paved road, you cannot exceed that with -- I could get real fancy with the wording, but I -- I prefer what's here. You cannot exceed that with the height of your fill pad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It just -- it just -- what you're-- so what you're saying is that no part of the pad can exceed that height? Page 111 August 1, 2006 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's even more restrictive, so let's keep that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And, actually, you can put four inches of slab above that, so you do have a little extra room. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. You have to be above it because your footing has -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The bottom of your footing's got to be 18 inches below the -- the -- okay. I'm fine. That's good. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. We had a long discussion about this, and I'm not sure whether it was in dur -- or in the Bayshore overlay or what, but everybody on this panel recognizes that this is a good piece of legislation. And I think it's -- I just have -- really have a comment and not a question. I think this is a classic example of why de minimis impacts should not be allowed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, mine is also a comment. Pardon me. Pardon me. I -- I would guess -- and I know you've -- under the fiscal and operational impacts, you've kind of alluded to it, but I would guess that with the cost of fill and the rest of it, all the expense of bringing it and compacting it and the whole bit, stem walls and other methodology will soon become cheaper. Is that a fair statement on my part? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, that's what we're assuming. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Good -- good grounds to assume this based on all the things we know, so this is a good move at a good time. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. Page 112 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer and then Tor, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- the site's slope, you're saying, can't be greater than one to -- or four to one? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Steeper than four to one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when some of these properties -- how close could they be to the property line? What kind of setbacks? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, that -- that's one of the problems. In -- in the estates you have a 75-foot-wide lot, actually, narrower than a Golden Gate City lot, which is 80 feet, and we allow you to build a house within 7 1/2 feet of the perimeter of the -- of -- of site property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And it's tough to have to come up with your -- with your pad. A lot of times people have to put in retaining walls. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in that case of7 1/2 feet, 6 feet would be -- if you're taking that slope, would be your 18 inches. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is that extra foot and a half you would be sloping away from the property line into some gully or something, I mean, because you can't drain onto your neighbors. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, but you -- you would drain front and back when your neighbor builds. At -- at the present time, we -- and I should have brought one of the lighter topographies. We have pads that the adjacent pads touch each other. They -- they overlap each other, and you end up forming a dam that doesn't allow the water to flow from front to back. Page 113 August 1, 2006 You have to remember in the estates -- it's a lot of sheet flow. It's not that you're shedding water onto your neighbor. It -- it sheds to the front or to the back and generally just keeps going. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Staying on a -- on a monolithic footing, what is the width that the top of that mound would have to be? Isn't it five feet? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A flat spot? We like to see a flat spot at the top of the mound outside the house, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if -- you know, would that one -- in other words, that one to four, I don't think, by building code can break away that fast either. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I know. That's another reason for putting in stem walls. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Good. I mean, you're -- I think you're right. The harder we make it the more that trail will be taken. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. For Catherine just a couple of minor ones. On page 98 under B, the fourth line there are two acroments (sic) that don't appear in our index of acroments, SWN and ERP. Maybe they could be included. MS. FABACHER: Certainly will. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Catherine, I bet your acronym page ends up being the longest discussion we have on this panel by the time we get there. MS. FABACHER: I bet we'll add three pages to the code too. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: We've got the acroment banks. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, before there were others. Believe me it's not an issue. Stan, I've just got one or two questions. The house pad height Page 114 August 1, 2006 requirements apply where there is no South Florida Water Management District permit required, no ERP, and no master stormwater plan. Now, that would generally mean then none of the -- this would not apply to any of the PUDs, so I think almost all of them apply to one -- have -- have their own stormwater management. Subdivisions like Lely and stuff like that it wouldn't apply to, but where would it apply? I mean, I understand Golden Gate Estates. And you used the reference to a 7 1/2 foot setback for a home on a 75-foot lot in Golden Gate Estates. In comparison in Vanderbilt Beach on the fingers, if they've got a 60- or 80-foot lot there, isn't their setback 7 1/2 feet also? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So where would this apply then if it's not applying -- it's going to apply just to your ordinary subdivisions? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Vanderbilt, Naples Park, Pine Ridge, East Naples, all the countless little subdivisions around. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I thought because most of your newer projects that are PUDs are required to have all this addressed anyway. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. They all have water management district permits, but there's a lot of the older ones that don't, and those are the ones where we really have the problems. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's the only question I had. Thank you. Anybody else have any comments? If not, we'll move on to your next one, Stan. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, is there a speaker? MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, we have a speaker here, Mr. Lewis again. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh. Mr. Lewis, welcome. We're Page 115 August 1, 2006 just going to put your name at the end of every single one of these. MR. LEWIS: It's more ofa question than a comment. I think this is the intent. I certainly understand and appreciate that. This falls under 4.03.0 -- 05, subdivision design requirements. It's been added as Item B. And in terms of applicability is this intent -- I -- I know the intent is that this would be applicable to existing subdivisions, is that correct, or new -- new subdivisions? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, the new subdivisions generally have a water management district permit, or presently we make them provide a -- a stormwater management plan. The older subdivisions don't have that. On your stormwater management plan you list your ground elevation and your floor slab elevation. MR. LEWIS: And the -- really the question is the location of this provision in -- in the placement of this in the -- in the land development code under subdivision design requirements B. I just -- just wanted to -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I think if you were going to Vanderbilt Beach to build a new home or in Golden Gate Estates to build a new home, you'd be triggering this clause. MR. LEWIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That -- that's what I -- is that -- is that a fair reading of it? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: They're all existing subdivisions, and it -- it would apply there equally. MR. LEWIS: And the other thing just -- is just more of a comment just in the context of the minimum elevations that's required for building sites established under 4.01.01. I just -- again, just to quantify the fiscal impact I think it was helpful to hear the communities that -- that we're looking that would -- would be potentially impacted by this. But, specifically, you know, what-- what type of impact given -- given the requirements that are needed to Page 116 August 1, 2006 be met for the minimum elevation for the habitability of their -- the structures to see how that interplays with the pad and the pad height. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The pad height would be 18 inches above the crown of the road, and to get there, if they needed more fill than what they're indicating here, they'd end up having to put in a stem wall. Is that -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Was your question, though, the concern of the designer wouldn't know how to find it in the subdivision ordinances? MR. LEWIS: That's just the question that I-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You could be right. In other words, if I'm -- if I've -- I've got a lot in Vanderbilt Beach and I'm looking at this and I'm doing it, what would make me get curious to look at the design requirements for subdivisions? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't design houses. I -- you know, I'm not really sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We -- it should be put in the land development code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Somewhere. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: But it's possible that maybe we should put it in some other ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think it's good here, but I think we should find some way to point to it from someplace else. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That -- could you look into that, Stan? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We'll-- we'll give a copy to Bill Hammond and have him put it out in the building blocks but... COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I think the way to maybe do it is to put a definition of the word "house pad," and then Page 11 7 August 1, 2006 theoretically if I'm going to put a house pad hopefully I stumble across it in definitions which might send me back here. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'll ask Bill Hammond where I can put it in one of his ordinances. I assume the building construction administrative code or whatever took its place, the one that has that whole list of how high you have to build your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- your pad, and we can put it in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But a lot of people -- the building blocks is just the legacy of codes. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's not up to date or anything. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But we do have a list of exceptions that are issued to the building code that we adopt for -- tailored to Collier County. There are separate pages that go in front of the code. Why couldn't we put it in there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the front of the building code? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We do have an ordinance of things. Yes, that would be an excellent place for it. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There's -- there's an ordinance. It used to be called the building construction administrative code. Now I think they've changed it. But it lists that you have to be 18 inches above the crown of the road, 24 inches above an unpaved road, at or above Elevation 7 no matter what, at your base flood elevation according to FEMA or the engineering -- the water management district permit or whatever an engineer decide -- designs the project-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- and says it can be at. I can add it to the bottom of that list in that ordinance because that's where people Page 118 August 1, 2006 would look. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that is what you said, Mark. That's the -- that's 2001-02. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's the building code. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They didn't update it. They should update it every three years. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's 2001-02, I think. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They are tardy on it. But that's a good place for it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. And, Stan, are you ready to go your next one? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. The next one is in a bunch of locations simply because when I -- when I tried to figure where to put it we knew we had to change NGVD to NA YD. And I did a search on NGVD on the -- the new county muni code web site, and every place I saw the term I just added this. So, you know, we could go through the numbers, or I could explain to you what it's about, and you can decide whether that's important. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I think -- first, I think what we're talking about is pages 99 through 114. Is that fair to say? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't think it goes to 114, but, yeah, it's 99 through one oh whatever -- 106. MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, I had some on -- I just want to make sure we get the entire area of that here. Well, mine has 114. Do yours have -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I have 99 through 106. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you're missing some pages. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I might be. There were a bunch of them. Page 119 August 1, 2006 MS. FABACHER: No, Mr. Chair, I think we removed some of the text. They asked me to remove some of the existing text just to shorten it up. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: If you look at your brown -- at the tan pages, you'll -- you'll see the new configuration. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, mine shows 99 to 114. These here? MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're intentionally left blank. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, 107 through 114 are blank. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah. Okay, sir. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. I assume everybody here has heard the terms "NGVD" and "NA VD," but I'm -- I'm going to gear this to people that don't know what I'm talking about. There-- there are -- in the United States in the 1920s they did a horizontal datum and a vertical datum. The horizontal datum was so you knew spacially where you were, and the vertical datum was so that you knew what elevation you were at above where you were. And at -- at the time they did that in the '20s they assumed the shape of the earth was an ellipsoid, which if you have a sphere spinning in space it's going to flatten out at the poles and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oblate spheroid. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Oblate spheroid. Close enough. And a lot of the surveying that was done was -- was based on that assumption. When they started putting up satellites with the global positioning system and they started getting very accurate readings of the shape of the earth, they realized it was what they call now a geoid, which kind of follows roughly the shape of the spheroid, but, say, at the mid-Atlantic ridge where you have that massive rock under the water they tell me that the surface of the water is a hundred feet above Page 120 August 1, 2006 sea level. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There's a mound, and what that affects is what direction up is because in a perfect sphere up is out, but when you have a rough surface and you can't see it because it's that large what might be up from the center of the sphere is actually at a different direction, and this affects things like when you're trying to launch a missile at a target, like, 10,000 miles away. The direction of up really matters when it's ballistic because it follows a certain predetermined path. So the science got very fancy about what they realized what the shape of the earth was, and back in the '80s they came up with two more datums, a horizontal and a vertical datum. And the NA VD, the __ the vertical datum done in the '20s was NGVD, National Geodetic Vertical Datum. The verti -- the vertical datum done in the '80s was NA VD, North American Vertical Datum. And the North American Vertical Datum is much more accurate than the other one, so the NGS, the National Geodetic Survey, has since abandoned all the old NGVD benchmarks. They don't replace them anymore. They replaced them with NA YD. When -- when we had benchmarks put in Golden Gate Estates a couple of years ago for the FEMA study, all those benchmarks were put into NA VD. We're presently requiring that pads in Golden Gate Estates be shot to NA YD. We have four file cabinets full of water management district permits that are all done to NGVD, National Geodetic, the old datum. So we have resources that are -- that are in both datums, and we __ we had a project come in not -- I -- one of the surveyors, I guess, caught it and told me about it where they had done the design to one datum and realized that they were connecting to a proj ect done to another datum, and they had a little problem with the pipes because the difference between the datums is about 1.3 feet in Collier County. Page 121 August 1, 2006 The two datums intersect. It's not a continuous -- where it's 1.3 feet everywhere. Somewhere around the Great Lakes, I think around Lake Erie, zero is still zero, but when you get up to Virginia -- or down to Virginia, like, zero NA VD is .8 NGVD. When -- when you come down to Florida here in Collier County along Lely Barefoot Beach, zero NA VD is about 1.22 NGVD, and when you get down to the southeastern corner of the county the difference is about 1.45 feet. So it's not a continuous 1.3 feet. We tell everybody 1.3 because it's close. It's not accurate. There's -- there's a web site called Vertcon, V -e-r-t-c-o-n. You can look up Vertcon on Google, and it will -- it will ask you what the latitude and longitude of your site is. And there's a -- there's a USGS web site that'll tell you the latitude and longitude. If you point to it on the map and you feed in the latitude and the longitude, and it'll -- and __ and if you tell it what your NA VD or NGVD value is, it will tell you the other one for that specific location. And what -- since NGS is no longer supporting the NGVD vertical datum, the county is -- is -- I think the whole United States is eventually going to have to go to NA VD, and we're going to go to NA VD, but we realize we have all these overlapping issues, so for a while we want to do both. And instead of having you list both elevations one of the things we'll let you do is on your cover sheet for that specific site -- you're going to have to get into Vertcon, and you're going to have to say all my elevations are to NGVD. If you want the NA VD elevation, you're going to have to add 1.34 feet to it. And there's -- there's a lot of these elevation contours differences through the county, but no single subdivision that I see would be big enough to where they couldn't come up with one number. You know, maybe a project like Pelican Marsh that covers so many square miles might sit through three or four numbers, but any single subdivision in there will be within one-eighth of an inch of Page 122 August 1, 2006 being correct. So the purpose of this change is to switch the county over from the old NGVD to the new NA VD as seamlessly as possible with as few mistakes as possible. FEMA is presently going with NA YD. They have -- they have given us the maps with the NA VD on it and the NGVD below it, and -- and that is really screwing things up because the NGVD is done to the .3, which they used throughout the county, 1.3 feet in the difference. So if -- if under the old code you were, like, a certain elevation and they -- and they upped you a foot but then you lowered down 1.3 you're now .3 feet different. It-- anyway, I don't want to go there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think we've got the -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's very complicated and -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think we've got the drift. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think we understand where you're going. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stan, one thing you didn't mention -- you did in your report -- is that the LIDAR information that you get is the -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: NA YD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- NA YD. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One way -- wouldn't it be better __ and this is kind of like the metric conversion days, which some of us did and had to go back, but wouldn't it be better to have them at the perimeter of the site put both and then do the interior of the site based on the A VD data? I mean, is there any reason to let them use the old system? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I would prefer if they used the NA VD throughout the site and then listed the formula converting that to Page 123 August 1, 2006 NGVD but-- , COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- they may have a reason for doing it the other way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe at the perimeter of the site put both to avoid that linkage problem that the surveyor referred to. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, it's just a thought. We don't -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, in a project like Pelican Marsh, they're still bringing in proj ects, and -- and if we make them go to NA VD I know something's going to get screwed up because everything else in Pelican Marsh is NGVD, and if -- if they bring in a project done to NA VD and somebody's not paying attention it -- it's our biggest concern, so we're going to leave that up to the engineers -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- as long as they put both of them on there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, how many pages should we go? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, this is going to -- I would take it up to the -- well, 114. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's some missing pages in between, but if you find them don't ask questions on them because they're not there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So, Stan, on page -- on page 101 at the bottom you're crossing out a requirement. Is that by any chance just changing a requirement, or are you getting rid of something that doesn't make sense or -- there's a requirement that things can't be less than 5 1/2 feet NGVD. Page 124 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But he's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I -- I think where this really kind of shows up is on some of the piled subdivisions they were set at that 5 1/2 feet. I mean, my concern is -- I don't mind taking it out if it's not necessary, but if it's a requirement that has nothing to do with this datum swatch -- or swap. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If -- if I left it in, I'd have to put the NA VD and NGVD in there instead of just the NGVD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it is a requirement stating that that's the minimum height of a subdivision. Obviously, that made a lot more sense back in the fill days but ... COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But doesn't he say that by crossing it out? By leaving in such minimum elevations as adopted by the BCC, FEMA, FRM or South Florida -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Basically, they've adopted the minimum elevations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But maybe this is where they adopted it. That was my concern. In other words, they're giving -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, no. No, this is not where they adopted it. This is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This 5 1/2 -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, there's other -- other rules that will force it to be harder than that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then that's me. I'm done. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. Just some more acroment (sic) updates on it. If you look on page 99 under the paragraph entitled "reason," in the second line NGS is an acroment that's not listed in the index. LIDAR is an acroment that's not listed, and below that FEMA is an acroment that's not listed. And on page Page 125 August 1, 2006 100 on about the -- 3.05.10 on the first line LSP A is an acroment that's not in -- in the index. MS. FABACHER: Will do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Catherine, I don't think we're going to get to the acronyms today, but now that you know the drift maybe you just ought to issue us a new sheet before the next meeting. MS. FABACHER: I'll plan to do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That'll help. That'll solve everybody's problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Catherine, you should answer "WD." COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Winn-Dixie? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, will do. MS. F ABACHER: Will do. Will do. Or -- or YS. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of Stan on this? Stan, I have some questions, but I'm afraid to ask them, so I'm going to pass. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, oh, oh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, Stan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's some trumpet blowing somewhere, Mark. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We'll just let that go. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Tom, good afternoon. MR. KUCK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Tom Kuck, Engineering Director. And the one I'm going to be covering is -- starts on page 219, and, basically, it applies to how long or how valid the length of time for a site development plan or a site development plan amendment. The current land development code, once an SD is -- SDP is approved, you've got from the time you have for preconstruction -- you have 18 months to complete construction, and then you can get a six-month extension. Page 126 August 1, 2006 The new one is going to -- what we're proposing is either have two years to construct from the time the approval letter is granted, then you can have -- ask for an extension for one year, and then it's possible -- if there's a delay, you can ask for an amendment to the SDP which could give you another two years. So it's just trying to lengthen the building time to complete an SDP. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is only for the infrastructure improvements only; correct? MR. KUCK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Tom, you have -- the last line of B, "Thereafter, once the SDP approval term expires, the SDP or SDP amendment is no -- is of no force and effect" -- well, nevermind. I just now figured it out. Okay. I see it. MR. KUCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I had a note there, but 1-- you just explained it. MR. KUCK: I had a little trouble because I didn't -- I wasn't the author, but -- I had a little bit of time -- a hard time interpreting, but I think that it speaks for itself now. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As it stands now, don't we have two years to start and then 18 months to finish? Isn't that the way it works now with a single 6-month extension on the 18? MR. KUCK: Right now you have -- once you have your preconstruction conference, you have 18 months to complete, and you have a provision for a 6-month extension, so you've got -- from the preconstruction conference, you've got two years. Now, we did make a change, and we took away that preconstruction conference. And from the time the SDP is approved you have two years to construct and then one year to -- you can ask for a one-year extension, but in between there you could ask for an Page 127 August 1, 2006 amendment which could -- would give you another two years. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So -- but what you've got here now actually shortens the time frame without an extension because you're -- you're at two years. MR. KUCK: Well, it depends on when you'd schedule the -- in the older one, you'd have the preconstruction. If -- if you held off for one or two years for the preconstruction, you're right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was thinking. MR. KUCK: Yeah, you're correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Was the intent to shorten the time frame? Because that -- the reason -- in the beginning it seemed like the intent was the opposite. MR. KUCK: No. No. What it is is we're -- it's kind of a combination of both. We don't like to get them too stretched out before construction starts because the land development code could have major changes that could affect that project. As an example -- and this is where the airport plaza is where the tax assessor's office is -- or tax collector's office. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Uh-huh. MR. KUCK: That was an SDP. They did some minor work on it, and nothing happened for about 8 or 10 years. That was considered vested because we didn't have a time expiration date. The Poinciana provisional complex there by profession -- they've had a parking lot out there in front for years and years. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. MR. KUCK: We honored their SDP because we didn't have a time limit so ... COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. KUCK: But what we're trying to do is make sure that it doesn't go too long a time, so if there are amendments, major amendments for, say, landscaping or something like that -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's-- Page 128 August 1, 2006 MR. KUCK: -- that they would be subject to those. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But the reason that you have here is, though, inadequate time to complete the construction of the project, and all I was trying to indicate -- now, I mean, it seems that they're going to have a little less time now with this change because instead of waiting two years to call for your precon or your -- your site -- or your meeting with the -- with the utility department -- you can wait up to two years to do that. Then you have 18 months after that meeting to get it done, so that's 3 1/2 years. Now it's two years from the issuance of the approval letter, and you can get a one-year extension, so -- and the one-year extension will give you three years, so you're actually cutting it by six months. Is that what -- MR. KUCK: Well, you --like I said earlier, you can come in for an amendment if that's the case-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. KUCK: -- an amendment, say, and give you another two years so ... COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But if you -- MR. KUCK: Actually, you could have up to five years from the time it was approved. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But if you request an amendment wouldn't you have to have a reason for the amendment? I mean, say you don't want to amend anything on the site or you just come in and, what, amend it for re -- respecifying or restarting the time clock? MR. KUCK: More or less, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So you could do that? MR. KUCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, that would cover it. Thank you. Bob, did you have anything? Page 129 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was my question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, small question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And people who have paid impact fees prior to the start of this work, if -- if the project's abandoned, what happens to those fees then? If they run out, are they lost or are they banked or are they -- MR. KUCK: I can't answer that. I'm not involved in the impact fees. I know that if they pay the inspection fees to engineering, you know, the review and inspection, those are paid up front. The review fee we would keep. The inspection fee, if the -- a project was abandoned, we would refund that because we didn't do any inspections. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Did you have something, Joe? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. Did it -- if you pay impact fees and you don't carry through with the project, you can ask for a reimbursement of those fees. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: And, likewise, a building permit. If you submit for a building permit and you don't carry through with the building permit, there's a certain portion you can ask for a refund back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fair. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? No? That's it. That's the only one you had? MR. KUCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. And now transportation. Now, I know you're -- I know there's some other people here. Transportation was supposed to follow . . englneenng. Page 130 August 1, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Maryann has another engineering amendment. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't know. I recognize you as the PUD person so ... MS. DEV ANAS: Yes. Good afternoon, Commissioners. And currently I reside in the section that I supervise. We are in the .. . englneenng services -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. DEV ANAS: -- department. The amendment that I have is shown in your book on page 229. COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. What's your name? MS. DEV ANAS: I'm sorry. For the record, Maryann Devanas. And after the review that our DSAC committee had conducted on July 5th there were changes made, and I have those reflected in a document here. If you would like to review the pages as I read over them, I can bring them forward. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, could we start by telling you what our concerns were with what document we have? And then you can tell us if those were corrected or not. MS. DEV ANAS: Certainly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That might be easier than having us trying to analyze something while we're sitting here at this time. MS. DEVANAS: Very good. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So with that has everybody read the changes recommended to the PUD process? Because there are substantial issues here. Do you have something, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On page 230 under Item 4, the first line says, "County will be given at least six months' notice, prior written -- prior written notice as to any change in ownership," and that would include ownership by a homeowners' association, and I wonder if that possibly be -- could be one year instead of six months because Page 131 August 1, 2006 sometimes it takes a homeowners' association a longer time to organize to get ready to check out turnover. MS. DEV ANAS: We -- we can certainly change that if that's your direction. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That would -- you said that's no problem to you? MS. DEV ANAS: Not -- not -- not to staff, no. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. MS. DEV ANAS: What we have heard from some of the developers is that it may be somewhat burdensome for them to predict that because of the market and sale of -- of units. Sometimes they're unable to predict it in -- a year in advance. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, sometimes the homeowners' associations have to undergo elections and so forth and get organized and get a committee assigned to look at the turnover documents, and this would afford them more time to do that if it wouldn't adversely affect you. MS. DEV ANAS: We can -- we can change it to that if you -- if you -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, there -- there might be more discussion, but after we get done today you might want to collectively understand our thoughts, and if it isn't clear -- because I had some issues on the same sentence. "The county will be given at least six months prior written notice as to any change in ownership." That means every time a house is sold or any in -- that is a transfer of all or part of a development, so for every single house sale you guys are going to be in the game on that now? MS. DEV ANAS: No, that was not our intent, and we did correct that after our review with DSAC. How it read was -- is, if you will -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Sure. MS. DEV ANAS: For No.4, "The county will be given at least Page 132 August 1, 2006 six months' prior written notice to a change in ownership to a community association including but not limited to transfer of all or part of the development or homeowners' association, property owners' association, master association, or similar entity." We then struck through the next line, which reads, "In addition to the requirements of the annual monitoring report, the owner shall submit an interim monitoring report in a county-approved format along with the notice of change in ownership for staff review. " COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that's a much-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Much better. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- better improvement. MS. DEV ANAS: Yes. I'm sorry that you didn't receive it in advance. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, that's okay. Back to Mr. Kolflat -- Kolflat's question about the county will be given at least six months' prior written notice. And I'm trying to slow down. It says at least six months, so if someone wanted to give you a year they could. MS. DEV ANAS: That's true. The way it's written that would be correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. How accurate do they have to be in that prediction? I mean, if you can have greater than six months, if someone says, "I'm going to close in a year from now" but they take 18 months, they've, in essence, given you 18 months by default. MS. DEV ANAS: That would be to our advantage. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. So you have no -- that-- that process is workable then? MS. DEVANAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That might meet your concern, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Page 133 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they could give notice of the commencement of construction. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's what I'm thinking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean, there's -- there's a lot of flexibility in the way that can be done by that word "at least" -- or those two words, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Beyond the permit application. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. So I had a question on No. 5, and I think you and I -- I briefly mentioned it to you in the hallway, and I think you've cleaned that you. Did you? MS. DEV ANAS: Yes. After some further discussion with staff after the DSAC meeting, we believe it would be best if that section was rewritten to read something similar to -- that a final release of a PUD commitment would be brought to the Board of County Commissioners as a consent agenda item for their review. Should it require additional discussion it would then be pulled and placed on their agenda. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's a good improvement. I think that works out a lot better. On page 229 under F, your additional words on my copy still refer to any ownership change, so I'm assuming you're going to -- MS. DEVANAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're going to change that-- MS. DEVANAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- consistent with the other language? MS. DEV ANAS: Yes. And we did have that in our current document. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I don't have any other Page 134 August 1, 2006 questions. Anybody else got any questions for you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When will we get a copy of the book? MS. FABACHER: When I send out the next packet for -- not before the 8th but a couple of weeks before the 23rd, I would think. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Do you have five copies of what you've got with you today? MS. DEVANAS: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, we take our copy today, and anything else that is cleaned up we'll just have another bundle. That would be helpful. MS. DEV ANAS: I -- I can hand these out now. And the only item that's not corrected is No.5. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. DEV ANAS: Would you like them now? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, please. Thank you. That'll give us a jump on the language that's coming forward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. I saw that language about any transfer of ownership, and I just imagined how big your department would be overnight. MS. DEV ANAS: Thank you for scratching that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. If there's no other questions on this issue, are we ready to move on to the next one? MS. FABACHER: Oh, no. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. We have a couple of speakers. We -- first Mr. Lewis, of course. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Lewis, if we've resolved your issues, you can nod your head. MR. LEWIS: Yes. Can I get a copy of that, by the way, just to review the new language? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You can have my copy because I'm going to wait and get a copy from staff. Page 135 August 1,2006 MR. LEWIS: May I approach? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, just come up and take it. MR. LEWIS: Thank you. MS. DEV ANAS: Mr. Lewis, is that what you're looking for? MR. LEWIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: And then, Mr. Chair, Jennifer Belpedio would like to speak. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Jennifer, it's good to see you again. MS. BELPEDIO: Thank you for having me back. I'm Jennifer Belpedio with Becker & Poliakoff. We represent Cypress Woods Golf and Country -- Country Club Master Property Owners' Association. We are essentially caught between a rock and a hard place because of a situation that we did not create. Essentially, on the eve of transition of community association control from the developer to unit owner, the developer voluntarily conveyed approximately 11 acres of what appears to be preserve -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MS. BELPEDIO: -- area to FDOT in lieu of condemnation. We have unofficially been advised as part of the PUD monitoring process that we do not meet our minimum preserve area requirements because of the conveyance. My understanding is that the proposed amendment's primarily to address compliance issues such as ours. To that end we are conceptually in support of the amendment as amended on the floor by Maryann a couple of moments ago. We only ask that the amendment text be revised so that it is clear that the developer or the unit-owner-controlled community association may be released of such PUD obligations. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I think that's the intent, and Page 136 August 1, 2006 your problem would probably be then resolved if this goes through by a inclusion of a -- something that signifies you met your commitments on the consent agenda at the BCC. Is that -- MS. DEVANAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- kind of like the process that would happen? MS. DEVANAS: Yes, correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, actually, that might work for everybody then. Thank you. MS. BELPEDIO: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Appreciate it. Okay. Anything else? MS. FABACHER: I think that's it for our engineering services. MS. DEV ANAS: Thank you, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, engineering services. We certainly appreciate your time and smiling faces. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Short and sweet. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yep. We hope that transportation's going to be just as happy. Now Nick-- , MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- I just can't resist. I met with you yesterday, and you didn't have the affliction you have today. When mine started I grew my hair long, and it covered it up. Now, yours will do the same thing. It'll grow down over the side. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I said to my wife last night that I have a meeting this morning, and I said I needed this shaved off. I'm going to be dodging bullets today, and I don't want to -- I don't want to miss anything. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It is real short. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning. Page 137 August 1, 2006 Catherine, there was some concerns Mr. Schiffer had regarding a grayed-out area that was not to be reviewed. MS. FABACHER: Oh. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You were concerned you weren't going to see it. If I could go through these one at a time, maybe -- some of them are very short, maybe a couple of sentences long. You could review it and consider it in this hearing. If you're uncomfortable with that, I understand. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What number are you talking about? Let's-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll start with -- the first one I have is on page 127. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That is a grayed-out area. Brad, I -- since you didn't read these and I do value your input -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, the -- the notice was that these weren't to be heard. I mean, obviously, if you read it close, it says Wednesday, and today's not Wednesday. But I thought -- my impression was that there would be follow up data and that's why they were pulled off the table so ... MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we're going to do some wording changes, wordsmithing on a few things. One of them was a DSAC recommendation we included. The actual change is on page 128. It primarily deals with interconnections, something near and dear to our hearts, to try and put trips off the road and make proj ects work together. If you want to take a look at it real quick -- if not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. We can. I mean, that's -- I mean, let's leave it if I -- I can pull one if I want to. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And if -- if -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If Brad has a question that comes up after the meeting because of -- in a grayed area one -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Page 138 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- you could give Nick a call. And I've found that their department's pretty responsive to our needs. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'd be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You don't want to -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, we're going to go forward with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But on -- on -- Nick, I don't know if you need to make a presentation as much as we probably need to ask questions. Your stuffs pretty simple and straightforward in re __ that regard. So with that in mind, Mr. Murray, did you have some questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. On page 128 -- and I'm on the white sheets -- the -- I don't think there is a brown sheet for this one. On No.2 I have a note here. It's -- the cost exceeds what it would normally cost to build a typical road section. Are we talking only about approved roads? Those are county approved, or are we talking about any road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: This was a recommendation from DSAC. It was not my original submittal. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So it's one of those gray areas they asked me to add in. I knew it would cause some questions, and I'm not sure there's a way to define that. Their concern was if the interconnection was costly that they wanted some sort of limit what it -- what it could be, and we ran through a bunch of different development scenarios with them and felt that, you know, if the language needed to be added -- we were somewhat comfortable with it. We knew it would bring some questions. If it needed to be pulled or you had concerns about it, we could definitely discuss it today. Page 139 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that would be something you'd be looking at. On No.3 I have a note here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, let's --let's -- we had-- while you're on that one, let's finish that one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We didn't get a resolution to it, and it's the same question I brought up yesterday to staff. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. I would be happy to pull that and strike through that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, what I suggested to you-- and I think Mr. Murray's going there too -- that the word "normally" -- and -- and we discussed it yesterday. One of your people indicated that maybe you could tie it to FDOT cost or something. Have you given that any thought? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I -- I have, and I -- I discussed it with Don Scott, our Transportation Director, and -- and the issue that comes up -- in some cases this is saving money; in other cases it -- it could cost money. It's -- it's very intangible -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- because another -- it could be two parking lots side by side, and you're asking them to connect the pavement and just put a -- provide an opening between them. It could be a benefit where two owners side by side -- you're asking them to share a driveway, so now they're saving money by providing one entrance point. So that's DSAC's recommendation to be in there. I found it something that was very hard to define and to tie something. And I would be happy to pull it if that was the recommendation at this point. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But, see, their purpose for putting it in -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- was -- for example, say you had Page 140 August 1, 2006 two projects side by side. They're required by this interconnect. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But the only way they could do that is to put some kind ofH-2 bridge structure in, some heavy-loading structure that would not make economical sense to do that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Then how would they -- how would they get out of that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's -- you know, where feasible was one of the -- one of the thoughts that we had in the original up -- up in the code is to kind of say that this is -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the word "feasible" in your mind might be -- Mr. Lewis is going to get up here and say that is not feasible. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And then we're going to be back in a problem with it again. MR. CASALANGUIDA: There isn't a -- there isn't a way to define a cost between an interconnection. It's like the cost of doing business in Collier County to put in a driveway. If they had to put in a bridge culvert to do so, they'd have to do that as well too. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Could you tie it to a percentage of the -- the roadwork or the pavement cost of the project? If it doesn't exceed 25 percent of the site development -- SDP estimated cost or something of that nature -- could you look at that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We could do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think that it would -- it's a legitimate concern of DSAC's. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. We'll run some scenarios, and we'll come back and -- and -- with that wordsmithing and see if we can clean that No.2 up. Page 141 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Murray, I'm -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's no problem. And all -- and, of course, that relates down to No.3 -- I'm sorry, not No.3 -- No. 4, the interconnection provides minimal or no benefit and how to determine -- and, you know, again it's nebulous, so I think we want __ MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we want to strike through four. That was one of my recommendations -_ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Now, the -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- for discussion so ... COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. The last one that I had that I -- "in the opinion." I've noticed in reviewing these documents there's an awful lot -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Were you there yesterday? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Were you there yesterday? That's the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wherever there was I was, but I don't know I was where you were. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We were hitting these questions yesterday too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Were we? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So, yeah, you're right on the money. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's exactly the issues we need to be on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, anyway, I'm going to go back. There's an awful lot of these in here that indicate, you know, the county manager's designee. And then it says opinion, and I'm -- I'm not being cute now, but an opinion's, you know, a different opinion. But if we're going to rely upon the county manager or the designee who has the skill and the knowledge and the credentials, maybe the Page 142 August 1, 2006 phrase should be "professional judgment" or something that -- that -- other than an opinion, not that I necessarily agree that in every instance should it be a matter of administration, but I think efficiencies intended -- you need something better than opinion. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And the reason we do that -- you -- you could have two uses that are side by side that would be incompatible. You could have an assisted-living facility with a shopping center, and it -- it may not make sense to interconnect those two projects, and so you want to have that flexibility that's there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, my only argument there -- and it's not one of significance, I guess, but "opinion" is the word I'm talking about. I'm thinking if you folks are professional at it I think the word "opinion" might put you in contention with people. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a fair -- that's a fair call. We can change it to the professional judgment -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- of the county manager or designee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or if that's satisfactory -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, I think that's a good idea. And -- and the fact that it's got to be found incompatible -- we do have standards in this county for compatibility, so it might be something that professional judgment would work a lot better on. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. On No.3, "The location of environmentally sensitive lands precludes it," we want to add, "and cannot be mitigated for" because if we can mitigate a certain spot for it then we do want to get that interconnection to work out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, there we go again with cost. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Then we'd have to put that -- that same caveat on that, I guess, as well too. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Because your mitigation is one thing, buying a piece of property somewhere to mitigate it, but just the effort to the corps and other jurisdictional agencies to get the Page 143 August 1, 2006 mitigation approved could be phenomenal so ... MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I -- I'm done. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I may be not even -- Nick, when is this going to happen? This is supposed to happen with existing developments or only if the new development -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: At any time that a future development comes in or redevelopment of an existing parcel comes in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what defines redevelopment then? MR. CASALANGUIDA: An SDP amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. The -- if there's a -- if it's an existing thing -- and then how would you get the neighbor to go along with it, or you wouldn't? You would just show the road halfway to the property line? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You may -- you may provide an easement and pre -- you know, prepare for that connection at such a time. We've done that with several projects now. We've said, you know, "Don't put parking spaces there. Butt the pavement up to the property line, and when the next person comes in we'll get that connection between the two projects." COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. If there is a loss of parking due to this, do -- do they lose the ability to build that space or MR. CASALANGUIDA: In most cases they've been able to work around that by -- by shifting a driveway or -- or relocating. They may lose a parking space or two, but in our estimate you're going to take a lot of trips off the road if you can connect these parcels up, and that may be a -- you know, a ben -- a cost-to-benefit issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So they just provide an Page 144 August 1, 2006 easement. In other words, we have a buffer requirement. It's not like they're building a strip of paving into that buffer. It stops at the buffer or something? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I've discussed it with landscape. Typically, it's just like putting a driveway between two parking lots. That's where the buffer wouldn't apply. It's almost like the buffer applies along the property line, but if they're two different properties that have a driveway between them the buffer doesn't apply there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Nick, you had said -- responded to Brad with something that raised a question. You said that if they were to lose a parking space that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- most of them can work with it. F or those that can't, is there a need to supply -- apply some language that if under this circumstance they lose some parking spaces attributed to this issue then they don't have to go back through any kind of further process within the county to get that acknowledgement that they can have less parking spaces than the code requires? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a fair comment. We can add a sentence that would allow for that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That the applicant should not be penalized for providing interconnection. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Something -- I mean, I hate to see someone go through the process and find out that they're supposed to have 10 spaces, they got cut down to 8, and now for the 2 that they're required to have by the LDC they've got to have a variance to get that accomplished because you want an interconnection. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a fair -- MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Chair, I'm going to research that for you. Page 145 August 1, 2006 There is an administrative -- small administrative variance on parking that may cover this, so -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's great. MS. FABACHER: I'll-- I'll let you know on that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure there is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll check with Catherine before we come back on that one. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any other questions? Okay. We're on to the next one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll make those changes and bring you back a clean version. Okay. I want to go to page 185. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What page? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 185. MR. CASALANGUIDA: 185,186. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What was that? One what? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Eighty-five, one eighty five. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think this amendment was associated with me having a little bit of deity involved in this as well too. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, is this the "Nick is God" one? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, this is the "Nick is God" one. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I am surprised that the road -- I mean, that the room is not occupied today. How did you get that done? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I've discussed it with them. They -- they realize that this amendment has been asked for by the Board of County Commissioners, and they understand why. They may not like it. And it's for the best interests of our concurrency system. And what we're trying to do here, quite simply, is just to make sure they follow the rules. It's almost like the IRS having a -- if you're Page 146 August 1, 2006 cheating on your taxes and we catch you, you've got to go back and follow the rules, and -- and this is the way it is. It's not Nick is God. It's simply we need to save our roadway capacity and just make sure that they play by the rules. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that you? Go ahead, Bob. I'm looking each time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On 186 I made a notation to myself under Reference 1 that -- a question about appeal process, and if there were an appeal process it's not -- it seems to be missing from this, and I thought to myself, gee, if there were an appeal process here maybe they could go forward and the BCC might be able to even affect the developer agreement outcome or something of that nature to help overcome the problem. MR. CASALANGUIDA: This just directs them back to the code. This just basically says that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's all -- it's all -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, it just forces them to follow the rules of concurrency, and if there's a -- if there's a problem there and they want to dispute it they could follow whatever those procedures are right now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It doesn't preclude any of those opportunities? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, it does not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. That's all I needed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wouldn't mind some -- remember, this is the first time I'm looking at it. The explanation is that if you have a project in and the -- your project's combined with other projects within the last six months, you go over the requirements on the road that you can hold this profit? Page 147 August 1, 2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll -- I'll explain it to you. I'll give you a couple of examples that make more sense. If you get a PUD that was approved for a thousand units and on Roadway X that's next to that PUD there's capacity for a thousand trips, three percent of that being, say, 30 trips, they could come in with a bunch of applications for less than 30 trips to save capacity from going out to the next length, or if we were over capacity between 100 and 110 percent they could come in with multiple de minimis trips and keep loading up the system. So what this basically says is if you're from the same master proj ect, the PUD -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- or large plat you -- you will be looked at cumulatively for your impacts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But it only pertains to the one proj ect? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. The master project that it comes from, right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well done. Okay. Nick, you-- you got through this. This was the one that was going to be so controversial. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Do you want to jump up for me? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Keep them in order. MS. F ABACHER: Oh, wait. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Nick, I was looking forward to the MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Hold it. We have a speaker. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Lewis would like to speak on this, Mr. Chair. Page 148 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Doug Lewis with Roetzel & Andress. In your -- in your packet from, I guess, the original planning commission meeting, Rich Y ovanovich did give you a letter outlining some of the concerns that the development community had relative to the text change. In addition I'm here on behalf our clients to look at this. I -- I understand the intent, and I'm -- I understand the direction that -- that they're looking to take. I'm not sure if the text change that's been submitted is narrowly tailored to address the issue that -- that you're trying to look at. It could impact development flexibility and give excessive powers to the county manager. In terms of the text itself, under 6.02.02(A) it indicates -- in terms of the applicability, I guess, the question I -- I would have in looking at that text whether or not this provision is applicable at the SDP and plat stage or -- or only or other stages -- the -- the term "local development order," I'm not sure what that means. Does it include building permits? We know that concurrency's vested at the time of the SDP or-- or there's a prepayment that -- that allows for vesting of the SDP -- the plat based on that. I'm -- I'm assuming that that's what we're talking about in terms of the text, the local development order. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. Ifit was -- if you're more comfortable, we could strike local development order and put in SDP or plat there. MR. LEWIS: Okay. Yeah, that would help add some clarity. Additionally, the county manager's able to approve a project or refuse approval of a project, and I'm assuming this would be prior to the issuance of a certificate of adequacy of public facility. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. MR. LEWIS: That would comply -- that would normally comply with concurrency -- concurrency management system if he feels that Page 149 August 1, 2006 it's contrary to the purpose and intent and the way the text is worded. I think the example you illustrated may be a good example, although the language indicates that if he -- he feels it would be contrary to the purpose and intent -- I'm not sure what that -- that specifically means, how it's determined. I sus -- you know, I suggest that we maybe establish a more specific criteria to -- to address the specific concerns that the staff may have as illustrated -- I think Nick -- Nick did a good job of doing that. The other practical question I have is in terms of flexibility where you have a PUD with some approved development and let's say you're in a constrained roadway situation and you're looking for some de minimis impact. The standard that we're looking -- develop -- the standard is the six-month development window standard. If the county manager determines that the -- the submittal -- or that the -- this new submittal would be something that would be incongruent with the concurrency management system, then the applicant could submit or agree to distribute or account for these trips within the development. And when -- you may have multiple owners. You may have someone caught up in that expecting a de minimis impact, doing a specific TIS for their site. I just want to make sure we've understood the practical constraints of a developer within a PUD and how we can -- you know, make a system that allows -- provide a system that would allow them to -- to proceed with their development. Those are the questions and comments that I had relative to that text. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. There's a couple I'd like to follow up on in particular. And I had circled -- I know I brought this up to you yesterday, and I should have -- I've been reluctant to repeat myself, but for the purpose and intent of this section -- this gentleman just mentioned the intent as well, and I -- I mentioned to you yesterday it would be interesting to have staff at least come up with some criteria so that you could determine intent so that the ball does not fall on your Page 150 August 1, 2006 shoulders all the time to argue with someone, whether legally or not, that the intent is something different than what you claim it to be. And I can't remember how you explained that yesterday, Nick, but maybe we need to re -- refresh our memories. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. The intent is defined in what refers to certificate of public adequacies in the section where it says, "Maintain level of service for public facilities." So what it's saying is that the purpose and intent of this -- this code is to make sure that we follow through with the adequate public facilities prior to approving any development order, that -- that that's what we're doing. Then it -- it goes on to define what we're talking about as far as -- Mr. Lewis's comment about local development is good. We can do SDP/plat and plan. Adequate capacity is available. That's the purpose and intent when we talk about that. When it talks about above the level of service and having a COA or adequate capacity down, below it talks about concurrency. So I -- I think he's thinking that we're trying to do two different things, and I'm saying they're the same. The intent above is that we have adequate public facilities in place prior to us providing approval for an SDP or plat and plan, and the way we, transportation, do that is by concurrency. So I -- I -- I think it's not the intention of this code to say that we will have broad powers to stop anything. It's with regard to concurrency. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I know that -- some of the projects that you've had trouble with, and I know that they purposely were trying to avoid your rules -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- by coming in with small little pieces of a project. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If the intent of this paragraph is to simply go after that, then I think that's the right thing to do, absolutely, Page 151 August 1, 2006 but I want to make sure it can't be construed to go beyond that to something we don't understand or we don't -- haven't heard. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is the intention of this paragraph to strictly refer to concurrency and a certificate of adequate -- certificate public adequacy requirements for concurrency, so I think when it says "as defined above" meaning the paragraph above where it says we will have those facilities in place and there -- and concurrency will be, you know, met at the time of review. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And, Mr. Lewis, did you have something else you wanted to add? There's not many in the room today, so we can certainly afford to hear from those -- from those that are so ... MR. LEWIS: Well, I -- I think I understand what you're trying to get at. I -- I don't know if the text is narrowly constructed in a way to do that. I would envision a development under a PUD where you maybe have divergence of ownership, development comes in, and maybe in a constrained roadway maybe they're de minimis, and then they come in and they're surprised because now they're viewed in the context with the entire development. And I -- I just -- and the other kind of practical question that -- that I see is -- is we're looking at a six-month -- and I don't know where the six-month development window -- how that was created, but we're looking at SDPs or plats that were submitted within the development within that six-month window to determine -- and then it -- and then once there is a determination that there's a concurrency management problem, the county manager makes that determination, the remedy for the applicant would be to -- to essentially distribute or account for impacts within the development. And I -- I think at that point you're already at a point where cumulatively your SDP is kind of the straw that breaks the camel's back. I don't know how you practically can do that at that point. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you know, it's -- first of all, Page 152 August 1, 2006 the six-month thing came because it was one year, and Nick wanted to be less God-like and he dropped that to six months. MR. LEWIS: That's great. We appreciate that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So I-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We wanted to go longer. MR. LEWIS: In that direction at least. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As far as the -- as far as the PUD and all that, Nick, ifprojects are vested, they're acknowledged to be vested. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would not apply. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. So if you have a PUD you ought to make sure it's vested, and that would solve the problem with the PUDs. I don't know of any other -- other solution. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. And -- and that comment regarding selling the individual parts to a PUD to different people, that's a problem we face all the time that separate owners now think that they have -- they're not part of this PUD that was approved by the board as one -- one unit. Now, I real -- realize that they have individual rights to those parcels. They still were presented to the board, the planning commission, as one unified project. And then to come in separately is what we're trying to avoid in the sense that they ignore their impacts from one another. So if it came to the board and planning commission as a project when we review it we'd like to review it as a whole project as well, too, and distribute those impacts evenly. Again, we pushed for a year, even 18 months, and we dropped back down to 6 months because that was a time frame -- we thought it was digestible and somewhat supported by DSAC and -- and, you know, the folks that heard it as well too. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well-- and even if someone were to sell off a portion of a PUD, if that PUD was under the vesting Page 153 August 1, 2006 statute, they'd still be vested. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Be allowed to go, that's correct. MR. LEWIS: Right. But under the new -- the new concurrency management system the prepayment would occur at the time of the SDPs. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. Right. MR. LEWIS: The vesting. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. Anything else on this issue? Nick, we're on a roll. Oh, it's Trinity's turn. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: That means we're going to screech to a halt probably. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I tell you what. If you came in here with your hair shaved like his, we probably would have so ... MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: My son inspired that, so -- for the record, Trinity Caudill-Scott. Would you prefer a presentation? Would you like to ask questions? Go item by item? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the -- first of all, it's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Page. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, I think it's going to have to be page by page. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: I'm sorry. 187. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One thing, I think, for the benefit of the panel, this is a new con -- more or less a new concept for us because it's pathways, and we haven't addressed pathways before. I think a brief explanation of what pathways are, how they fit in with sidewalks and bike lanes, and what it all means to the taxpayers might be a real good help. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: A pathway is essentially a -- in layman's terms, essentially a wider sidewalk, in essence. It allows for nonmotorized transportation recreation. It allows for bicyclists, walkers, rollerbladers to all inhabit one 10 to 12, sometimes -- and in some areas it's 14 feet wide depending upon the use. Page 154 August 1, 2006 A greenway is usually along a green corridor, which in our maps you'll see that many times we utilize water management district right-of-ways, easement areas to put these recreational areas in. The -- the fiscal impact as far as to the taxpayers we -- it is an increased impact over our -- or increased cost over our usual cross-section for a roadway; however, statistically it increases property values. And Rails to Trails has done several studies on the fact that in -- property values can -- can increase nine percent if you're -- if you're in close proximity to a trail as well as that your homes sell faster and things of that nature. So, I mean, there are statistical data to -- to back that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In your description of a greenway, you really -- in this case it's a pathway? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So there's-- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: They kind of go hand in hand, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, the -- I haven't seen greenway referenced before, so -- are there questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On page 187 where you show money in there, I'm a little -- I understand what you're attempting to do, I think, but is that useful for this? Is it considered a baseline for the future or something or -- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: This was a request by DSAC to show what the fiscal impact would be to the development community. Most of the pathways that are shown -- this is only for pathways. Most of the pathways that are shown on our map, our -- our overall long-range plan, are adjacent to arterial roadways, so if that pathway were not there the developer would normally be obligated to build or pay for a six - foot sidewalk and a four-foot bike lane. Page 155 August 1, 2006 What this fiscal impact shows is that increased -- to increase that to a 12- foot wide pathway with the concrete construction and asphalt construction costs based on FDOT's cost estimates. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You don't happen to know whether we put those other costs associated with what you said was the alternative any other place in the code, do you? Do we do that? Is it a normal practice to put money like that in the code? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Not that I know of. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: It's not in the code. This is just the fiscal impacts, and this is -- my cost estimates are based on FDOT's 2004 cost estimates, which are the latest that they have provided. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I have no objection to what the intent is. I was just wondering if it seemed logical. Let's see if I had anything else. Let's see. Yeah, on page 190, please. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under B I put a big "wow" next to that one because it said at the bottom of the sentence, "Then the minimum paved width of the sidewalk must not be less than 10 feet." MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: And that actually isn't a change. It's just a change in terminology that DSAC had requested. Previously it had said pathway, and they preferred to use sidewalk. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I can see where -- and -- and maybe this is not pertinent to you, but I can see where that might be an issue if we get back to smart growth again and we talk about pedestrian pathways and a sidewalk resides within a pedestrian pathway. And I was hoping for consistency was my issue. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: My personal opinion is is that it limits their construction materials because a sidewalk can only be concrete. In a pathway we have now provided an alternative for asphalt. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, why don't -- why don't we change it back? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: I don't have a problem with Page 156 August 1, 2006 that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm glad I brought it up then. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Me too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Then -- then you want to make a note on that one, go back to pathway? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And then I did have one other thing, I think. Location of authority within the process. Let's see. Under C, payment in lieu of construction or construction at an alternate site. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Could I go back to that -- to that B -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: -- and provide a little bit more of why DSAC -- I believe they wanted to change that? Originally it was pathway, and a pathway, according to FDOT standards, should be 12 feet. So we were going to change the minimum width to 12 feet to make it consistent throughout the code. That is, I believe, why they opted to go back to sidewalk and wanted to remain 10 feet. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, why couldn't we simply say we want a pathway to be 10 feet in this particular case? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: We could for strictly alternative sidewalk designs. We can do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think we should. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I think the flexibility in the material usage is -- becomes an advantage, and you may actually see more of it happen then so ... COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No problem. But under C again -- and I'm just trying to reacquaint myself. We read these a week or so Page 157 August 1, 2006 in advance, and you forget what you said sometimes. So let's see. I have highlighted "or required as part of any corresponding zoning application, development order" -- my question to myself was location of authority within the process. And I'm not remembering my question very well, and I apologize, but -- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Actually, I would like to take out zoning application and just -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe that was what-- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: -- bold "development order" because it is a defined -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that I think might be-- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: It -- it is included in our definitions, which it does -- it includes zoning applications. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, that was my question. Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Everybody agree that that's a good idea? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, no problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that was my question. Let's see. Well, why -- if anybody else has -- I have a couple more, but I don't want to hog the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Just for matter of education on my part, on this page 187 you have there $61.65 per linear foot and then $10.25 per square foot. Which is the dominating one? Is it the linear foot that establishes one or the square footage? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: They're actually the same if you take the 10.25 and multiply it out because it's an increased width of six feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I see. Thank you. On page 188 on the table there under bike lanes, there is no width shown. What is Page 158 August 1, 2006 the width that should be shown in there? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: The widths vary depending upon the road cross-section. If it's an urban cross-section with curb and gutter, it's four feet. If it's a rural cross-section, FDOT standards mandate five feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, can a -- can a bike lane, sidewalk, or pathway -- can they be combined? Can two of them be combined for one service or three of them be combined for one service? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Yes, they can. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: They can? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: They can; however, in our -- as far as uses, yes. People walk in bike lanes. People ride their bikes on a bicycle. As far as the code goes, there -- the development .community's still required to build either the sidewalk and the bike lane if they're on an arterial roadway or a pathway and bike lane if they're on an arterial roadway. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Then how is the width established? On what basis? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: The width of a pathway? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, for combined -- combined use. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: The minimum pathway width is -- is shown later on, and it's to be 12 feet. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. Now, on page 189 there's a similar table shown -- that's shown on 188. Is that a matter of redundancy there, or is this something different? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: What it is -- the table on page 188 is for sidewalks that are -- or bikes lanes or pathways constructed adjacent to the project site, and No.2 is for internal to a project site. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But they look to be similar. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: They are very similar. One of the Page 159 August 1, 2006 main differences are if a sidewalk, bike lane, pathway adjacent to the site -- we are re -- requiring that it be constructed prior to the first certificate of occupancy. On the internal site, they have a little bit more flexibility due to construction vehicles, et cetera, to where walks or pathways have to be in for each individual C.O., but when 75 percent of that plat or site development plan is complete all of the sidewalks must be completed as well. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: All right. And on page 190 under -- I think it's 6, Section 6 there -- that must be the granddaddy of acroments (sic), USDOTFHW A. I assume that's not been put on the index. That's all the question -- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, all I want to do is see it in the index because I'll never remember that. Thank you. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's more ofa paragraph than an acronym. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MS. F ABACHER: We'll need two lines for that one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me try a couple of questions. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Trinity, is this the section that would require the sidewalks and bikeways and pathways? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. When you say at the top "unless exempted by the regulations" -- "unless otherwise exempted by the regulations of the LDC," where would that be? And the reason I'm bringing that up, I think it's good code work if you could itemize where that is; otherwise, you have people blindly unable to use search engines to find where exemptions are, and if there are none -- Page 160 August 1, 2006 MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: I don't believe that there are none. This was language that was in here prior to me being here, but I remember that it was added during the last amendment cycle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But it will send people on a -- in this case -- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: I don't have a problem striking it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there's no way you can win. Where's Waldo? I mean, because there -- you'll make people think there's regulations and -- and then you could actually kill the "where required" all the time and the -- why -- why do you need six inches of concrete on a pathway that has no motorized vehicles and -- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Because many of those fall within easement areas, Florida Power & Light, water management district, and they have actually requested that because they run their maintenance vehicles on them. So while we are not expecting people to drive up and down them we do know that there will be maintenance vehicles. We also have to look for a fire truck, ambulance if they would need to get out there as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, fire lanes are well determined, so I don't think there's fire trucks willy-nilly running up and down pathways. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: I can tell you that from my experience with the Florida Power & Light greenway -- we did originally look at doing concrete as well as a greenway on the 951 corridor. In both instances the water management district and FP &L stated that if we opted to do concrete that they requested the six inches. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that kind of makes sense there. You're in a right-of-way for Florida Power & Light. How about -- but how about neighborhoods where that'll never be the case? That's a specific -- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: The pathways are only as determined Page 161 August 1, 2006 on this plan. Now, if someone opts to do pathways internal, they do have -- they either do the six inches of concrete or the asphalt, and we do have a -- probably essentially a road cross-section for the asphalt, but we did put "unless it was otherwise determined by the county manager" because we do realize that in some cases that's going to be overkill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you -- do you want to go? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If you just -- maybe you could-- we -- I know we talked about this yesterday, and I understood your explanation. This pathways issue had come to this panel quite a long time ago. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Two years ago. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. We rejected it because of issues concerning cost. It went to the BCC, and I believe at the time they did the same thing. And when I talked to you yesterday you said this has now been accepted by the Board of County Commissioners standing -- sitting as the MPO. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Yes. Now, one of the other reasons it was not passed the last time was because we had a plan that was done in 1994, and this is probably the only copy that you will see. I have it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have one too. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Oh, do you? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. Don gave me the other one. He kept two. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: So that was why the pathways kind of were revived because we do have a new plan now. It's a refreshed plan, and hopefully it doesn't sit on a shelf like this one did and not be implemented. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. As we were discussing issues, didn't you indicate to me that most of the pathway is being built in existing easements? Page 162 August 1, 2006 MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And so this really isn't going to be an extraction from development in the sense of more land. For most of it, it's already there. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: No. We may ask for an additional easement where there's an existing Florida Power & Light easement or where there's an existing water management district easement because many times you have private property owners who are the underlying property owner, as the case in Florida Power & Light. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Meaning an additional use within the already-existing easement? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Yes. Yes. But we then have to -- we are held up by restrictions that Florida Power & Light or whoever the original easement owner is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Through the year 2030 you have a listing of, oh, 8 or 10 funding sources totaling $85 million. Two of those are items that involve the taxpayers of Collier County probably more than others. One is the gasoline tax, pathways, and the reason I'm concerned about that is -- and that's $12 million -- any money taken out of gasoline taxes -- the transportation department's certainly going to say they always need more money, so when you take it away from gasoline tax they're going to come back and say they need more in the form of ad valorem tax. And then the other one is the projected local funding available in 2030, and this is $50 million. Now, that, I'm assuming, is our ad valorem taxes of some nature. So if you've got those kinds of funds how much is this going to actually impact the taxpayers on a yearly basis? I mean, you've got through 2030, but are we going to see increa -- arguments to raise ad valorem taxes for these kind of issues? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: I'm not willing to make that argument. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, but you're going to put the Page 163 August 1, 2006 BCC in a position where they'll have to, and I'm wondering do we want to send them -- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: The BCC currently sets aside $500,000 per year of gas tax revenue. That's my current budget from the Collier County Board of Commissioners. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: For pathways? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: It's for sidewalks, pathways, the whole gamut. Now, I can tell you that the payment in lieu provision from the code has brought in a significant amount of funding. I've been here a year today, and I believe it's -- we're close to a million dollars for one year from the payment in lieu sources as well as grant funding. And I don't -- I don't believe that they really took into account a lot of grant funding, but pathways -- you -- it's very difficult to get grant funding for a road. It's very easy to get grant funding for a pathway or a sidewalk, especially in our underserved areas such as Immokalee, Naples Manor area. So, I mean, there's other funding sources available, but Don can probably speak to more of this because this is incorporating into his long-range transportation plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I'm -- I'm not against this concept. I just want to make sure that we don't have an issue with the funding. And I know that sitting at the MPO they approved this, so I'm a little wondering about the issue of cost. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. There was a long discussion at the MPO board when it was adopted in January as a long-range plan as was the bicyclelpedestrian plan. And one of the issues is we do go out and get a lot of grant money, but we can't use that within an adopted plan to get approved by U -- FDOT and federal highway. They want you to attach sure funding to it, and that's why if you see in the long-range plan there is other roadways that are shown for other sources of funding. We know we're going to get grant money Page 164 August 1, 2006 each year, but it's not something that we can count on and put in that document to get approved. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Don, when you put your plan together to approach the BCC for the budget next year, are you going to be requesting increases in funding for transportation as a result of the monies being moved in the gasoline tax? Well, actually, she just said that wasn't being moved, but for the 50 million that's allocated in that pathways plan that -- MR. SCOTT: Not in the pathways. Can I promise that some roadway thing around the corner is not? Because I was reading DCA's comments to our EAR earlier this morning, and it makes me wonder where we'll end up, but -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But you -- wait a minute. You got those back? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Why haven't we seen -- can we see those? MR. SCOTT: We just got them. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You got them before community development? MS. FABACHER: Don't look at me. I don't have anything to do with that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: I think that hasn't officially been mailed in, but -- MR. SCHMITT: We just got them last night. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Then we can have a -- we can get an e-mailed copy to -- MR. SCOTT: It's an interesting read. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, I'd like to -- I think we all could get an e-mail with that. Just scan it and e-mail it to us. MR. SCHMITT: 1'11-- I'll e-mail you a copy. Page 165 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, sir. That would be helpful. MR. SCOTT: My first comment when I read it was -- I said it might be easier to go get another job than to respond to all the questions. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, I -- I don't have any other questions of -- on this issue. You know, if the BCC has already accepted the cost, I guess there isn't much at this point -- they're going to have to deal with the budget process as it goes forward. It is through the EAR amendment that this pathways plan was being adopted; is that right? MR. SCOTT: No, the -- the pathways plan was adopted at the MPO board meeting last January. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But that isn't a BCC -- is that a meeting in which the BCC can sit in the form -- in a level that adopts an EAR amendment? MR. SCOTT: No, the five -- the five members are a member of the MPO board but not as -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MR. SCOTT: -- as the BCC. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So don't they have to be sitting as the BCC or PZA or some -- some other entity officially adopt the -- an EAR amendment that would incorporate this pathways plan? MR. SCOTT: Well, the growth management plan has always reflected or referenced the long-range plan and the pathways plan, so I guess from that thing it's adopted through the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I'm glad you said that. Policy 4.1 of the GMP says the county shall incorporate the Collier County Comprehensive Pathway Plan by the reference and updated-- and update the plan as needed. Now, I did check with Marjorie Student a while back, and I asked Page 166 August 1, 2006 her if you can have a self-amending plan, and you're not supposed to be able to, so that means that -- update the plan as needed, it would have to be approved by the, I would assume, BCC. MR. SCOTT: Well, actually, the way I look at it is it's updated through the MPO board. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: Because of the processes that we have to go through, it's not just -- even locally you're talking about public hearings and -- and other public involvement but, also, FDOT and FHW A approval. And including the pathways plan doesn't just cover Collier County. It covers the cities within Collier County too. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I notice Jeffs pretty silent on this right now, so I -- rather than ask you the question, could you find out if the BCC needs to be sitting as a special board and get back to us by -- at one of our future meetings? MR. KLATZKOW: We will do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, sir. That's the only questions I've got. Mr. -- go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That -- that was -- this is a loaded one maybe. And it's -- let -- let me just pose it. In -- under E, page 191, E, in -- payment in lieu, is there a means by which when -- when sidewalks or pathways or whatever, bike lanes or whatever will finally be constructed that the developers who have given this money in lieu of -- will they -- are they notified that this transaction has occurred, or do they just deposit to a fund and -- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: They -- they deposit to a fund. At any time someone could come back and ask me, "I gave you $3,000. Where did you spend that money?" because we try to use it in as close proximity as possible. And I utilize it via im -- I use the impact fee districts. So if somebody comes in Impact Fee District 2, I try to use -- utilize those funds within Impact Fee District 2 or very similar to our Page 167 August 1, 2006 transportation impact fees in adjacent impact fee district. So at any time someone can come back. I have a -- I hold a spreadsheet that shows exactly where all of the funds went. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. Good. I -- that's good. I -- I'm glad I asked the question because it makes me feel better to know that even if you don't notify them that they can find it out. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: And one of the other important items that -- that does -- is a new addition here is the -- what I'm calling the construction in lieu which allows someone to not write me a check but to go build a sidewalk in the community where it's needed as identified in the needs plan of the pathway plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I was going to pass on that one, but I have to -- I -- I found that kind of curious. I -- I think I understand the -- the intent, but if we've already determined that we need a sidewalk in Location A but we're willing to give that up in favor of Location Z I was having a little bit of a challenge with that. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: What it is is that if they would normally build a sidewalk in Location A, which is in front of their area, but it would never -- it doesn't connect to anything, they can, instead of building Location A and instead of giving me money, go build it where it's needed and where it's not a sidewalk to nowhere, find a missing link of a sidewalk and connect that missing link. We have several sidewalks where there -- there's 200-foot, you know, split in there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand, and it's admirable. And I'm not -- I'm not arguing that. I -- I find it -- I thought it was a challenge to me in the sense that -- and I appreciate your explanation. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: And it just provides another option for the development community. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Yeah. Page 168 August 1, 2006 MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: And they don't -- they don't have to do it if they don't -- if that's not what they -- their pleasure is but -- and it may be that Option A isn't on the plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And, actually, I think it an admirable thought. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Trinity, on page 189 in Footnote 3, there's a date of March 8th. Why was that date chosen by code? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: What it was is -- essentially, No.2 was all underlined because it's copy of No. 1, and that's -- I split out "adjacent to." But March 8th previously -- if you go back over to No. 2 under A-I, it used to read "has been approved as of the effective date of this ordinance," and that was when that ordinance was approved, so I inserted that date that was previously referenced but was never inserted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in terms of grandfathering these requirements, because I think one reason you're getting a lot of money in your in lieu of -- if somebody had built a five- foot-wide sidewalk -- it happened with a project I'm on -- with a proper site improvement plan and then three years later they want to revise the plan and now it's a six-foot-wide sidewalk you're getting a buck-- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: One square foot, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One foot -- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Instead of making them tear it out and put it what was code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So is that fair? I mean, is that what your people should be doing or -- MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Actually, if you went back three years ago, they should have built a six-foot sidewalk. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the dates weren't exactly Page 169 August 1, 2006 that but-- , MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Six-foot sidewalk's been in there for quite sometime. I can think back to at least 2001 when I worked for the county before. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Unfortunately, it was in Bayshore, and it was part of their sidewalk improvement. MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which they actually built it. Okay. Nevermind. Done. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, in order to watch the rest of the paint dry this afternoon, we'll take a 15-minute break to get some coffee. We'll be back here at 2:45. Thank you. (Recess held.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Ifwe can come back and resume our seats, we'll try to help transportation get through their troubled times. Nick, we finished on the last issue. I think the next page you have -- or someone there has is, what, 221? Am I close? MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Two -- two fifteen. MS. FABACHER: There is an erratum if I could read this to you -- to you-all on this. If you're on the summary on page 36 -- Mr. Preston's about to speak, and he's going to be on 215 instead of 230, and then on -- on the next page Nick's amendment that's on 235 is really going to be on 221. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wait a minute. MS. F ABACHER: That's just a pagination problem in the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Well, let's do it when we get there. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, let's just -- I'm not going to remember all that. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Page 170 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right now the one we're working on is stormwater management, page 215; is that right? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Let's just take them one at a time. And before we go into that, cut-off time today -- does six o'clock work for everybody on the panel? Does that work for the court reporter? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine with me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that fine with everybody? Six is okay. Okay. Sir, it's all yours. MR. PRESTON: Okay. My name is Steve Preston, Collier County Stormwater Management. This is simply an amendment for the final site development plan requirement. There are four items listed at the bottom of the table, and they're just additions to information that's being requested on the final plan. And, basically, what it's doing is locating the stormwater system discharge point from -- from the property or from the plan just to make it easier for staff to locate that information, put that information in the GIS system, and it makes it easier for -- for meeting federal requirements that we're up against, the new federal permitting requirements and modeling efforts that might come in the future. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Great. One -- one thing that was brought up by Stan Chrzanowski about the NA VD and the NGVD and having both for a period of time -- you're only -- you're -- you're using North American, and I'm just wondering would it be effective and useful for you, beneficial for you to have the other datum as well in order to correlate anything engineering is doing in the other areas? MR. PRESTON: Uh-huh. Well, certainly we don't want to -- we don't want to duplicate things, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Well, in this case you might -- I Page 171 August 1, 2006 don't know that it's a duplicate truly, but it's a correlation. MR. PRESTON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've -- I'll give you that to think about, my thought being simply that they're doing -- they're keeping both, and they'll transition away from it eventually and just use the NA VD, but they're making sure that because of potential issues that are extent in those datum that it's possible that you could have an error, and in order to avoid any errors -- and I don't know if it applies to you. I'll just give that to you to think about. MR. PRESTON: Yeah, we could change -- I mean, I could definitely change that. I think I got this language from the citation in the land development code as it is now for -- for the survey data. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They -- they won't go to NA VD, sir. No, I'm not -- I'm not suggesting you go away from that. I'm only suggesting the possibility -- and it may be totally wrong -- to as well include NG -- NVGD (sic) data as-- MR. PRESTON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- as a requirement, but if -- if it's not applicable, then I withdraw it. MR. PRESTON: Well, we could certainly do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Do you think it's applicable in any way? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think whatever -- you just need to be consistent with what engineering's going to use, and I would just call Stan Chrzanowski. And if he feels it's applicable to this one add it. Ifnot, don't worry about it. MR. PRESTON: Yeah, that's fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's my -- that's my only thought on the matter. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the information you're adding, No. 10, Roman Numeral 10, is that something that they would Page 172 August 1, 2006 have done prior to an SDP? MR. PRESTON: You mean listing the general permit number? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean getting the permit. MR. PRESTON: Yes. So they would -- they would have that permit number. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So prior to any SDP they would have that permit number? MR. PRESTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Before you go too far by saying yes, I can tell you from experience that a lot of times the SD -- the South Florida permits and ERP permits are applied for concurrently with SDPs for the county, and the county doesn't approve the SDP until they get the approval of South Florida. So, I mean, you -- but this wouldn't preclude someone from providing that at the last review of the SDP. They just may not have it at the time it's submitted. Would you reject it for that reason, I mean, right from the get-go? You'd accept it and just list that as a stipulated issue that you've got to resolve before the SDP's approved as they currently do, or am I -- am I wrong on that assumption? MR. PRESTON: Well, I'm not sure of the timing of -- of how it goes at this point, to be honest with you. I thought that they had to have at least an application in for a water management permit before they went to -- you know, for a final submittal of the plan. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It may be -- I don't know if the final number is on the application or the final number is provided at the time it's approved or not by South Florida so ... MR. PRESTON : Well, I think -- I think the permit number is established at the time of application, and then it's -- it's used, you know, to -- to track comments back and forth, but the number, I think, stays the same. I certainly don't want to ask for something that's not available, though, at the time of the submittal for the final SDP. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You may -- if you had a chance Page 1 73 August 1, 2006 between now and the 23rd to check on it, that would be helpful. And the last thing I have is -- you referenced North American Datum 83. In paragraph 11 and 12 you reference 88. Isn't it 88? MR. PRESTON: That may be a typo. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. So I just -- MR. PRESTON: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Miss Caron, did you have an issue? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just wanted to ask a question. So all you're concerned with is a permit number on the South Florida Water Management District environmental resource permit number? MR. PRESTON: Yeah, mainly the permit number because that number is our -- is our link to, you know, the permit itself and our ability to pull up other information that we might need on it. COMMISSIONER CARON: But before any final approvals would be granted you'd have checked to make sure they actually got approval. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the SDP process does that. I don't know if it's his department that signs off on it. MR. PRESTON: Right. This is -- this is just something that would be added to the -- added to the final submittal simply as -- as kind of a -- a bookkeeping exercise to be able to get this information located in our GIS system. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do all plans have to do that? I mean, small-scale SDPs don't or-- MR. PRESTON: Well, they all have to have a, you know, site review for -- for stormwater, and if -- if they don't have a permit number, you know, that's fine. Then it would be nonapplicable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All right. Because below acres Page 174 August 1, 2006 they don't have a South Florida permit review, and Stan's office does that -- MR. PRESTON: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- or engineering does that so ... MR. PRESTON: But they do have -- they do have a county general permit number. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. So that would -- that would fill in the -- yeah, for anything below 40 acres -- MR. PRESTON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. It's already established. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is a general permit then? That's, like, a building department permit or a stormwater review permit or -- MR. PRESTON: That would be a sign permit, a general site permit. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just like the corps used to have nationwide permits. They're just blanket permits. They're small jobs. That's the same kind of thing. Anybody else have any other questions on that -- on this particular page? No. Okay. Is that the only thing you had? MR. PRESTON: That's all there is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you're -- that was harmless for you. MR. PRESTON: I was hoping it would stay that way. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Hopefully I have all my pages correct here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Our page is -- I think the next thing you have on our pages is at 221. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll give you a brief idea as to why and Page 175 August 1, 2006 where we're going with this. Over the last budget review cycle we talked to Don Scott and Norman Feder, we discussed the possibility of getting a PTOE, professional traffic -- traffic operations engineer traffic engineer on staff. It's impossible to do. Our review time that goes into these TISs, for some zoning positions they can be -- the applicant can spend anywhere from 50 to 100 hours on these things. They can be 200 pages long with detailed information. There's no way we could get someone on staff to review this thing in a timely manner. And instead of asking for a full-time position, say, through Joe or N orman, being more flexible to have a consultant on call based on demand makes much more sense -- sense. So as someone comes in with a TIS -- and it's a -- it's a detailed TIS -- they pay a review fee similar to what they do for an EIS, and we do -- we do it based on that. And now I will say that what you see in front of you today will be changed in the next six months. With that proportionate share ordinance, it will be even more broken down, but in case that doesn't go that way we have something to fall back on that starts the review process and a -- and a TIS fee that goes with that. A couple of comments that came up when I discussed this yesterday with Mark was -- in double I cross out "at least." And I'm on page 222. In double I, last sentence, instead of "or" it should be "and." And in the bottom paragraph, third sentence, "the fee upon submission," not "the cost shall be set forth." And this is where we're going with this, and I think we have DSAC approval on this item. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait a minute. I've lost you. Oh, okay. I see it. It should be "the fee upon submission." MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, right, not the cost. The fee upon submission. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any questions? Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, Nick, shouldn't Page 176 August 1, 2006 there be, like, a master model of the traffic system computer data in the -- when people are doing projects they just submit that data in the format of that model? I mean, why are we getting these individual -- we read them. We have to read them. I mean, they're all different. They're all -- you know, I mean, I'm sure there's a rational analysis behind each one of them. But how come that's not standardized? How come that's not a computer model? How come you're not just inputting data that's based on these proj ects as they come along? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have counties we've researched that actually -- you have a list of consultants that you plug into and pay, and the county does the TIS for you. I mean, that was one of the options that was discussed as well too. That master model would require an intense amount of data that I don't see ES as going to -- and, Joe, correct me if I'm wrong -- to a financial analysis model. And one of the comments I put back into them is the ever-changing data to keep that model updated is an unbelievable amount of information. So to have -- what you're talking about could be done. Staff would have to increase to do that, and depending on market conditions you could have a bloated staff to keep that model going or -- I think this is more flexible to do it this way. We use a consultant that's actually from Orlando, so he's not involved with any of the local politics or issues that go on down here, and it -- and it keeps us pretty lean. But I know where you've gone to. I've seen that. It does require a lot of information to be updated on a continual basis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm kind of glad Don's here because, Don, don't we have something like that? MR. SCOTT: I don't know ifhe -- I don't know if you're asking what he's answering or what you're-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. SCOTT: We -- we have a model that's a long-range Page 177 August 1, 2006 transportation model that adds trips to the system, but if you're talking about something that's a small development -- we use it for -- when we're talking about reviewing large projects like DRIs, you do model all that out and how the trips affect the system, but a small proj ect you could model it within the model and you won't see any difference on the roadways because it's -- you know, it can -- it's a -- it's a -- it changes every time you run it anyway. It's roughly the same, but it changes based on time and other things that you do in the -- in the model. Now, there's certain -- there's certain criteria that's followed to put together a TIS. We have those TIS guidelines which we've talked about, and I think we ought to just set a date and say this is when we're going to bring updated TIS guidelines because there's been a lot of discussion about that, particularly lately. We haven't really touched on it yet, but construction traffic, too, and how to address that. The -- they're -- they're so different, and there are different parts. And we have our concurrency model, too, model, whatever, the database that we add trips into, but all of what they're submitting to us is what is their impact specifically during certain hours like a.m., p.m., things like that. And then you use those within those other -- other models, whatever. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But -- but out on the market doesn't there exist the ability -- I mean, because the computer's supposed to make our life easy. It's not supposed to require staff to maintain it. Isn't there something out there that we could essentially model what we're doing in Collier County in it? I mean, these people are doing -- the consultants are coming up with data from somewhere. So why isn't all that data in a computer model? Why isn't it simple to put into that model the changes their project makes? And why isn't it easy to give us a printout showing just what the changes that project makes? MR. SCOTT: Well-- and this -- this came up in the financial Page 178 August 1, 2006 analysis, too, when you're doing -- I mean, our model -- specifically how that the impact, if you're talking about the long-range transportation model, that's exactly what you're talking about. Say, okay, put their project in. Well, how does it change it? Meanwhile, for small things it's -- it's -- it's so small it's not -- it's not what you want to do. It doesn't change anything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, is that the reality, or is that not the reality? MR. SCOTT: Well, it's -- it's based -- the model's based on -- everything's what's input. So you say -- like, the 2030 we were talking about earlier. At 2030 you're modeling those conditions. Now, you can take that at different years and say those are the conditions at that time, but there isn't -- you know, and you -- you validate it back to your existing times and your traffic in that thing, but everything changes as new -- people don't travel the same way every day. They don't -- trips change on -- on a roadway on a daily basis. Now, they don't change a whole lot, but they -- they do, so you don't have a model. Now, do you have operational software that you use for, say, a signal and analysis or a link analysis, and that's what they use to produce it, but that even changes. Your signal timing changes. Things like that change. So there's not one model that you can just give to them and say this is what you need to follow. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, but one thing you said that makes me kind of lose faith in these studies is that you can't really have a computer model be accurate because things are constantly changing. Then how is this human analysis any better? MR. SCOTT: Well, it -- you're using pieces of those. I mean, you're not -- you're not saying, hey, I'm not using any software to analyze like a signal or -- I'm not doing that, but if I'm talking about the long-range plan, it -- it is -- you know, Norman said it before. He goes, "I think it's plus or minus one lane in the future because you're Page 179 August 1, 2006 talking about 2030 conditions." It's all a -- all a guess out into the future how -- but everything's based on how people travel. And you are modeling people's travel, so is it -- is it that defined? Someone might do a different trip home on a -- on different -- it's a -- you know, it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's random data. MR. SCOTT: It's random. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we all live random lives. MR. SCOTT: Right, exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ifwe go home at 5 or we go home at 6, we're going to change the model. MR. SCOTT: That's why it's work -- easier to work for utilities. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but the point is that -- here -- here's the bottom line of my point. I'm -- the ability to have just another consultant review what are essentially unique authored rational analysis for these traffic things -- I mean, there's no consistency in the traffic analysis we see. MR. SCOTT: Well, and that's part of what we -- I mean, we have some consistency. And, trust me, if you look at some of the paths, we have more consistency now than we ever have had. But, yes, you have different people doing it. They do it different. Why we were talking about the guidelines, updating the guidelines, is to try specifically to say these are the things we want to see. I mean, our recent conversations with you guys have been, hey, we want to see more a.m. analysis. We -- I mean, we were always doing p.m. analysis, not in the a.m. analysis. I think those are the things you're talking about. We need to better define what those guidelines are. Now, I've had comments from some of the -- the traffic and engineers doing analysis where I know a question's going to come up. They want to see whatever the worst-case scenario might be in that area, and they say, well, no, this Page 180 August 1, 2006 is -- this is proper methodology. And they say, "Well, do you want to get approved or not?" I think those are the things you want to outline within the guidelines and say this is the -- the process you want to follow so they look more of the same to somebody . You can even -- we could even do an overall example, say this is the -- the format we want, this is how we want it to look so that when you guys get that you can say I understand this because this is what we followed all the way along. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- and, Don, that's called standardizing. You standardize the input, then you need less staff to review it. I mean, if you're complaining that it's difficult to review these, I certainly understand because each one you pick up is a creative writing when it should just be standardized formats. And that would reduce staff, plus it would help us, and plus I think you should be really working towards that. And, ultimately, that's the way the computer's going to blend into this process. MR. SCOTT: And maybe we'll move more towards that as we get through, but I -- I don't believe our standardization of the TIS guidelines is going to be an easy process with -- I don't think it will be an empty room, let's put it that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you tell me that the different programs get different results -- which is why it wouldn't be an easy process; correct? MR. SCOTT: Well, for instance, somebody might -- I know highway capacity software. It's somewhat old in some respects if you're using an intersection. Now it's -- it's better to use Synchro. Those things are updated on a yearly basis. And -- and there are better softwares to use for certain things. That's what your -- your engineer that's up on it all the time says these factors are out of -- these -- these are the ways you can tweak this software to get answers that are better than what you should be getting, things like that. Page 181 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- and that's what I think we should be doing. Can't you standardize what the software is, therefore, you can standardize your reports, you could easily get to your reViewing -- MR. SCOTT: But there's always the inputs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can parse out-- MR. SCOTT: Always the input. You can check and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You could check some input. MR. SCOTT: Well, in-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the input is essentially the project. It's the type of project. MR. SCOTT: No, it's also all your background too. It's the percentage of traffic that goes during a certain hour. It's a percentage that goes in a certain direction, percentage of trucks in the stream. Do you have right turn on reds, you know, things like that. I mean, there's -- I don't say it's that complicated, and we've -- you know, we've had arguments before. And I don't say between us. But how much internal capture? How much pass-by should there be? Those are guidelined issues that we're going to try to address as part of this process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you should be establishing what those answers are so that the people who are creating these documents aren't, you know, jiggling their assumptions. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. And somebody will always try to be different than that, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the building we had a problem with that with the energy calculations. In the old days we were all doing it just like you guys are doing this. Everybody did it their own method. Some bought software; some did it by hand. But then the state came up with a program, and that's it. So why can't you come up with a program and that's it? MR. SCOTT: Well, if you talk about, say, soft -- for Page 182 August 1, 2006 level-of-service software on the road, the state has generalized tables, but, unfortunately, that's what it is, generalized tables. It assumes that this amount of percentage of traffic goes in this direction on a daily basis or even on an hourly basis, but it doesn't really fit what your conditions are on a particular street. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think Mr. Murray had a question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I -- if I -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I can. I notice in your -- the reason and the change -- you said -- I'll speak to the change -- adding text for required impact fee and establish minimal submittal requirement. Was this truncated, or are there the minimal submitted, the -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is also located in another section of the code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I kind of -- I figured. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's in our TIS and guidelines and procedures as well too. One of the things was to bring in the "and a.m. peak" or -- or "p.m. peak." COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We discussed both of those. -- to say the least, or 1,000 ADT or 100 p.m. peak trips to say is a threshold in our TIS guidelines and procedures. It also says that we can ask for more information if there's a health, safety, and welfare issue, if there's a cumulative impact issue like we discussed earlier today. For instance, a driveway coming out may produce 99 p.m. peak trips, but we know that next door there's a building site going on as well, too, and I may ask the engineer to say not only do you need to look at your traffic, you need to talk with your neighbor and provide me cumulative data because I know once these two developments are Page 183 August 1, 2006 built together I have 200 cars coming out at that driveway, so it's a minimal, but the TIS guidelines does give you flexibility to ask for more information. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I was more or less playing off of what Commissioner Schiffer was relating to about minimal standards. And -- and, of course, you know, I recognize that the more you try to pin it down the more it can slight -- the definition of obscenity -- the Supreme Court will never give you a definition because somebody will then beat it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: What -- what Commissioner schiffer went to and -- and discussed, I've seen it and I've read about it in some of my research. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: There are counties, I think outside of Florida, that you just say, "This is my development," and -- and they plug in the information, and they tell you what your impacts are. There is things -- but that requires a -- a pretty detailed analysis of what's going on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A big bureaucracy. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think -- I -- I -- I just wondered if we had enough. I -- from the extent of where he was talking to you about and -- and your position, I wondered if there was some kind of a middle ground beyond just the minimum that's here. Will that give us the standardization that we're asking for? I suspect we'll still get the variations that will come. MR. SCOTT: And, again, I come back to the TIS guidelines. I think that's why as a group -- I know we've talked about this before-- that we need to set a time that we say that's when we're going to deal with this issue. These are -- I mean, I know what we want to do. I know from hearing you talk about questions at certain meetings what we need to include in that, but then there are some discussion in Page 184 August 1, 2006 between about how -- how much -- what do we want to standardize, how do we want to do it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, how far. MR. SCOTT: You know, even setting percentage of internal capture and things like that, but that's -- that's adopted by the board, the TIS guidelines, and then that would be something that would be followed up with. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I see it as a step forward. I -- I recognize it for what it is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: On page 224. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A different amendment? COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I'm sorry. I skipped ahead. I guess I was just hoping. Oh, sorry. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I thought this was going to be a two-second one. MR. SCOTT: That's fine. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there any other comments? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I just want to say, why do we have that last paragraph in on 222? Why do we have that in there? I mean, you have a fee that you charge to do your reviews. Why in the land development code do we put this notice? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it's the same notice that with DIS -- it says you don't pay your fee we don't start your review. It just puts them on notice that that's what the code is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, my only concern is that, you know, you talk about these models like they're science fiction, but they're really not. I mean, other -- we deal with them in other areas, and we should be establishing these things, and -- and, ultimately, the -- the reward for that is -- No.1 it's your reviews; No. 2, maybe our -- the government reviews, our reviews; and maybe it's Page 185 August 1, 2006 feeding data to, you know, the SCOOT system or something making life easier. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't disagree with you. I think that we'll -- we'll work with that with a proportionate share. MR. SCOTT: I mean, understand we're working on items that -- for instance, permit account stations, you know, where we've dealt before where you have permit account stations out there where you get a lot of your factors, things like that. We're working towards a lot of these things that will help feed all that data. But, unfortunately, even in the last update of the AUIR there were -- if you go back five, six years, there were certain roads like Golden Gate Boulevard out to the east never even included within the concurrency segments. I almost feel like in some respects we were starting from scratch, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we -- like you said, we've talked about it before. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. On to page 223. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. This is one that's going to raise some eyebrows, I guess, in a sense only for the fact that the intent of where this started was that -- a way to eliminate units, and -- and when we went to the board PUD workshop we discussed certain other items, and it was kind of discussed that this wasn't the way to go. It wasn't this amendment to do that. But the board recommended at the PUD audit workshop that you bring something forward to allow some flexibility in the annual traffic counts. Brief background of what goes on. After a PUD is adopted, they begin construction. Annually, they are -- they are to provide traffic counts to county; how many cars come out of their driveways for a three-day period, 24-hour 15-minute intervals with a 2-hour TNT turning lane counts. It's good information. It tells us if they're consistent with what they are. It's not great information. It's good. What helps with -- you Page 186 August 1, 2006 reach a threshold of a development in a PUD where the information is not useful anymore, the PUD's built out on the ground but not built out per approved units, which we'll touch base on one of the other amendments later. What this does is it allows flexibility for the county to say you don't have to do the counts this monitoring period. A couple of changes that are in -- on the underlined section, the last paragraph. In the middle it says counts permanently or for the annual monitoring period. Weare going to remove "permanently or." We don't want to be able to waive these things permanently. We want to be able to revisit this every year. One of my discussions with Commissioner Strain was that we don't want to waive these things automatically. If something changes within the development, we want the ability to go back and ask for the counts. We also want to do -- at the bottom, speaking of Susan Murray, today she asked me that I put the onus on the PUD owner to provide me this information in order to ask for this waiver, so I'll put a sentence that says that the PUD owners must provide the information necessary to show that it is built out as defined above. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Who's the owner? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Each PUD when it's -- when it's born or on its adoption date typically has one owner, and then they sell out, say, different parcels. Those different owners of those different parcels are the owners of the PUD, owner with an S in parentheses. There could be one, or there could be many. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So 6,000 people in a large development would have -- all be owners, and they're all obligated to provide this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Currently they are only through the HOA, not through the individual people. The HOA's responsible if-- if it gets turned over and there's remaining intensity, it could be the Page 187 August 1, 2006 developer who's responsible. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So -- but the suggestion was that you make each owner individually responsible? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, they are right now. The way it's set up right now is the owners of the PUD, parentheses S -- it could be one; it could be many. It could be a homeowners association and a developer. It could be different developers owning different outparcels. Now, right now they are required. Sometimes they share the same driveway; sometimes they don't. So they -- collectively they're to get together and provide me that count. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Maybe I don't understand what you had said, then, because owners of a PUD -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: A developer leaves. The PUD's considered built out. Say the density was 2,000 units. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Two thousand people plus their spouses, so 4,000 people own that PUD. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Through the homeowners' association. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You didn't say that. You're saying the word "owner." MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if you put the word "owner" in there you're saying all 4,000 people are obligated to supply you that information. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think currently in the code of references it's just owners of the PUD throughout 1002-13(f), so if -- if it's a problem here, it's a problem in the existing code. I can change it here to be more reflective of that homeowners' association or entity responsible to for the monitoring part. I can -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That might be better. Page 188 August 1, 2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have a -- I have a thought here that I have to share with you. I went to a Lely master association -- this is a Lely Resort master association meeting expecting to have a meeting and was informed by the property manager, the representative of Stock Development, that 90 percent of all of the owners of Lely Resort had to be present or by proxy to represent a quorum before a legal meeting could occur, which I found to be astounding. But the implications of that is how -- how then can all of the owners ever get to the point where they can transact with you if they can never realize a quorum to have a meeting to make a decision? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's -- that's a good point, and I think I was here when you brought that out a month ago. I believe it was -- it had something to do with storm shutters or painting or something to that effect. Joe mentioned what -- Maryann's language was brought up earlier today. You asked her to clear up who would be doing that. It would be the homeowners' master association or other applicable entity. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If they can't get together, I can't-- you know, I have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I -- I understand. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I have a limit to that, but I understand your problem. Any questions regarding the amendment? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it shows here that if a PUD's built out or goes quiet that, you know, levels out its traffic that -- that they won't have to do it. But what happens, like, in a commercial one if they start renovating it and stuff? Page 189 August 1, 2006 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it talks about producing any additional impacts for two consecutive monitoring periods. If it starts to become active again and they have intensity left over -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then it kicks back. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- we could ask for a monitoring period. That's why I think it was key to pull out "permanently" because, as Don Scott and Commissioner Strain pointed out, there may be a time we want these reports again, so we don't want to permanently waive them but waive them on a year-by-year basis. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. In No.2 why is it just p.m. peak hours? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's typically the higher. It could be a.m. or p.m. I don't have a problem putting -- putting that in there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I think we've gone to peak hours, not -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, we could put p.m. or a.m.-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- a.m. or p.m. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- peak trips. That's a good point. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That will be my last. On -- on the -- in the language that's underscored, I noted that it -- it seeks to find out, you know, from the -- the parties when it's built out. I remembered something that -- and maybe Joe Schmitt could help me out on this one, but there's a -- there was an intent to try and find when -- when PUDs would be built out, and they were asked to voluntarily provide that information. For instance Lely might have been 10,000. They may come in at 5,500. Does this language provide for voluntary statements as well as the other compelled part? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The -- the last sentence will be added, the PUD ownerslHOA or master association must provide the Page 190 August 1, 2006 information to show at what level they are. I know we worked with Joe's office to determine the status of these developments at various times through the CD plus or the building certificate of occu -- certificate of occupancy process, and although we're not there yet I know Joe is working towards that system. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. Commissioner Murray, you recall I think the last cycle we brought forward an amendment. Okay. What do you want to call it? The -- the phantom unit ordinance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yep. Yep. MR. SCHMITT: It just didn't go anywhere. There was legal problems with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh. MR. SCHMITT: We still have not -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't realize that. MR. SCHMITT: We still have not put our arms around that. This was -- well, I'll call it kind of a fix just for traffic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: In fact, some of this we were requiring years and years of -- of traffic monitoring to PUDs that are built out, which I think that's what we were trying to eliminate as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you for that. I didn't realize it didn't go anywhere. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, but I -- I recall -- Commissioner Strain, didn't that -- we got -- yeah, that died. COMMISSIONER CARON: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: I mean, we -- we thought we had something, but it was just legally -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It was a good intent that -- MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. And -- and I -- Jeff -- but I know Marjorie dealt with it. The state -- the state defines buildout based on a transportation study date, and there were some -- on a DRI you can attempt to tie it to the -- the original date that was in the transportation Page 191 August 1, 2006 study, but we haven't gone there yet. There is some language at the state level. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Joe. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Nick, on B you're asking for-- you're in -- you're changing the 90 to 100 percent built out. That's when traffic monitoring reports can stop? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And further on in the new paragraph you define buildout now as when all developable land has been platted or approved yet the development community and the developers who retain their ghost density, like Pelican Bay, have 800 now left out of 1,600. They used them to bargain in the future. They're very valuable. But as long as they're on the books transportation's got to address them. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And as long as you give them the ability to not have to address them themselves by constantly paying yearly fees for a monitoring report and for traffic impact statements and everything else they've got to submit to clarify that report you're letting that -- those densities sit there on the books more and more. Now, I know the BCC and everybody says, no, we can't take that away from them; they have a right. But I don't see why we should encourage that to keep it on the books and not atone for it. So if they don't like the fact they've got to address the PUD monitoring reports or they don't like to spend money on TIS then tell them to give up the darn density-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There you go. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- and stop costing the county and the taxpayers the additional money on the traffic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Way to go, Mark. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So I suggest we strike this whole Page 192 August 1, 2006 thing and forget about it and put it -- and make sure that -- and put it back like it's supposed to be. That ghost density, they have to atone for it up until the time that they release it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I couldn't agree with you more. My only problem is at the PUD audit workshop the board directed me to come up with something that would allow flexibility so that Lake Trafford PUD that has PUD rights or building rights -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well-- but flexibility. Don't they have a choice of turning over the ghost density or not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, this -- for instance, that PUD was approved to do certain things, and they just have not done so yet. They've -- they've had it for years. And then I've got the same thing with Wentworth Estates or Islandia as it's known right now. I think there are only 40 single-family lots. When asked if that was a significant impact on the roadway segment, it was not. Ninety percent built out or even a hundred percent might take them five years, so they petitioned the board and said it's unreasonable of transportation to ask us for traffic counts on something that provides minimal impact, and I believe it was Commissioner Coyle that asked me to provide something in this cycle that would address that kind of flexibility. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, a slow buildout project is different than one holding ghost density for a decade or more as many have. Maybe there's a differential that you can provide some language that addresses the slow buildout of a project for a monitoring report versus -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Versus-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- the ghost density lingering forever because this releases them of all their ghost density where your real target from what you just said seems to be of a project that has a slower buildout. But if the slower buildout produces no more traffic impacts and you can monitor that at a more infrequent basis Page 193 August 1, 2006 with a monitoring report maybe that's the avenue to go to solve the problem. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I could modify this, I believe, so that the first paragraph maybe pulls out the buildout criteria and maybe puts in just something where it's minimal impacts or no impacts for a certain amount of time, but I -- I've got a feeling I'm going to be in a snafu with the board if I bring it that way for the fact that -- how would I be treating that large development that has those units differently than I would be a small development that has those units. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, but the -- from what you just said, though, the board was looking for a way to help these projects that have a slower buildout and they don't trigger any -- it's not like a ghost density issue. You weren't told their -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I -- I think it was even -- not even a slow build. It could be -- it could be a -- I'll give you a -- PUD XYZ approved for 200 units turned over to the homeowners' association. They have 150 units built and platted on the ground. There's no room left. They have 50 units remaining. It's a homeowners' association. I'm, therefore, asking the homeowners' association every year for traffic counts. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Good. Tell them to turn in the ghost density if they don't want to do the traffic count. What's wrong with that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, I'm in a catch-22. I agree with you. If I -- I just -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Look-- MR. SCHMITT: I -- I would -- I would submit it. Commissioner, if you want to give us direction on that, we'll bring that back to the board. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, I'm just suggesting I don't think you have an issue here that is a problem in regards to -- we want to force people to turn over -- look at Windstar. Page 194 August 1, 2006 MR. SCOTT: I -- I wanted to charge everybody for units that are left there for the purposes of saying -- my real purpose is to -- you to get rid of 300 units you're never going to build unless somebody comes into town and wants to buy you-all out and build everything out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, the -- as you know, once that -- well, they talked about paying taxes -- and it was back in the days of the Romans. Pay to the Rom -- pay to Caesar what is Caesar's and pay to God what is God's or something like that. Well, in this case what we're talking about in ghost density is a planning issue. What they're talking about is a political issue. So from a planning perspective, as a planning commission, I don't know how we can condone relieving this -- not addressing this as a planning issue. So my recommendation would be not to implement this only because it's not a good planning issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you can't fix it, do not implement it. MR. SCOTT: And I don't see why we can't go to the board and tell them what your recommendation is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we certainly will. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Tactfully. MR. SCHMITT: Do you want us to -- do you want us to bring it back? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, we've got to bring everything back. COMMISSIONER CARON: Everything has to come back. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We -- I guess we were told we had to have two readings, so I guess everything's got to come back. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me -- let me take your recommendations and see if I can be a little creative and come up with something that maybe satisfies your concerns and also gives me the flexibility to deal with what the board has asked me to do. Page 195 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. Is that okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I support that a lot. And, Nick, the way really to do that is -- remember how you said that if they had two consecutive reporting cycles where there was no change? Just scratch that one off and say unless they remove the potential for any increase, and the only way to remove the potential is to dump the phantom units. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that's a good point because if I do eliminate that and I go back to the impacts in terms of trips -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Maybe that's a safe way out of this. So let me look at that, and I -- I can take that comment and work with it and maybe come back and provide something that works for -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Nick, I want to make sure places like Naples Bath & Tennis, some of those that for whatever reason we just never realized that -- well, I think we did. We always realized there was some -- some density there, but they've -- they've hung on that for, what, 25, 30 years. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And we accounted for it on the traff -- on the -- in the roads. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. SCOTT: They're in the model. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's an aberration when it doesn't COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think we've kind of vented ourselves here. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have the -- I have direction. I -- I'll come back with something a little more creative and see if we can address both concerns. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. We're on to page 225 then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think this is Phil. Page 196 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. MR. TINDALL: Good afternoon. For the record, Phil Tindall, Transportation Planning Department. This item addresses two timing criteria that pertain to adequate public facilities for transportation as that ties into the development review process. The two timing criteria are not really that closely related, but since they both have to do with COAs I'm just -- I just put them in the same amendment request. The first item, Section 10.02.07, provides for -- that after -- for a site development plan, SDP A, or plat and plans that once all the reviews are done and we're essentially ready to give the final approval, we being the county in general, the zoning department will issue a project preapprovalletter telling the developer's representative they need to come in and pay their impact fees. We'll then issue them a COA, and then they can get their final development approval. They have 90 days from that -- the point of that notification letter to go ahead and pay their -- 50 percent of the road impact fees, pick up their COA, et cetera. The problem with that is earlier on in the process the -- the development order is given a -- a -- what's the terminology here? -- a capacity reservation, and that's -- that's after the transportation staff reviews the TIS, determines that they -- they passed the concurrency test. The development review process continues to go on. It could go on for many months thereafter, but at least that applicant gets their place in line in terms of concurrency so that someone can't come in and -- maybe will get their approval sooner but would take their place. That's how they get their pecking order in terms of the first comelfirst served basis. And that capacity reservation is good for a year, and that's so that they can hold their place during the remaining of the development review process. If it should only take, say, three to six months to -- for their -- say, their site development plan to be approved, we see no Page 197 August 1, 2006 point in not giving the full benefit of that -- that temporary one-year capacity reservation. If they need more time, say, to come up with the money to pay for half their impact fees or whatever, we don't want them to just be stuck with 90 days if they're actually entitled to more time than that based upon the capacity reservation. So what we're really doing is just 90 days or the end of the capacity reservation, whichever date would be later, and that gives them the full benefit of that, and that's what we're trying to accomplish. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any questions of the panel? Well, Phil, page 227. MR. TINDALL: Right. And that's the other timing criteria. As I said, it's sort of related but not directly. This has to do with the processing of a TIS. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You don't even know my question yet. MR. TINDALL: Okay. I was just going to give you an overview, but I'll -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. No. No. Let me ask my question. MR. TINDALL: Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because that'll-- that's going to save you a lot of breath. MR. TINDALL: No problem. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did you get Norm off the hook when you said he was going to endeavor to do things? MR. TINDALL: Yes. Well, we're going to -- we're going to redo those words, and -- and we won't say the words "endeavor to." In fact, we -- we're -- we're actually going to kind of streamline that -- that whole section a little bit better. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So the other -- MR. TINDALL: We'll just say -- we'll basically comply with the Page 198 August 1, 2006 established timelines set forth by the community development environmental services administrator, something to that effect. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: About the sixth line up from the bottom of that paragraph, you have the division administrator to be major deficiencies -- you're going to work on that a bit too as far as what those are because those aren't spelled out. MR. TINDALL: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just want to make sure that that was still in your -- your -- MR. TINDALL: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. TINDALL: Absolutely. We're going to clean this whole thing up. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're going to come back to us with more -- MR. TINDALL: Uh-huh. And anywhere where it says transportation administrator or community development environmental services administrator we're going to add the words "or designee" just to make sure that's clear. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? MR. TINDALL: So we'll be definitely cleaning this up as a whole. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Doesn't look like it. MR. TINDALL: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That was short. MR. TINDALL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Nick, this is your last one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oh, thank God. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 237, I bet. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. Okay. This just comes from the Page 199 August 1, 2006 requests -- both from, I believe, discussions we've had from the planning commission and the board. I know I've had discussion in the hallway with Mr. Lewis, and we've discussed this with the development community, with some of the attorneys and tried to incorporate what -- what the board wanted as well too. What we're trying to do is basically say to the development community, tell us when you're going to be built out, and we're going to hold you to it. And then those phantom units that we just talked about in the prior amendment they will disappear automatically after a certain amount of time. So in -- and definition of insanity is to, you know, bang your head against the wall and expect, you know, the same -- from the same -- doing the same process over -- over and over again and expecting a different result. What we're saying now is we'll treat the problem up front, and the ones that are remaining we'll have -- we know we have to deal with, but going forward we will limit the zoning approval to a certain time period with the TIS. A couple of changes with this. I've been told that instead of a local development order we're going to change that to appropriate plat or plan or SDP, so we cleaned that up. Talking to Susan, she wanted me to remove the reference to the sunsetting provision and just say approved density will expire after a certain amount of time -- of time, so we separate two processes. And in paragraph A halfway down it says, "In the event that action" -- "/inaction" will be added because, I guess, one of the points that was brought up by the development side was it could be the fact that it's in review limbo and -- and they've done nothing but just wait for the permits. To protect them and in discussing with them, what we've done is say, your time will be tolled. If you have a problem with some sort of regulatory agency, you have two years past what your TIS says to clean things up because we understand permitting takes time. And Page 200 August 1, 2006 we'll tie it to plats, and it's not affected by approvals of plats or SDPs, so once you get your plat approved or your SDP approved this -- the density doesn't disappear because you get a COA with that, and that vests you for your capacity. So this amendment has been asked for by the board, maybe not in this language, but the intent is to say when you submit a TIS with your PUD and you tell us you will buildout 2010 you will buildout 2010. And you have some flexibility, but after that any remaining units will disappear. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Good. Good. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wow. Nick, you're free. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Woo. Did you want to-- MS. FABACHER: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Lewis, did you have any comments? MS. FABACHER: Mr. Lewis. MR. LEWIS: Actually, I -- I do have just a few comments. I -- I appreciate Nick's efforts to address some of the concerns that we -- we -- we have. It's difficult -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You'll have to identify yourself for the young lady just in case she hasn't heard you before. MR. LEWIS: Sure. Doug Lewis with the law firm of Roetzel & Andress. I appreciate Nick's efforts to -- to attempt to balance the -- the rights, the zoning rights of the property owners with the ability of the county to forecast -- you know, forecast its capital improvements. In -- in reviewing this it is important that we -- you consider and think about the rights of the parties in the future to redevelop, which they are -- they are -- they will lose from this, and the impact to the property values. That being -- that being said I think that the proposed changes are helpful. The SDP or platting time period is the time period in which Page 201 August 1, 2006 we would vest for a concurrency. To prepay half for impact fees, that -- that seems to be a good -- a better window or at least a more clear window in terms of how we -- how we measure the -- the time period. Also, the other -- the other kind of question is -- is -- and we've seen this in other developments where you may be caught up in a -- in, for example, a development of ours took 2 1/2 years to get our South Florida Water Management permit or -- or 3 years to get an Army Corps permit for development. And the language is helpful. I think that the -- the -- the addition of -- of action or inaction by a regulatory agency is good. It would be great to see this -- a little bit more detailed language put forward in other parts of the Sunset provision. We all -- we also may want to consider who -- who would make that determination. Is it a determination made by somebody at staff level or planning commission or the Board of County Commissioners? But with the -- with the difficulties in terms of some of the regulatory permitting time -- timelines and, also, the -- some of the market conditions I think the preference would be that -- you know, I think the idea here is, you know, we -- in terms of the -- the intent, you know, two years is -- is certainly better than one year, but as a practical matter many of the developments will be caught up in -- in -- in a deed to make this -- this tolling or determination, and we would request that -- that a consideration be given to -- to allow some additional time, maybe three years. Additionally, under 3-B there's a provision that -- that allows nonresidential portions of a PUD to essentially have that -- that two-year period to come back with an SDP amendment to redevelop the site, and I'm -- and I'm not sure why that -- that really -- I guess the first question is, you know, why aren't we applying this -- this -- this concept to residential developments. Many developers when we -- when we look at the -- the platting or site development plan for an entire development, many will do an Page 202 August 1, 2006 overall plat and then do replats, and because of that I'm not sure why we're limiting it to -- to nonresidential portions of a PUD . You may have a residential developer who will do a phrase development, do an overall plat of the development, and you may get it -- a buildout year trigger. It would be nice to have the flexibility. I think the concept in 3-A is -- it addresses what you're looking to do, but I think 3-B may be a little bit -- a little bit excessive in terms of removing the flexibility. I seem to read 3-B as a carve-out of the -- the last portion there, the last statement where it reads, "For nonresidential portions of a PUD, Subsection A above allows two additional years to amend the site development plan. " So it appears that 3- B only applies to the residential context, so that's another item to think about. I appreciate the changes that Nick's made. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. And, Nick, was it intended to only apply to commercial? And if so, why? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because -- one of the reasons-- first I want to comment on one that Mr. Lewis brought up while it's fresh in my mind. They tell us the buildout year. So when they apply for zoning they set that year; we don't -- we do not. If they tell us they're going to buildout in 2010 and it -- if they think they need 2012, by so means tell us 2012. So they -- they have the flexibility built into when they apply for zoning to tell us what their buildout year is. So I -- that's -- that's flexibility that's heavily advantaged to the development community's side. We're not setting the buildout year. The reason it was done in B was to reference -- B was kind of to say if it's a residential plat once you've platted all your lands we know what the buildout year -- if you're done you're done. Let's not give you the extra two years. You're okay. Page 203 August 1, 2006 With an SDP you may come in in phases, so in your buildout year you go back to that A. You have two more years to clean up those phases. So to -- to ask for more time or to say it's different -- it's not. You're still telling us when that buildout year is. So it was set up to -- to -- to have A be the -- the section that allowed for us to do this and B deal more with plats but reference A again if you needed more time. So it was carefully crafted to give you that time. And, again, they set buildout year, so for them -- for them to ask us for different times is kind of confusing to me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: In setting the buildout year, when you take in their applications for subsequent phases of their project, are you limited to the approvals you can give them based on the buildout year, or -- I'm just wondering is there -- is there any incentive for them to shorten their buildout year versus lengthening it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, there is now. See, and that's the other part of this that's -- that's -- I like about the language in the -- in this is that it makes them. I shouldn't -- I -- no offense. I should be careful with my -- my words. It trues up your buildout year because if you intend to build this thing out in 10 years but you -- now you come in and say it's 5 years because you're trying to avoid some consistency problem. Way out we know they have a roadway problem eight years out and it's the end of your project. You're going to actually tell us when you buildout now . You're not going to fudge it down because -- you know, you can say it's a three-year buildout in this project, but I know in the fifth year I may have a problem or the sixth year I may have a problem. This -- the other part of this is it forces them to kind of give us a more clear buildout year with their project. So, again, it's their flexibility. It's -- you know, you live by the sword or die by the sword in the sense of what you tell us. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Does that help you, Mr. Lewis, or at least provide you some -- probably nothing helps, but Page 204 August 1, 2006 does that give you some -- where he's going? MR. LEWIS: I understand that -- you know, that the applicant would set the buildout year. I -- I just am -- am -- I understand that -- that -- that -- that from what I'm hearing, you know, we're talking about develop -- developers, applicants who are coming in good faith and getting caught up in -- in additional permitting constraints that -- that are unanticipated. And we -- we've allowed for that, and you've acknowledged -- Nick has acknowledged in -- in -- in the text that there's this additional two- -- two-year window for -- for nonresidential developments. I -- I guess my -- my -- my -- my position is if we're -- if we're acknowledging that there are many developments that will fit in this -- this -- this -- be put in this position, one, I still don't see why for a residential development where -- why we don't afford them the same opportunity . MR. CASALANGUIDA: They do. MR. LEWIS: Uh-huh. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They have the two-year -- the residential owners do have the same two years. The -- in Section A for buildout years it's within two years. MR. LEWIS: But in the context of 3-B it indicates that once you've attained buildout, as I -- as I -- as I mentioned, many developers may do an overall residential plat for a development, which in my read of3-B that would be a PUD in which you had really all the -- all the lands within that development had been platted, and then they come back later and do replats. So I think there would be a real practical need for -- for -- for -- for addressing that in the context of nonresidential development. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I -- I don't -- I -- I appreciate your concerns. I just don't see it as -- when you're coming in platting that redevelopment opportunity that you speak of is more important in a -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you guys could carry this Page 205 August 1, 2006 dialogue on -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- between now and the next time you come back and save us the -- the time. I understand your point. Actually, I don't understand your point as well as I do his, but I think you ought to have that -- have you ever spoke with Nick-- MR. LEWIS: With Nick, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- on the formation of this language? MR. LEWIS: Not on this particular issue, but -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Because it would be something if you guys could come to a conclusion and then -- or bring before us what you would prefer as language and then what you would prefer, and then we could just make a determination at the next meeting. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fair. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That would be more productive than trying to debate it back and forth here. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we can work something out and come back together on this. I don't see any problem. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One -- one item that may solve part of your problem is if you add the words "in the event of a moratorium or other action or inaction," as we talked about doing -- if you have an inaction -- if you have a permit process that takes longer due to the inaction of the government to respond, that gives you the time you would need to get to the higher time frame that you're looking for. MR. LEWIS: Yeah. We certainly would -- would like to have a longer window and not have to come back and -- or get a tolling determination. We've been through that, and it sometimes is not an easy process. It's certainly expensive, and -- and if we can acknowledge the -- the difficulties that many of the -- especially Page 206 August 1, 2006 giving the environment, the economic conditions, and the -- and permitting requirements in the area. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Maybe the county attorney can answer for me. Is the tolling determination something that's -- that's got to be formally provided, or isn't that a -- just an acknowledgement? MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's a decision by the Board of County Commissioners. They take the evidence, and they decide whether or not there's been due diligence, and at that point in time they make a determination. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So in -- for each case where this might be applicable, they have to hear it and decide upon it? MR. KLATZKOW: That's the way it's been structured, yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Wow. That'll keep them busy. Yes, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That -- that's what I was getting ready to poke. That -- that does get expensive. MR. LEWIS: And certainly from a -- you know, from a development perspective you're giving the -- you're giving the impact to the development. You know, we're talking about an additional year or three years before we -- and at the end -- at the end of the day it allows -- from a forecasting perspective it allows you to achieve the end objective, which is eliminating this density from the calculations you're forecasting for your -- your report, your annual report. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: In the past year, how many tolling hearings has the BCC had to deal with? MR. KLATZKOW: One. COMMISSIONER CARON: Last week; right? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: One time. MR. KLATZKOW: I expect, however, there may be quite a few Page 207 August 1, 2006 more coming down the pike. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, with the economy switching like it has, that has probably caused quite a few people a problem. And maybe the resolution of a tolling provision may be something that ought to be added so that maybe we could avoid the process and shorten that to a more practical application. MR. KLATZKOW: The BCC directed that they be the ones who hear it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So they really like all this. Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: They -- they -- they want to ensure that there's been due diligence. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I mean, there are some circumstances where that's a given, and it maybe would have been simplified. That's a suggestion I was trying to interject into the conversation, but -- okay. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Appreciate it. And you didn't get off as easy as you thought, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. No. I appreciate all your time. You've put a bunch of time into this, and we'll work forwards with your recommendations on all these, and we'll be back. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I certainly appreciate your time and all of the transportation's department's time. It's amazing to see that they can stay here and wait for this patiently day after day. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So appreciate it. Thank you. And, Catherine, I guess we're at a point where we can go into whoever's left. MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I -- Michael Sawyer's here, and I'm assuming he has landscaping issues then. MS. FABACHER: And -- and, also, Bruce McNall is new, so Page 208 August 1, 2006 you'll get to meet him. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I've certainly heard his name around, all in -- all in good. MR. SAWYER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mike Sawyer, Senior Planning with Zoning and Land Development Review. I would like to introduce Bruce McNall. He's our new Landscape Architect with the county. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Welcome aboard. This is the nice -- this is the peaceful board. We never have a problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or any questions. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: Commissioners, I'm not sure where you want to start, if you just want to start with the first amendment. The first one would be on 135. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I know you've seen the way we like to move forward, so -- MR. SAWYER: Yeah, right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- why don't we just keep up with the same methodology unless someone has a need to go into further detail. MR. SAWYER: Okay. This particular amendment is similar to the one that we did last cycle where we were addressing buffers adjacent to lakes. This time what we're doing is reducing a combined A and B buffer that would normally be required by code to be an A and a B where you've got an activity center adjacent to a residential structure down to a simple B. This is something that staff has been doing for the last few years, several years. It's been pretty much the staffs practice. We're just codifying it in the code. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, why would you be lessening standards in an activity center that is adjacent to a residential area? Page 209 August 1, 2006 MR. SAWYER: Yeah, these -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You want to lessen the standards for landscape buffering? MR. SAWYER: I understand the question. What we've got -- normally what we've got are pool facilities, possibly tennis courts and that sort of thing, and a combined A and B buffer would be a 25- foot wide buffer with trees on one side that would be 25 feet on center with the B buffer along with a 5-foot hedge, and on the other side, the A buffer, would be a row of trees 30 feet on center. Now, normally in most developments the trees on the residential side are taken care of by the requirements on that particular site itself, and what we are normally finding is that you're actually getting additional trees that are difficult, actually, to fit on some of the sites because they're starting to get so condensed. That's the reason that we're -- that we're reducing the size. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you're going to find that the residential neighborhoods are not going to be happy when they find out that you're lowering standards in an activity center, okay? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, where did you see that language about the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: He just -- that's what he just said. MR. SAWYER: Yeah, the activity -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Where -- where is that cent-- where is the activity center referenced? Because I didn't see that. MR. SAWYER: We're talking about community facilities. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But that isn't an activity center. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, that's a different thing. MR. SAWYER: Yeah, it's community facilities that we're really talking about; the swimming pools and that sort of thing, the tennis courts. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. SAWYER: They're not -- they're not the activity centers Page 210 August 1, 2006 around -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's two different things. MR. SAWYER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on this paragraph? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's good. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: One question I have is when a community facility is located within a residential PUD and adjacent to a residential unit -- now, the code's pretty clear on the words "adjacent" and "abutting." Abutting means contiguous, side by side. Adjacent, I think, can be separated by something like a street, and if some of these code provisions go through, even a railroad. So do you mean adjacent, or do you mean abutting? If it's on the other side of a street, you don't want to -- you don't want to take away the buffers. You want to do it when it's abutting, wouldn't you? MR. SAWYER: Correct, it would be abutting. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So then that lang -- that word needs to be changed to abutting instead of adjacent. I think that would have a -- quite a different impact on where you're trying to go with this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you finished? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, I am, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- I -- one popped into my head when you were talking. Fence as we now use it is also not chain link or anything. It's the concrete woven fence; is that correct? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And that's going to -- somewhere along the line I thought we might -- I had a conversation with a commissioner, and the commissioner didn't realize that in the current state fence is something other than chain link or what have you. And I wondered if it should be -- I don't know. Is that something that should be defined? Page 211 August 1, 2006 MR. SAWYER: It -- it is defined within the -- the B buffer in that it needs to be have an opacity in natural -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's how we get to-- MR. SAWYER: With a chain link, you don't have opacity. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. No other questions on this one. Mike, let's move on to the next. MR. SAWYER: The next amendment is on 138, and this particular one is trying to address building foundation plantings. The current standard is basically split between two separate sections, one for smaller buildings and then the second section is addressing larger and taller buildings. It has been somewhat difficult for some applicants to interpret the larger and taller building sections. It's also difficult to have it apply equally depending on the building use and the configuration of the building, and what we've attempted to do with this amendment is to bring all buildings into one foundation planting requirement split into three different sections. The first would be for smaller buildings under 10,000 square feet. The second category would be larger buildings that are not tall, and then all buildings that would be, basically, over 50 feet. It's a little bit simplified. There are also additional alternative methods of meeting the foundation requirement. We've got the ability to use some turf as well as doing some courtyards, plazas, more people spaces, and, also, doing some fine planting -- planters, tear -- trellises, that sort of thing, to help meet some of these requirements. We also have included an illustration that helps explain the formula and how you reach the overall quantity of building foundation plantings that we're trying to achieve in those different categories. I also have a handout that I'd like to hand -- give you that gives you an idea on what we feel is -- the current requirements give us and, also,s Page 212 August 1, 2006 what the amendment is going to be -- be doing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER: This is something that the DSAC subcommittee actually requested. We didn't have it available to them, and we've since pulled this together. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: When I read this, I stopped reading it because it had Brad written all over it, so I'll just let him start because I know he's going to have questions. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, first of all, my concern with this foundation is that when it came through the first time I don't think really people knew what it really was doing. It was presented this year at the health department, and one thing it said then is there was -- and we discussed it -- that there's no fiscal impact. At least you acknowledge that there is fiscal impact to developers. You're saying it could reduce it, which meant it existed in the prior one. So I think -- I'd like us to look at this not so much based on comparing the two but looking at this like this is a really fresh time to look at it. Let's start on -- 140 is -- when you say the combined total of all building facades, you mean the length of the building facade; correct? MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So could you put the word building facade length just to avoid -- you have a sketch that kind of clarifies that. MR. SAWYER: That was clarified on the illustration, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- but so somebody's not confused and taking the area of it. MR. SAWYER: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that occurs in the next three. You use the actual building height as a parameter for this thing when I think we should actually use the zone building height. What Page 213 August 1, 2006 you're doing is you're -- somebody could build a one-story building with a tower, and you're throwing them into a different category. MR. SAWYER: With the actual building height, that would be correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So I think we should stay with zone building height. MR. SAWYER: That actually came out of the review committee that we had with the landscape architects from the county, and the feeling there was right now the criteria starts at 35 feet, to 50 feet, and then above 50 feet, and it's split between those three. You know, in other words, below 35 feet, 35 feet to 50 feet, and then above 50 feet. I think from the committee's standpoint that was an attempt to equalize those, but we could certainly change that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, we only have one -- you know, C-4 can go with the actual building height -- or the zoned building height above 50 feet. I mean, here's -- the problem is you're penalizing the design of the tower. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, you know, I could have a small one-story building. I throw a tower on it, and the next thing you know you're penalizing me for it. MR. SAWYER: You're into another category. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, I mean, I think the intent of it is to provide planting around the mass of a building, so why don't we just stay with zone then because that's what controls the mass, not the actual height. I mean, anybody support that or not? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Number 6, if we're up against the buffer, the intent of that statement means that we have to add this buff -- this foundation planting into the buffer. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When this was originally Page 214 August 1, 2006 presented, it was -- the intent was to provide greenery around buildings, and that greenery should increase as the scale of the building does. The -- prior to this that was allowed to overlap those, so what are we achieving by adding those buffers together? MR. SAWYER: In -- in actuality, that hasn't been the case. You were not allowed to put in your foundation plantings in those landscape buffer areas. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When it was presented, this was to require planting at the foundation. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It wasn't, like, a landscape requirement that was additive to existing requirements. Essentially, the difference being that if you had paved or a property line that you had to have this much planting between those. I mean, if we make these requirements, we just start adding them where they can't overlap, then we end up with too much landscape, if there's such a thing. But -- in other words, but what do you achieve by adding this to the buffer? I have a tall building. I have 20 feet plus a buffer. I'd have 30 feet of planting. MR. SAWYER: Currently that's -- the way the code reads is that the foundation plantings are in addition to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- MR. SAWYER: -- any of the other landscape requirements, and -- and one thing that we are doing is -- currently the standard for larger and taller buildings is that the foundation plantings are required to be continuous around the building. With this we're not saying that the plantings need to be continuous. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there's improvements here. MR. SAWYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But where do you see that that it's in addition to because that's been a -- Page 215 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No.6. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no, that's new. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The old is -- MR. SAWYER: I believe that's actually in the buffer requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That it mentions foundation plantings? MR. SAWYER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I don't think that MR. SAWYER: And I -- I'll have to get back to you on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think that's in the code. So six I'd like us to kind of look at. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I think your issue with six is Mike's going to have to verify whether six is from the old code -- from the code, and if it is then -- MR. SAWYER: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- that'll be what-- MR. SAWYER: If it's not we'll take it out. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing is in some of the outdoor areas -- let's go to 10. Were -- I'd like to see kind of more outdoor seating areas to be allowed as part of this. This became an issue in some, and it's going to become more of an issue with the Smart Growth stuff coming down is that a lot of this landscape is -- will be more urbanized, so I -- I think that the person should have the option to put outdoor seating instead of landscaping. I mean, it's a decorative -- I think it has the same softening effect as landscape, so I'd like to see the percentage -- could you raise that a little bit? You limit it to 20 percent in 10- B. MR. SAWYER: Again, that came out of the committee. We're Page 216 August 1, 2006 certainly open to suggestions on that. What we're trying to do is, as you said, con -- you know, encourage more of those people-oriented spaces -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SAWYER: -- not losing the landscape but using them in different ways. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And, I mean, the importance of the landscape is not to just look out the window at it. It's to sit in it. So I don't think you should penalize people for that. And then in C it might be a good space because we really don't give credit for raised planters or planter boxes, or do you think that you would assume that's landscaping? MR. SAWYER: Raised planters would certainly fit into that category . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Without mention? MR. SAWYER: We can put it in if you want it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But -- but it's also saying that -- that it's only limited to 15 percent of -- and the point is, for example, we could make a -- could somebody make a terrace and count that as part of the landscape, the perimeter landscaping around a building? MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, I probably have to take a look at that. I'm not sure exactly what you're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me see. Let's say -- MR. SAWYER: -- meaning with the term. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there's a parking garage below grade and the top of the parking garage is a -- is walkways, planters, landscape. I mean, we've all seen beautiful landscaped areas like that. Would that count as the perimeter landscaping? MR. SAWYER: Again, I'd have to take a look at a specific case like that, but my initial reaction would be that, yes, that would -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Because it could Page 217 August 1, 2006 achieve -- MR. SAWYER: -- that would apply. I think we'd want to apply that type of thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SAWYER: Part of the reason to have that C section is to help address parking structures because that's been something that's been submitted to us for review purposes, specifically for parking structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what if we on A, B, and C we didn't -- I mean, what's -- what's the reason to limit the area of it? To get a mix of things or -- in other words, why -- why are we saying 30 percent of this, 20 percent of that, 15 percent of this as opposed to you can use these things? MR. SAWYER: I -- I think the idea there was so that we -- we do have a certain amount of green space. So, in other words, the foundation plantings are mostly made up of plantings. The committee felt that turf is still green. It still has -- you know, it's still landscaping. And the other reason for a 30 percent there is that oftentimes, especially with taller buildings, there's a need to have some turf in those beds to address runoff situations where you've got, you know, rain coming down or just centralized runoff coming off of the building. You're needing to have turf in there to actually root down and take some of the velocity out of that water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, I mean, you're limiting somebody -- I mean, what do you expect to be in the landscape area? I mean, all planting beds? In other words, you're -- let's say I add up all your options here. I get 55 percent using these things. Okay. What's the other 45 percent in your mind to be made up of? MR. SAWYER: Well, one of the -- one of the item -- things that we've got here is that you can use up to one of those three options. You can't use all three. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's even worse. Then what Page 218 August 1, 2006 are you -- what -- what's the other stuff that's supposed to be there? MR. SAWYER: The other stuff is what we're currently getting, which is composed of trees, shrubs, and ground covers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So grasses -- so if I use the 30 percent grass then I can't have my outdoor eating? MR. SAWYER: Correct. That's how it's currently written. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what -- that's currently in the code? MR. SAWYER: No. No. No, that's what we've currently got in this amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. So I don't like that. I mean, that doesn't make sense. I mean, we should be mixing these things up, put all kinds of landscape things. Why -- so what you're really saying is that in the Smart Growth area if anybody wants grass they get killed on the -- they can't have a planter. They've got to -- if they go with A -- a little bit of A, they wipe out Band C. MR. SAWYER: Actually, I think with the Smart Growth those proj ects are going to be coming under a separate category, a separate set of rules that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have some, but-- MR. SAWYER: -- yeah, that are going to be separate from these requirements. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, Mike, your department has beat this up with Brad so many meetings, and we've heard it so many times. And -- and it needs to be addressed, no doubt. MR. SAWYER: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did anybody bother to contact him prior to today's meeting and probably run these by him ahead of time so that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We met once. MR. SAWYER: Yes, we did meet. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And nothing got resolved Page 219 August 1, 2006 in that meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, some things did. MR. SAWYER: We did make some changes, yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I was just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I thought we were going to have the planter box in. I mean, I, you know, have the minutes before. The percentages and some of the stuff is a little lower. I mean, there's been some wiggle since then. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure you -- at least some of the stuff got resolved -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- at your prior meeting. MR. SAWYER: As a possible suggestion for 10, would it be better if we had a total percentage that we couldn't exceed with those three items? Would that possibly address your -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's another one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the concern I have is that these are very expensive items to build, maintain, and everything. MR. SAWYER: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- and to be politically correct, I mean, is that what we really want is to be putting those kind of water-thirsty creatures all around a building or -- and, also, I really think that we should encourage people to use it, so I think the disaster of 10 is -- and I didn't read it till you mentioned it, but you're right -- is that if you do put grass you can't do the others. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if I put some grass I lose the arbors, or I can't count them as landscape, and I don't think that's fair. So I don't see any reason why you limit to menuing one of those items. I could see where you restrict the use of the item to a limit. Or I actually don't see that, but that's better than what we've got here. Do Page 220 August 1, 2006 you -- I mean, why -- why do you want only one of those three things on a project? MR. SAWYER: It's -- it's -- the idea is that -- to provide a little bit more flexibility than we currently have and to try to move more towards allowing alternatives that currently we don't have. It's -- it's like a first step. Like I said, I think we certainly could put in that any of those three elements could be used as long as we're not going past a certain set of percentage. I don't think we want to have the entire building foundation planting taken up with other than planting elements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's not what you're saying here, so, I mean -- MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that would be better. I mean, I think proj ects may use the following -- if you cross out "one of," and then these 20 percent, 50 percent become limits to what we can use. Remember, they only add up to 55 percent, so if you decided to abuse them all you've got 45 percent of the thing over. Because, see, here's what's not fair. Let's say I hire Roberto or Burley Marks (phonetic) to do my foundation planting and he goes ahead and he puts in turf grass for a nice little part of the design, then the seating area I can't count. That's foundation buffer. The trellises I can't count. That's not fair. Nor is, I think, that the intent of this, which is to provide these kinds of things around the bottom of a building. Silence. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Brad, do you have any concern that if someone's given these three choices -- most people seem to take the cheapest way out -- wouldn't they take A all the time? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Guaranteed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, then wouldn't we want to use A as the least percentage and increase the percentage of the ones that are more desirable? Page 221 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I can think of situations where turf grass can look good too. I mean, here's what I think the problem with 10 is. The intent is he's saying is that you can choose one of these items and that will count, which means the other items won't count, and I'm sure the converse is true. So I definitely think we should get rid of the words "one of" so that they can use the following. And then, I guess, it's free -- if it's not listed in A, B, or C you can do whatever you want as long as it's considered landscaping. MR. SAWYER: Well, we do have criteria as far as what needs to go into that foundation planting area. That would be No.3, "Building foundation plants shall be covered with shrubs, ground covers, raised planter boxes, ornamental trope plantings except as provided in Item 10 below." COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, I -- I definitely got from 10 -- are you okay with that if we did that with 10, got rid of the words "one of"? MR. SAWYER: I think there's -- I -- yeah, I think there's a number of ways that we could do that, either doing it -- either continuing to use the existing percentages that we've got, or doing some slight adjustments, or having an overall percentage, that those three items can total up to that percentage. I'm not sure which you -- you prefer. I understand where -- where you're trying to get to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think I would be happy just to kill the words "one of" -- MR. SAWYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- which means they can use these three things, if they so chose, and then you have a limit on it as to how much of that you can do, and then the rest of it meets the other requirements because one thing that -- this is a really expensive thing. When this thing came out last time, this was deal breakers on a couple of instances of my projects and other people's projects where Page 222 August 1, 2006 you couldn't get a building to make the value of the site work because of this -- all this massive landscape around the footing of it. And, also, it didn't give us anything. It didn't give us a place for people to go. I mean, so I think we really want to take advantage of this as a feature. MR. SAWYER: I agree. And -- and that's part of -- of -- of the handout that I gave you is -- what we tried to do with these percentages and with the amendment is to -- approximately what we're currently getting, and that's why we've got plus or minus signs in there is that we're not sure because it's not always fair. Sometimes you've got certain buildings that have different uses. They accommodate that building foundation planting. They've got more ingress or egress points. And, as you can see, the amendment, if anything, goes on the lower end of the current requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. But I've -- I mean, these -- I don't know if these are square buildings you chose or something, but, I mean, I just took some random shots, and I can get more square footage so -- required. In other words, the large building, if you make it a 200-foot-by-600-foot building instead of -- I don't know what size you used. And it's -- again, the length of the perimeter is the important number. MR. SAWYER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we studied that thoroughly with preserves the other day. MR. SAWYER: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, you know, if you do noncircular buildings you're going to get a larger square foot requirement, which makes sense. So, I mean, this chart can't be -- it doesn't show exactly what happens. And, I mean, I don't know if you chose square buildings or maybe round buildings, which would give you the -- the smallest number. The only-- Page 223 August 1, 2006 MR. SAWYER: Generally, they were more rectangular, which is more of the type of buildings that we get, at least most of the buildings coming into the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only other question is the percentages. How did you come up with those? MR. SAWYER: As far as the items in -- in 10? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: Those were -- those actually came out of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm sorry. Not 10. MR. SAWYER: Oh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The table, the -- MR. SAWYER: Oh, out of the table, again, what we were trying to do was to look at the current requirements and get this formula to work with those so that we were in some cases, at least with the smaller buildings, closer to current code and with the medium and taller buildings something that was at the lower end of what we're currently finding that we get most of the time. Again, part of the problem with the current requirement for the larger and taller buildings is that it isn't easily met or even -- or it -- it's not easy to get that to apply the same with all types of buildings. You have some buildings that have more ingress and egress points. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does any -- MR. SAWYER: You do have some buildings that are coming in with actually having parking areas underneath buildings also. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Does any other members of the panel have questions on this? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I just have one. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The reason I'm getting this, Brad-- I think you could debate this for hours today, and I don't mind if you do because it's constructive, but I'm wondering if you could do it effectively with Michael and get back to us in a final reading of this thing. Page 224 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what I'd like -- I mean, you know, like, for example, what latitude does Mike have to make changes? Because, I mean, Mike can listen to me and not answer, and what good is that? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I mean, to be honest with you, whatever recommendations you come up with I'm not going to object to at this point as long as they -- I mean, I don't -- ifhe's not -- ifhe objects to something, he can bring it back before the board, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then let's do this maybe, Mike. You know, you have a committee that you referred to. Then-- MR. SAWYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- why don't you have the committee get together. I'll gladly join, if you don't bring tar and feathers, and we'll -- we can do this. MR. SAWYER: We promise we won't do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Could you do that before the 23rd? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be the smartest way. MR. SAWYER: Pardon? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Could you do that before the 23rd which is our final hearing? MR. SAWYER: I believe we should be able to do that without a problem. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think that would be more productive, to be honest with you. Any other comments this panel has we can give you right now, and then you and Brad can work out some more of the details. Mr. Kolflat, did you have a concern? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, it kind of centered on that. I wondered what the composition of the committee was that you referred to as establishing these percentages. MR. SAWYER: I -- actually, I could show you the list of -- of Page 225 August 1, 2006 the landscape architect -- architects that we had. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, I have the list from when we met so ... MR. SAWYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I just wanted to get a good idea of their background and what -- how many there were. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I only had one question, Mike, and it's No.5, building foundation plantings are exempt from native species requirements. With the amount of problems we have with water, heat, and everything else and freeze and frost sometimes during the winter, why would we want to exempt them from native species requirements? MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, that's actually part of the current code. We do not require native species requirements for the building foundation plantings. The idea there is that they're more decorative in nature. To be honest, a good share of the landscape architects still do a minimum of 50 to 100 percent natives even for the building foundation plantings. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Just from my perspective-- and Brad can discuss this with the committee when he deals with you guys -- I don't see a reason to exempt native species -- I mean, to exempt them from that requirement. I don't know why we wouldn't encourage more native species, not less. It seems to be prudent to do so with our temperatures and our water issues down here. Any other questions on this one? We're going to take a 15-minute break for the young lady who's trying to write as fast as I talk, and we'll be back here at 4:25. Thank you. (Recess held.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. The paint will be dry in an hour and a half, so let's resume. Oh, Bruce's indoctrin-- indoctrination in the -- into the county. Okay, sir. It's all yours and -- MR. McNALL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the Page 226 August 1, 2006 record, Bruce McNall, the new County Landscape Architect. And I appreciate the warm welcome a moment ago. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're welcome, sir. Good luck to you. MR. McNALL: This is a very brief, very small amendment change here. It has to do with raw water wells, and this -- this amendment originated from a scrivener's error. The original intent was to provide trios -- that's three Sabal palms -- 30 feet on center, not 30 inches around-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark, could we get the page number on this? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Page 143. MR. McNALL: Oh, I'm sorry. Page 143, the -- the very next one after Mike's. Okay. So, again, raw water well enclosures. These enclosures are -- are fairly small, 40 feet, 30 feet square, protecting the equipment, the well equipment. The intent is to screen anything that protrudes above the enclosure with Sabal palm heads. A Sabal palm's about, you know, 10 feet around, a mature Sabal palm. So, basically, what we're -- we're doing is we're spreading the palms out 10 feet on center instead of grouping them three every 30 feet. We thought that that would be a better -- a better -- provide a better screen for a raw water well enclosure. It's as simple as that. Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, your -- your -- your language where you change each palm shall be planted 10 feet on center around the perimeter of the fence or wall -- then the next sentence, is it saying -- are the 10-gallon shrubs -- okay. So you've got trees -- MR. McNALL: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- every 10 feet on center. Ten-gallon shrubs placed four feet on center; is that right? MR. McNALL: Yes, sir. Yes. Page 227 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to understand. Thank you. MR. McNALL: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Any other questions? Boy. MR. McNALL: That was easy. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Easy indoctrination. MR. McNALL: I'm coming back. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. You waited all day for that, boy. MS. FABACHER: We were hoping you'd pick on him, Mr. Chair, break him in. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: A guy comes over from the dark side and joins the county. We're supposed to pick on him? No. MR. SAWYER: Again, Commissioners, for the record, Mike Sawyer with Zoning and Land Development Review. The next amendment is on 147. This one actually has been withdrawn at this time. What we're going to do is come back forward in the next cycle with a more comprehensive series of amendments for redevelopment sites. Susan Murray is basically, you know, pulling this forward. That will also include parking, architectural, and -- as well as landscaping as far as trying to help address some of these redevelopment sites. If you do have any questions, we can certainly talk about it right now. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Miss Caron and then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just would like -- if you're going to be reviewing this, I have an issue with No.4 in that multiple deviations can be approved without a public hearing. I have an issue with that, so you might want to just give that some thought as you go forward. MR. SAWYER: Do you feel there should be a limit on that or -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Or none at all. MR. SAWYER: Or none at all. Page 228 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: I have -- yeah, I have a problem with deviations without a public hearing, yeah, so ... MR. SAWYER: There actually is deviations that you can do with -- currently with architecture, so that's -- there -- there is some language that we currently have so ... COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. And that I actually understand. MR. SAWYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is why I said go back and-- and I just think that this needs further discussion. MR. SAWYER: We'll make that clear. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And my -- my question is, do -- we go through architects and -- landscape architects and stuff, but do realtors ever show an interest in this kind of an amendment? Because essentially this is an existing -- what to do with existing property. It's strange that they never show up at these hearings or anything, I mean, because, essentially, what you're saying is that when somebody buys a property with the intention to do whatever improvement triggers that that they really have a lot of action to do. MR. SAWYER: I -- I would agree. I'm -- I'm curious myself. We do not, you know, hear much from -- from the realtors. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's all. MR. SAWYER: Maybe they should be part of the process. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to make one comment. In 2- B I found -- my note says "confusing," and you made a note of that yourself. To me that was confusing. But up, in I guess it's, 1-B under applicability, the second sentence, B, developments that are abandoned or have discontinuance of use as designated in this action -- that's as -- that's to applicabiby -- applic -- blah, blah, blah __ applicability . Page 229 -'-----.- -.--~.".'___m August 1, 2006 If discontinued -- my note, if discontinued or abandoned, would staff be involved? What -- what what's the -- what's -- what's going to happen there? MR. SAWYER: We do have criteria in -- in the code currently for a discontinuance of use. Currently with landscaping it's 30 days. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Okay. All right. So under red -- so you're going to go back and look at this anyway, so __ MR. SAWYER: More comprehensively, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- we'll see you then. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anything else? That's a lot of discussion for something you withdrew. MR. SAWYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Don't do that again. MR. SAWYER: I'd rather hear it now than later. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. Well, I'm assuming you're going to make such changes that it's going to read -- read differently anyway so ... MR. SAWYER: Yes, it will. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You're on page 149 now? MR. SAWYER: Yes, l49. This is a clarification. It's actually a relocation of a current re -- criteria for requirements for natural and man-made bodies of water. Currently where it's located due to the recodification of the LDC it is confusing for a lot of landscape architects and engineers as far as how this is actually applicable. Previously with the old version of the LDC it was a separate standalone section, actually, within architecture. It was then brought over to landscaping when architecture was rewritten, and then with the remodification it was inserted into, actually, the buffer section. It was not caught. What we're trying to do here is, again, make it a standalone requirement that's a little bit clearer for everybody. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He's right. It's the lost words Page 230 ""---~--'- '--""'--...- August 1, 2006 from -- the architects are saying, the wandering words, but this is a better home. MR. SAWYER: That was everybody's feeling, yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is this language verbatim to what exists in the code? MR. SAWYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments? We're just moving it around then? MR. SAWYER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I've seen a lot of fountains -- I mean, a lot of lakes dug that don't have fountains, so that means they're doing the walkways or the partially sladed -- shaded plazas or courtyards; is that -- MR. SAWYER: A lot of times with the -- with the larger __ larger lakes that seems to be the -- the trend, although I have been seeing some aeration units because they tend to be more efficient as far as stirring up the lakes instead of the fountain units. I'm not sure if that's necessarily a correlation or not. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, you know, you keep -- why would you have a body of water and a roadway and picnic tables on the opposite side of the road? MR. SAWYER: I would -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because-- MR. SAWYER: I would imagine to get the picnic tables off to an area that's more park-like. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, but, see, you're letting-- like, C (iii), partially slade -- shaded plaza and courtyard and the last sentence, "and or picnic tables adjacent to the water body" -- well, if you use the word "adjacent," it doesn't have to be alongside of the water body. It could be across the street, then we go back into that use of abutting and adjacent. MR. SAWYER: I see your point, Commissioner. Perhaps that Page 231 August 1, 2006 should also -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Since you're making changes maybe you want to -- is that something you should consider if you want it -- if the intent is to be along the water body __ MR. SAWYER: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- wouldn't you want it to be abutting then? MR. SAWYER: I would -- I would agree. We can change that because then you -- we should change it now since we're looking at it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. And then the text ofC says, "Adjacent to a public right-of-way." I'm wondering how that applies because it really would be -- a right-of-way is what you -- it would be abutting the right-of-way again, too, you see. Maybe you might want to look at changing it in -- that word. So those are __ MR. SAWYER: We can make those changes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Maybe they're helpful. MR. SAWYER: Okay. There-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MR. SAWYER: Definitely. Then we're onto something. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What's the -- what's the next number you'd like to -- MR. SAWYER: Those are the extent of landscape amendments. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So you're off the hook today too? MR. SAWYER: Permanently. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And I appreciate both your time and Mike's time and -- MR. SAWYER: Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bruce, I appreciate it, and I __ MS. FABACHER: We have new staff. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. MS. F ABACHER: Diana Compagnone is here, and she is our sign expert. Page 232 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We met, and she sat there for a couple of hours waiting for a question from me, and I said, "You know what? We overkill signs in this county. That's the last thing I want to talk about is signs." And so she was able to leave at that point, so she knows my position on this today. But let's move into whatever pages you'd like to address. Thank you. MS. COMPAGNONE: Okay. Well, we can -- Diana Compagnone, for the record. Page 167. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. What about 11, page 11, mansard? MS. COMPAGNONE: Oh, okay. Page 11, what we're doing is we're just taking the provisional out of the mansard definition and putting it in with the wall signs where it actually belongs. COMMISSIONER SCHIPPER: One second. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We'll wait for Brad to catch up. He likes these kind of things. COMMISSIONER SCHIPPER: My -- my only -- what's a __ what is a mansard? That's my only problem. Because I've seen some projects lately where people are drawing any old roofs and saying that's a mansard, so what is a -- you're the sign desi __ MS. P ABACHER: Excuse me, but she's a sign person, not an architect. COMMISSIONER SCHIPPER: But she's saying the mansard SIgn, so -- MS. COMP AGNONE: A mansard -- it goes on the mansard __ the slanted roof, so it's actually mounted on an L. COMMISSIONER SCHIPPER: So it has to be mounted on the thing. I think it's improperly defined, but __ MS. COMP AGNONE: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIPFER: It's not your fault, but __ MS. COMPAGNONE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Miss Caron. Page 233 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Could you give me an example of B(i)? MS. COMPAGNONE: D? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Oh, that's good. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You've got to flip it around. It's upside-down. COMMISSIONER SCHIPPER: It's where the sign's mounted upside-down. MS. COMPAGNONE: I haven't used this thing. Let me bring it down. Okay. We're looking at Image -- we're looking at Image Orthodontics. And do you see how it's all moved to the right there to meet the 10 percent clear area? That's because the unit goes all the way to the building. And when the landlord split the unit you would think that it split straight down the column, but it doesn't. It actually splits more where that concrete light post is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MS. COMPAGNONE: So to make the signs not look out of proportion I -- I'm asking for the leeway -- not that they can go on somebody else's unit, just to -- to make it in proportion. And this is a sample of it here. COMMISSIONER SCHIPFER: So you would center it over the archway? MS. COMPAGNONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIPPER: Okay. Good. Yes, of course. MS. COMP AGNONE: But as the current code it doesn't allow me to do that. It says 10 percent clear area. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You were-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. That's great. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- prepared for that question, Page 234 August 1, 2006 weren't you? Any other questions then? COMMISSIONER CARON: I didn't even call her ahead of time. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, that's -- on page 11 anything else? Okay. MS. COMPAGNONE: Okay. Page 167 then. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there any questions on page __ pages 167 -- and I think it goes to page 1 73; right? MS. COMPAGNONE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I asked all mine yesterday. MS. COMPAGNONE: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anything from any other of the panel members? COMMISSIONER KOLPLA T: Was there a meeting yesterday? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. No, there wasn't, Mr. Kolflat. I decided to save all of you a lot of time, and I went and caught up with stuff on some issues that I would more -- that were more issues I was concerned about, not that everybody else was. COMMISSIONER KOLPLAT: I was concerned because I talked to you Sunday about the date of the meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIPFER: Mark did some path-finding reports. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I wanted to -- a lot of times I get into issues that really aren't necessary to bother all of you with, so I just resolved them separately. Anything on 16 -- the -- the chunk of -- of amendments beginning on 167 and carrying through to 173? Hearing none we'll-- MS. COMPAGNONE: Good. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. COMPAGNONE: 174 through 175. COMMISSIONER SCHIPPER: Just a comment. I did check Page 235 August 1, 2006 this. This meets all the fire codes so -- MS. COMPAGNONE: I did too. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That was my question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. COMPAGNONE: I spoke with Ed Reilly. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anything else on page 174 and 175? Okay. We're fine. Then page 176 to 178, any concerns or questions? We still have more -- MS. COMPAGNONE: I brought pictures. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, wait. Let's not -- we don't need to get into them if there's no -- it reads pretty straightforward so MS. COMP AGNONE: For the three-story one? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. And then 179, I would assume, Diana, was -- that was the next one you were going to. MS. COMP AGNONE: You are correct. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I have a question on 179 and 180. MS. COMPAGNONE: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's nothing -- it may not even apply to this section. I just wanted to ask you. After the Hurricane Wilma came through -- MS. COMPAGNONE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- we had all these contractors come into town, and I found all these little signs that popped up at intersections, "No unlicensed contractors allowed to work here" or something to that effect. MS. COMPAGNONE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm assuming they were put there by the county. How did -- MS. COMP AGNONE: I believe those were done by the state, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, okay. So they have a right to Page 236 August 1, 2006 come in and stick those signs -- because they sat there forever, for months and months and months until they actually deteriorated and blew over or something. So did they have permission to put those signs up, or do they fall under our sign ordinance or -_ MS. COMP AGNONE: They do fall under the sign ordinance under gov -- by government rule or entity. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So they have -- okay. I was just curious how that happened. Thank you. Okay. Miss Caron and Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER CARON: On page 80 are you going to fill in I, or do we not need that? MS. COMPAGNONE: I don't think we need that one. COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought there was language to come. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Or it was a catchall. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: There won't be any standards developed for each of these categories like schools, hospitals, or law enforcement, will there? MS. COMPAGNONE: As of this time, no. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So each of these would be handled as a special instance when it's reviewed? MS. COMPAGNONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anything else on pages 179 or 180? Okay. Then I guess we're on to 181. Any questions on -- and that's just a one-pager. Any questions on 181? Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What is -- what is the grade of what? Down there -- it's under C-5 on the bottom. It says measured from grade. What grade? Grade of the road? Grade of the land? MS. COMPAGNONE: Where the sign is sitting. Excuse me. Page 237 August 1, 2006 Where the sign is sitting. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. MS. COMPAGNONE: It's actually a menu board. And we measure everything normally from centerline grade of the road. On most drive-thrus it's way in the back. To try to get it from centerline __ COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Doesn't make sense. MS. COMPAGNONE: It's difficult. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, could that be helped a little by saying from grade of the sign or the location of the sign? MS. COMPAGNONE: If you'd like. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if we -- the grade, then, could be artificially built up, so the sign could then be on top of a mound? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MS. COMPAGNONE: It could be if we -- we word it that way. It normally isn't. If anything, it might be on, you know, like, a concrete -- a small concrete plat -- slab. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, I'm more concerned about someone doing something unintentional to get more attention. How do you like that for a contradiction in terms? But I can see a __ someone coming out and building a mound up and then putting a big sign on top of a mound to get it measured from the point at the top of the mound. Is there a way to prevent that? MS. COMP AGNONE: We might want to put from parking lot grade. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, from the grade of the vehicle that will be reading it. So you could just say the roadway at the vehicle. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You might want to look at that language, though, and try to come back with a suggestion. I'm just more concerned that if you leave an arbitrary grade and someone can artificially establish that grade that may give you some undesirable Page 238 August 1, 2006 effect, and Mr. -- MS. COMPAGNONE: The only -- the only thing with this, if I might, is because it's for a menu board they want it down low, I mean, where cars and people in the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, okay. MS. COMP AGNONE: -- in the trucks are going to see it, so I can't really see where they would put it on a mound, but that doesn't preclude them from doing it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I -- I can see -- they build a mound. They build a menu board, the part of the menu board down low, the base of it, and then six feet from the top is the peak of this big py Ion or something painted fluorescent red or -_ COMMISSIONER CARON: We have to keep Mr. Schiffer in check -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- with these rules, okay? MS. COMPAGNONE: We'll look -- we'll look at the language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here to come up with abuse. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm good. I was thinking of a tripod and -- with the implications, but, no, it doesn't apply. MS. COMPAGNONE: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Diana, I think we're onto page 182. MS. COMPAGNONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And that carries us to -- through to page 183. Anybody have any questions on 182 or 183? No. Wow. I wasn't the only one that didn't have any questions of you yesterday, huh? MS. COMPAGNONE: Good. I like it that way. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is a fine tuning. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. We Page 239 "-~-~- ""._-_.".~. August 1, 2006 appreciate your time -- MS. COMPAGNONE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- for coming down to entertain us here today. MS. COMPAGNONE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Diana, by the way, this is a good code. There is a loophole in the code which I've never seen anybody use in town, but somebody could have theoretically built a high-rise and had different tenants on different levels, and they could have had an outside sign, but you plugged that loophole with one of these last things. Uh-oh. You saw somebody doing it? MS. COMPAGNONE: I didn't see anyone doing it, but I asked somebody to mark up these drawings for me because I did see the loophole. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. That's exactly right. And ifbehind every one of those signs was that tenant -- obviously, it's not the best McDonald's location in town, but that's exactly what could have happened. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What's wrong with that? MS. COMP AGNONE: So this is what it could possibly look like. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Okay. But that was sleeping in there. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: She's good. COMMISSIONER CARON: And you could see that first example -- you can see those examples in L.A., places like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, we -- MS. FABACHER: In Naples. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We shouldn't have -- we should have pointed that out because somebody could run out and do that before -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY : You're the one that pointed it Page 240 August 1, 2006 out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. We should have waited a couple of months. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you, Diana. MS. COMPAGNONE: Sure. Thank you. Catherine-- MS. FABACHER: I have-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- do we have stuffwe can proceed with without -- MS. FABACHER: We have stuff that I can do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Because the audience is getting overwhelmingly noisy. MS. FABACHER: I was going to ask for crowd control. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. MS. FABACHER: I have a few that I can talk about. I -- the ones that are -- I apologize. They didn't have all the authors here. I just never dreamed we'd go this fast, but I have some I can talk to just as plain zoning staff, if that's okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd like to clean up everything we can -- MS. FABACHER: All right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- because we've got an hour and 10 minutes, and I'd rather not waste it. Then on the 8th -- well, actually, we have a meeting coming up this Thursday, and it looks like it's going to be a partial-day meeting because we have two boat docks, a sign, I think, and then the Brooks. The Brooks will take more time. MS. FABACHER: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But I bet we could finish that in the morning. Is there a reason we may not wrap this -- couldn't wrap this up on the afternoon of this coming Thursday? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Except for Copeland. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, Copeland we're going to continue for the -- Page 241 __"0-" ...._..,__.._.,~ August 1, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Well-- but if you needed to carry it over and continue it I think that would be a good idea. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm -- I'm trying to just -- MS. FABACHER: Yeah. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- kill today's, you know. MS. FABACHER: -- just wondering like we dis -- as we discussed the problem with getting the turnover and the language __ we can -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But there isn't -- MS. FABACHER: We've already said that would be 23rd, but-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. MS. FABACHER: You're right. But we could have -- do the color, Brad. I didn't know what your preference was, if we were going to have -- who we were going to have present the color. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who better than Nick, so -- well -- but what you're saying, Mark, is if we push a little bit today we can clean it up on Thursday. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right, and be done with it and not need the 8th and 9th. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of course. Let's do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. As long as there's no problem with staff, I mean, I don't mind doing it. I think that's what __ COMMISSIONER CARON: Can you get it out? MS. FABACHER: Yes, I can. Yeah, we can -- we can finish it up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can schedule -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There's no changes to get out because the changes we've been over come back to us on the second reading. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, not until the 23rd. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're still going through the first Page 242 August 1, 2006 reading and finishing up the book. That's what we need to do on the-- I'd like to see that done this coming Thursday. MS. F ABACHER: Oh, I -- I think we can finish it this Thursday. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, that would be great. MS. FABACHER: Yeah, sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That would be really good. Well, let's go through whatever we can clean up today -- MS. FABACHER: I mean, next Tuesday. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- and go -- and get done with it. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Oh, oh, you mean instead of doing all day next Tuesday do the second half on Thursday. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't think we need a full day on the 8th. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Because we advertised the 8th, but that's okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, well, I didn't know that was an issue. Is that an issue, Jeff? MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't think so. This is just a continuation of the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MS. F ABACHER: -- initial hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We could confuse some of these people, but other than that -- MS. FABACHER: Well, no. The reason that we do that-- because we continued so many times and then it was just our practice eventually to just say, "Hey, we're still doing it. " You know, I don't __ I mean, we will officially advertise the 23rd, and that's our official really second hearing, and that's all we're really compelled to have. But after we continue about three or four times we like to give them another ad just to err on the side of notifications. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Have you been making notes on which ones and pages we're done with here today? Page 243 August 1, 2006 MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. At about 4 -- at about 5:30, why don't we get an assessment from you of what's left, and then we'll -- we'll determine if we can -- if it's something we should attempt Thursday afternoon. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We can make that decision before we leave today. MS. FABACHER: Uh-huh. All right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So let's go on with another 40 minutes or whatever we can get in. MS. FABACHER: All right. Okay. Great. I'm going to go to page 2, and it's a -- I'm sorry -- page 4. And you remember the old omissions from recodification. It's a one-word omission from the recodification, and that is to add the word "boathouses" to dock -- the definition of dock facilities. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The only thing I might suggest is it may change if we come up with separate language for canopies. Weren't we looking at separating canopies as a -- as a separate thing? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yep. MS. FABACHER: Yeah, you're -- you're right. So I guess we can't do that then. All right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, it's not a, "We can't do it." MS. FABACHER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think we can do it. We have no comments on it. When it comes back on the 23rd -- MS. FABACHER: Rewrite it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- include the rewrite of the canopies as a description in here, if that's what comes out of the staff presentation. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Sure. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Is that -- other than that I don't Page 244 August 1, 2006 think we need to rediscuss this one before the 23rd then. MS. FABACHER: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a quick thing. Isn't bold in our -- isn't it a bolt -- boathouse a definition? MS. F ABACHER: It is but not in the definition itself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. FABACHER: I mean, dock facility's a definition. It would be bolded in the rest of the text. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how about the word "boathouse" here? MS. F ABACHER: That's what I'm saying. This is -- because it's in a definition, it doesn't get bolded. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do we have a definition for it? MS. F ABACHER: This is the existing definition. The existing text is everything that isn't underlined. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This is the definition, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This is just modifying that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Definitions of dock facility. MS. FABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is there a definition for boathouse? MS. FABACHER: No. Let me see. Well, let me look. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because if there is, it should be bold. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, a definition within a definition. MS. FABACHER: Let me see real quick. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What a boring life we live. This is -- this is the hot time in the city we found this. Page 245 August 1, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Well, correct, there is. A boathouse, a building, or a structure used for the storage of boats, watercraft, or equipment that is accessory to boats or watercraft. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it -- it should be bolded here because it is a definition? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, I think you're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a simple yes or no. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, bold-- MS. FABACHER: I'll have to give you some research on that because it -- there's some extenuating factor when they talk about a dock facility somewhere else. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: It wouldn't include a boat facility, and I think that's why it was cleared up. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I think our comments are to look at that. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And look at the inclusion of canopies if we get a rewrite back from canopies that ends up separately addressing canopies. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Let's see. The next one -- the next one I have -- the next one I have is going to be 64-A through C, page 64-A through C, and this is based on a GM -- an amendment of the Golden Gate area master plan that was done back in 2004, and they neglected to add it to the LDC. It was a GMP amendment to add another -- another block to this overlay, and Michelle -- I told Michelle I could take care of it because it's this way now in the Golden Gate area master plan. That's what it is. So we have to be consistent, and so that's all this one is. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm not going to ask a question. Don't worry. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Page 246 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just my page number. It's -- hold on a second. I don't have a 64. Let me see. Oh, yes, I do. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It's a brown page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. So what we're doing is we're adding that one -- (Sneeze. ) MS. FABACHER: God bless you. We're moving another block over. If you look at page 64-A, which doesn't say anything -- it says existing -- that -- that was the one that was previous. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. F ABACHER: And then if you look at 64-C that is where the area -- the overlay is described, the Santa Barbara commercial -- or subdistrict in the Golden Gate area master plan. So they did that in 2004, and it just never got to the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, that just seems like such a bad idea because you're intruding into the residential neighborhoods that you never did before. I mean ... COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Brad, I wasn't necessarily in favor of it, but it was the majority reading of the committee. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And it was passed already. This is just a graphic to support what was already -- the language already changed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the -- the graphic here, was that the graphic we used when we passed it? In other words, the one that's on 64 -- I mean, for example, if we were shown the existing and now we're putting in this new one, that's a total -- big totally different creature. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I remember the discussion, and we discussed the full depth of that block as it's shown in the one that Page 247 _e" _"~;'___'~_.__".~,"' August 1, 2006 you're seeing on 64-C so ... MS. FABACHER: But, however, the growth management plan -- the Golden Gate area master plan of the growth management plan was amended. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. It's done. MS. F ABACHER: So, therefore, we're required to be consistent. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. It's already amended. It's just a matter of including the graphic on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just hope -- I just hope we weren't tricked by looking at the wrong map. I mean, why would they prepare this -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- wrong map if it was-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was chairman of that committee, and I was here at the time this came through, and I know that I discussed it thoroughly. I wasn't tricked. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Pardon me. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. And I'm prepared to go -- unless you want me to do Action Jackson's section -- I could do that if you'd like me to go through the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, why don't we go through all the small stuff first and come back to that. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Okay. Great. All right. I'm -- I'm going to look then at page 155, dock facilities, provide criteria for __ for evaluating boat dock extension applications omitted during recodification. If you're on -- if you're on page 155, you'll see that -- if you turn the page, 156, there are primary criteria and secondary criteria. What got omitted was in order -- was what was on page 155, which said that you had to meet four of the five primary criteria and at least four of the six secondary criteria. That language was omitted, so it looked Page 248 August 1, 2006 like you had to do it all. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are there any questions on pages 155? MS. FABACHER: Now, I have -- Mr. Chairman, the DSAC subcommittee recommended that -- of course, that we change from four of five in the primary to be three of five. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: This is the way the code did read in the past; right? MS. FABACHER: Exactly. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We can leave it the way it is. MS. FABACHER: -- compelled to give you their comments. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I don't know we shouldn't take liberty now, but G is not a criteria, so that'll be an easy one for me. MS. FABACHER: You're right. Perhaps-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: G is a -- MS. FABACHER: -- we could make that -- I'll look and see if we can renumber that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think that -- actually, I think G should go right after 2 or maybe up front, and then, essentially, we should be getting five of six, not five of seven or -- unless you want -- MS. FABACHER: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- G to be an -- MS. FABACHER: I understand what you -- what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. I'll relocate that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the only other thing is D, Donna. And I would love to see a primary criteria, but we've wasted enough time on that. MS. F ABACHER: Well, if that's your direction -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, can we -- can we -- Page 249 '-"--.'-'.-. _0___.___. August 1, 2006 MS. F ABACHER: -- recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we review that? I mean, we're here for a scrivener error, but -- MS. FABACHER: Why not? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, now wait a minute. When you advertised you did you advertise it like a scrivener error as -- like in the glitch, or did you actually notify the public that we're going to make a change in the criteria? MS. FABACHER: All I did was -- all I advertise -- I don't say what type of change. All I said is I'm going to amend Section 5.03.06. That's all we advertise in the title block -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well-- MS. FABACHER: -- unless we add a new section. Then we say we're adding. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You want to -- Brad, you're suggesting taking the secondary criteria and moving it to primary? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: To me -- I mean, why don't -- if that needs to be done, why don't we vent that through staff for a proposed cycle in the future and not do something that the public may not have added -- adequate time to realize we were doing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nor other boards, so you're right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Earlier today we talked about site inspection for these docks and concluded that there will be no site inspection, I believe. Now, if we're going to consider this viewing as an important part of the analysis, shouldn't we retain that site inspection? Because, otherwise, they wouldn't be able to make an analysis. Page 250 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think we are -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's sea grass. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, those are pertaining to sea grass only. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is that all it pertained to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was sea grass, yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: It was a sea grass issue. MS. FABACHER: Correct. Correct. Exac -- if I may, Catherine COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So we still would have a site inspection to validate this. MS. FABACHER: No, I think all the review would be done from the plans. And my understanding from Steve Lindburger, who does the grass beds, is that he has such good maps and charts and LIDAR that he really doesn't -- he knows where the grass beds are, and if it's an area where he knows there's no grass bed then he may travel for miles and waste half a day. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MS. FABACHER: That -- that was what was behind that change. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But I'm -- I'm thinking about the impact on the view. In order to ascertain the impact on the view, wouldn't we have to have someone out there inspecting the site? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We don't -- we have an ordinance on that. We haven't agreed -- required -- I don't re -- that's not been required in the past, has it? MS. F ABACHER: A site visit is environment, not to ascertain the view. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MS. F ABACHER: I think you get that from the presentation of the request for the boathouse or the dock facility because when you Page 251 August 1, 2006 hear that -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, under 2 -- under 2-D it says, "Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners." COMMISSIONER STRAIN: But, see, staff doesn't make that determination. That's made at a public hearing by us. MS. FABACHER: The planning commission uses that to determine, and usually the applicant brings a picture or the staff will bring pictures for you to work from, or you -- you may visit it yourself. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I understand that. MS. F ABACHER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But I thought the staff should visit it too. MS. FABACHER: Well, this is the environment staff only, and they're really looking at the sea grass beds. It purely applies to -- they may visit it, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The zoning does it. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, but this applies only to the environmental people for the purposes of the -- the sea grass bed. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: There any other questions on 155 through 157? Okay. We're moving to what? MS. FABACHER: I'm going to try and do 197, after-the-fact encroachments. MR. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 197? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 197. MS. FABACHER: Okay. I think you -- I think you saw the-- the front sheet. The reason for the change is it was language omitted during recodification process, and it -- it -- it resulted in some confusion as to whether this -- these provisions were applied both to principal and accessory structures, and there was an interpretation that they -- they did not apply to accessory, so to clear that up staff's come Page 252 August 1, 2006 back with new language just to be sure that -- to know that these after-the-fact encroachments which can be granted which are -- you'll see they're pretty minimal, six inches. It's just to help people out after their house is built, someone else buys it, you what know I'm saying? And there was some question as to whether it applied -- or the interpretation of whether it applied primarily to principal or if that was to include accessories, so now staffs cleared it up. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: You know, it's not just six inches. MS. F ABACHER: I -- I was just reading the one __ COMMISSIONER CARON: It can be up to 25 percent of the required yard. That's a quarter of the required setbacks. MS. FABACHER: You're right. I-- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's far too great for-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, could we move this to the next meeting? I didn't properly look at it. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Good. Because I really need Joyce-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Let's go to 197, Catherine. MS. F ABACHER: I need Joyce to -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 197 to the next meeting. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What else? MS. F ABACHER: That's all I really am kind of comfortable to talk about. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that -- let's go back to Bayshore and work through for the next half hour or so. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't know -- what page was that one on again? Oh, let's see. MS. FABACHER: That's up towards the front in 2.03.07. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Bayshore. MS. FABACHER: Okay. It's the first-- Page 253 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRA V: There we go; 54, 55. MS. F ABACHER: The first one is going to be on page 53. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 53, okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 53? MS. FABACHER: 53. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59-A and B, C, D, 60. MS. FABACHER: Wait. Excuse me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm reading how many are __ MS. FABACHER: Oh. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All these are part of that first one; right? MS. FABACHER: (Nodded head.) COMMISSIONER STRAIN: 63 -- it goes all the way to page 64, if I'm not mistaken, and there's a lot of sub pages addressed to it, so -- well, why don't we start right from page 53. Well, actually, the first changes are on page 54. Does anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- the question I had is why March 3, 2006, is the date chosen. MS. FABACHER: Because that's when they enacted the provisions, the Bayshore -- or the current version of the Bayshore overlay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: And, also, this has to do with -- you really kind of have a vested right if you will -- we had it -- after -- it's approved after a certain time, but, actually, once you get your application in and it's deemed sufficient you have a vested right in the regulations that you entered under. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: So staff was just correcting that so we didn't change the laws on you midstream. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Page 56 -- and maybe this Page 254 August 1, 2006 is where, Catherine, you could -- you -- are you familiar as to why this originated and how it got here? MS. F ABACHER: I think the very basis of it -- it was, you know, on some of the -- you know, as you know, this Bayshore and the GTMD overlays, it's kind of this new mixed use. And -- and Commissioner Murray will tell you how hard it is to birth a new baby like the Smart Growth amendments, but it's just not a one-size-fits-all. And we didn't have -- we didn't want -- since these two areas are in a CRA we didn't want to have to have people go for variances because we're supposed to be giving them incentives to rebuild and __ and redevelop that area quickly. So instead of making them -- if they couldn't meet all these requirements -- and, as I said, it's kind of hard because we just started it. We'll be amending it a lot, but it's kind of a one-size- fits-all. It-- you know, it doesn't really exactly fit a whole complete new development or doesn't exactly completely fit infill pieces, so what it does is give the ability to -- to award some administrative deviations during the SDP process, minor ones. I think if you look at them -- and I -- you know, I really think that Mike Fernandez and -- and Patrick White really kind of want to be here and talk to you about this one so ... COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Because your word "minor" -- I read these, and there are some pretty strong __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Major minors. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- changes here that-- MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- I think maybe go beyond what is considered minor. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if you want to -- and both individuals you just mentioned are not members of the county staff? MS. FABACHER: No. Well-- no, they're not. No. Page 255 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. So this wasn't -- was this initiated when Patrick was part of county staff, or is this a private initiation by either he or Fernandez? MS. FABACHER: He was brought to staff's attention during that whole transition process when Patrick was leaving. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: So, yeah -- no, I -- when I -- yeah, I can -- I can do the rest of the changes. It's just on that one. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd rather -- I have some pretty -- a lot of questions. MS. FABACHER: Yeah. No, I'd rather they-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'd rather they were here because I don't want to start -- MS. F ABACHER: -- because they're kind of a moving force behind it and-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. So I'd like to understand their reasoning, and that would be better. MS. F ABACHER: Excellent for them to come on the 8th or Thursday. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, let's -- I guess that's the last one you feel comfortable discussing. MS. FABACHER: No, I can go to the Gateway Triangle. That's just a small part of the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ifwe're going to quit, I have maybe a couple of thoughts that maybe will help her, more changes. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I was going to --like I said, I -- I mean, I -- Bob, you're more than welcome to put them on record now, and let me know that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, let me just ask then, if I may. On page 57 where we use the word on the top of the page Page 256 August 1, 2006 "opinion," professional judgment is that applicable again, do you think? MS. FABACHER: Absolute -- absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. And then I have a question to you to qualify, "Granting the proposed deviation is not inconsistent with any goal, objective, or policy of the GMP." My note to myself is by definition a deviation is an inconsistency, so is that -- is that circular? MS. FABACHER: Well, actually, these are deviations to the land development code regulations, which in many cases are more specific and stringent than the general directions of the GMP. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And so it's not circular, and it does have -- MS. FABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It can be qualified effectively. MS. FABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Then the last thing was under Roman 10, "Conditions may be imposed upon the development through the deviation process." The deviation process in this case is administrative in nature? MS. FABACHER: Yes. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. Thank you. That would answer my questions on those. Okay. On 58, "Applications for administrative deviations may be denied by the department staff," if we're looking for the director's professional judgment, does that equate to the department staff? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You know, Mr. Murray, we're going to rehear this when the peop -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was -- I thought it -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, Catherine was telling us that she didn't write this, that the two people that wrote it would like to be Page 257 August 1, 2006 here -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- when we discussed it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't hear. MS. FABACHER: Well-- no. No. The staff had a part in it, but I think that's a good comment. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. But I'm just wondering if you -- if we wait and just hold off and do it all at one time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can. I was just hoping I could add some information so she'd have less to deal with. Okay. I'll -- I'll quit. Not a problem. It's getting late. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And the Gateway one was similar language, Catherine, so what do -- MS. F ABACHER: Well, we'd have to -- yeah, we'll have to, but I could go over starting on page 59. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well-- MS. FABACHER: We can still do the rest. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The only -- the issue is that-- MS. FABACHER: 58, 59. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- our EMS representative is here, so we can get -- MS. FABACHER: Oh, well then we can do that one. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- try to understand why fire departments need special treatment in this county when the public doesn't get the same, so -- but I don't have any opinion on this matter, though. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Well, we'll continue this later, and maybe Chief Page will -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that a fireman's red shirt? MS. F ABACHER: -- be able to answer the questions. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Sir, you're up -- CHIEF PAGE: Okay. Page 258 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- since you volunteered to show up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What page are we on? CHIEF PAGE: It pays to watch TV. MS. FABACHER: We're on page 49. CHIEF PAGE: Thank you. Commissioners, the -- for the record, Jeff Page with Emergency Medical Services. The issue is that the conditional-use permitting usually takes us 9 to 12 months. In the AUIR it was never really designed to take in that additional 12-month delay. As you may remember, the AUIR for next year has me putting up four stations next year. With the construction costs, I guess an additional 10 percent per year and a 12-month delay, that could be anywhere from a million to a million five. Additionally, the cost to hire the civil engineering firm, that can cost fifty to a hundred thousand. Also, there is an insurance component here for the ISO ratings for the fire districts that would also be a prudent use of taxes. Sorry. I ran up here. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's okay. CHIEF PAGE: But really we feel that there's a need for this, and I'm here to answer any questions you might have. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, sir, I can tell you that I don't see where these agencies are above the law. In fact, if anything, they're disruptive to neighborhoods, and they should -- the neighborhoods should be well aware they're coming into play because in Golden Gate we just had that example next to Summit Place. And it wasn't your department. It was the fire department that tried to go in there, and had they go (sic) in with what they were proposing it would have been more detrimental to those people than it is now and in a refined manner. Page 259 August 1, 2006 I have -- no way can I see this as an acceptable solution to the department, and if -- if your department didn't plan for properly then it's not the public's fault. I honestly think that this is -- this would be a travesty to have this -- your facilities and all these facilities pop up throughout neighborhoods unannounced to the public. I just don't see it so ... CHIEF PAGE: We did consider the advisory council's recommendation about the training facilities, the outside training facilities, and we added that language that we would require them to come in for permitting, which I believe the tower was the issue with some points. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And that was one of them. But you guys start in the morning and test your sirens and start your engines, and I -- I've been part of it. I was a commissioner with Golden Gate for numbers of years. I know the routine. And that's fine if they go into a facility and that the public around them understands what's happening and the neighborhoods -- realizes it, but just to go out and buy a five-acre tract in Golden Gate Estates and say, "Okay . We're going to put a fire station here," that is just not the right way to go. I just don't see it. And I understand your position, and I empathize with what you're trying to do, but this is lumped together with too many other things that won't work in my opinion, so I'm -- the board, obviously, should ring in perhaps and make their comments as they need. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, I'm -- I agree that the public really should have a say in where you put the sites, but after that I think that anything that the county can do to fast-track the thing I think is important. So you were saying -- how long did it take to get conditional uses? CHIEF PAGE: From experience, the conditional use -- 9 to 12 Page 260 August 1, 2006 months is what we're averaging right now, and it -- at construction costs -- I mean, you make budget. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Everybody's living in that world. CHIEF PAGE: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the sad thing is it's difficult -- you know, I mean, I definitely think the neighborhoods need these, and I definitely think we need high ratings, and the beneficiary is the whole neighborhood, the insurance of the neighborhood. But I think that the specific site -- those neighbors need to be comfortable with what's going in, so if you could figure out or -- I mean, this doesn't figure it out. This just allows them to be taken out of the equation, which I can't support, but if there was a way to -- I mean -- and could we not somehow get the -- I mean, can we come up with some system that would get these things through faster? CHIEF PAGE: Oh, that would be preferential treatment to the county, and I don't -- I don't see that happening. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, not as preferential as this would be. I mean, this is giving you -- COMMISSIONER CARON: This is even worse. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, something in between. I mean -- I mean, we fast-track applications. If a large company wanted to come to town and build a software business, they would be, you know, guided through the process rather quickly, I hope, so I think you should even get a better treatment than that. CHIEF PAGE: Well, it's -- again, you know, we see it as a cost saving to the taxpayer. I mean, obviously, if -- if we have to factor in these additional costs, that's that much more ad valorem we have to draw on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- but what if you put it in a bad place, though? I mean, what if you put it in a place that really Page 261 August 1, 2006 disturbs a lot of people and it -- let's say it really doesn't fit? The neighbors never had a chance. CHIEF PAGE: Well, I can give you an example. For instance, we've had a couple of instances where people complained about the sirens in the morning. You know what. We don't have to do that there. The -- the impact of sirens running down a road -- North Road's a good example, the trailer park there. What we actually installed was a -- a signaling device that would change the signal at that intersection be -- I had a lady whose dog actually had seizures every time the siren went by. So, I mean, we try to accommodate and work with the public. I mean, that's my department. I can't speak for them all but ... COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what if we did -- I mean, when you get your land, do you buy large acreage, or do you get small lots or -- what if there was a large parcel of land that you could buy, put yourself in the middle of by right, and then sell off the rest of the land, which means the buyers around you are aware of who's there? CHIEF PAGE: Well -- that that's similar to what we did with the Bembridge area. I mean, initially we bought several acres and actually only needed two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHIEF PAGE: And I think that's going to affordable housing, or the intent is that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they can't complain because they know what's there. I mean, if the -- you have to -- if there was a setup like that, I would definitely think that should be permitted. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Miss Caron, did you have anything? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I have some concerns about some of the places you are trying to put these operations in NRBAs and habitat stewardship areas, and flow-away stewardship areas. I think those are pretty intense uses for some of -- of these areas. Page 262 August 1, 2006 Again, that's -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just one piece of qualification. It's in two locations that I can see here immediately. But on page 51 number -- letter F( e), when you spoke of dedicated I just want to be absolutely sure that would include towers, wouldn't it? CHIEF PAGE: No, that -- that's the actual wording that was put in there for the towers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Chief, I -- you know, you came before us in AUIR. You were one of the few departments that did a really good job. I like what you did, and I like what you're trying to do. I understand your dilemma, but I can't see that -- these three elements especially have major compatibility issues for neighborhoods than the other essential services that are more passive, and I just don't think they rank with the others in a passive nature, and because of that I think our compatibility issues in this county would not -- this would not do well for the neighborhoods. And personally I don't think it should go forward. I would recommend denial. And I know that's not our final hearing today, but that's where I would stand on the issue at the second hearing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would join you on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is -- when you define law enforcement, fire emergency, is that obvious that that means governmental? In other words, theoretically does that mean Wackenhut could take advantage of this or -- CHIEF PAGE: Well, no. Typically, what we do is -- for Corkscrew Island area we have a station there that the SO is building an addition to, the sheriffs office. Page 263 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHIEF PAGE: So we -- typically, we try to consolidate those three agencies if we can. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I mean is is -- I mean, is there a word we could use to make sure that these facilities are for government agencies, not -- CHIEF PAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think I would add that because somebody could come in and say, "Well, I'm a -- I have an emergency medical clinic, and I can be anywhere." So maybe add a word there. I think -- I don't know about the rest of it. I think the -- that situation with large land that you would cut off or something, that puts the burden of you becoming a land developer, but I think it's -- out of fairness you can't just show up anywhere without the neighborhoods having a say. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: You know, Chief, if you were to come back with some form of abbreviated process as you -- and this is an abbreviated proc -- you're trying to change a process that's in place now. If you could figure out another way to change it that allows for public hearings so that neighborhoods could participate -- CHIEF PAGE: Right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- that's the key. And it doesn't need -- maybe there's another way to do it besides a conditional use. Maybe there's -- maybe -- maybe meet with Joe Schmitt and his staff and a solution could be found. The whole key is notifying the neighborhood and having a public input, and if that can be resolved I think what you're trying to do is fine. I'd love to see you get your stations built but not without the public participating. So anybody else have any final comments of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just I think you're right, Mark, and if -- I would certainly volunteer to work with you on trying to Page 264 August 1, 2006 come up with those words that we could make palatable where the neighborhoods are involved, so -- and I -- you know, I meet with Rick and the gang this Friday, so if you want I'll come check in with you, and we can try to write something out. CHIEF PAGE: I would appreciate that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I guess -- is there any other issues for you here today, sir? CHIEF PAGE: No, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Well, thank you. CHIEF PAGE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I appreciate you coming up-- upstairs. I'm sorry the outcome wasn't what you'd hoped, but thank you -- CHIEF PAGE: That's okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- very much. Catherine. MS. FABACHER: I think that's -- that's all we have. If you want to start looking at what we have left -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yep. Why don't we run through it real quick, and then after we get done we can determine if we have a way of accomplishing it in a few hours or six hours on a Thursday afternoon if that's what it ends up. MS. FABACHER: Okay. On page 1 of the summary sheet, of course, we have the abbreviation list that we'll go through. I've made note of everything that Commissioner Kolflat said today, and that -- Kolflat -- and that will go in and, also, the list that you-all provided me at the last meeting. I spoke with Susan Murray Istenes, and she said put that in, too, so we have that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: On page 2 you're -- I mean, the first page -- there's two things on the first page. We've already accomplished the second one; is that correct? MS. FABACHER: Correct. Correct. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Page 265 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Are we just indicating what we have yet to do, or are we -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- doing it now? MS. FABACHER: No. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. No. We're indicating so we can determine if we can handle it Thursday afternoon this week instead of next Tuesday. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Right. Because I have more on the acroment (sic) list. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Oh, no. No. We're not -- we're not getting to that right now. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Then on page 2 of the summary sheets -- we've done both of those items. Then -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, did -- wait a minute. Yes, we did. Okay. Sorry. MS. FABACHER: All right. Okay. And then we had -- on page 3 of the summary sheet we have the lot with text, but we're still waiting on some graphics for some -- two illustrations that DSAC had asked for. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: So we have to do that still. And I think -- I don't know if you've heard enough about passive recreation, but -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I think we did. Well, we already heard it, so we're not going to hear it again -- MS. FABACHER: All right. Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- till the 23rd or later. MS. F ABACHER: All right. And we did -- on page 4 we did the -- the signs, and then we've heard once on the -- well, the -- we did the -- number -- page 13, we did that one. That's just a correction. And then the next page are the two Smart Growth amendments, and I Page 266 August 1, 2006 think Commissioner Murray had indicated that he wants to kind of get together with the other committee members and see what they want to do with those two. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We're going to -- they're going to come back and respond to us on some -- the 23rd or later. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The second time. MS. FABACHER: All right. And then I'm on page 6. And, of course, we just talked with disappointed Chief Page. And then would you like me to have David Jackson come for the Bayshore and -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, if you can't handle it, somebody needs to be here who can. MS. FABACHER: All right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If it's Patrick-- MS. F ABACHER: Well, I can handle that. It's just the -- it's just the administrative deviation language, but I could -- I can han -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, that's the issue. MS. F ABACHER: Well, I know, but there are just some other minor tweakings, though, that I could handle. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, why don't we do it all at-- one day. MS. FABACHER: That's fine. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: So if you need support, whoever you need to have here you need have with you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. All right. So we still have that -- now on page 53, Bayshore, and then we still have the Gateway, but there are really not a lot of changes except for that administrative deviation process. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MS. FABACHER: And then 9.04.08 that's the deviation process again on page 8 of the summary sheets. We did the bottom item looking at the extension of that overlay area. We're going to do on Page 267 August 1, 2006 August 17th on page 9 and pa -- of the summary sheet, page 75, that's the Copeland zoning overlay, and we're going to be meeting on August 17th down in Copeland to do that. On page 10, the affordable housing inclusionary zoning amendment, that's been pulled for this cycle for a special cycle. On page 11 we did the -- the vegetative removal permit, and we also did the second set, the -- the citation correction. Well, actually, we had a question about that which can be pretty easily cleared up, I think. Okay. Then we -- on page 12 they have withdrawn the shape factor ratio amendment to come back with something after the GMP -- after the EAR-based amendments to the GMP have been implemented for the LDC. Then on page 8 -- no, 13, that's at the -- the stormwater, so we're going to have to hear about that again on the -- probably the third sec -- I could have come back with that on the 8th. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We finished the stormwater for this first round. We're still going -- MS. FABACHER: We did? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We did that. We already sat on it. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. And then the next two pages -- next two items on page 14, we finished those. On page 15 we finished that. On page 16 we finished that. Page 1 7 we finished that. Page 18 we still need to come back with that on the 23rd. I think you talked to -- to Nick about that where he's going to do some corridors in the setback amendment. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, Nick -- Nick asked about bringing it back on the 23rd. MS. FABACHER: Right. That-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And you told him what Margie, I thought, instructed me is that we have to hear these things twice. The 23rd is the second nearing. If he intends to utilize this, he needs to do it maybe Thursday then. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Page 268 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean, it -- we're supposed to have two hearings; that's what I understood Margie to tell us. Ifwe have to have two hearings and the second one starts on the 23rd, then how can we have it unless we have a special meeting just for Nick, which I don't think we need. MS. FABACHER: Well, I mean, they may not have all their graphics together, but they can begin to discuss the issue at our next meeting and then finalize it on the 23rd. We could do that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If they've got enough done, but, I mean, I think we ought to have the benefit of the complete package to critique it ahead of time, and right now Thursday's only two days away, so this one may end up having to carry us over to the 8th or to the -- yeah, the 8th. It would have to be the 8th. MS. FABACHER: Right. I was going to -- we may not be ready to bring most of this stuff back as soon as Thursday. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: On page -- help me out here -- 19. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MS. FABACHER: That's one where I would like to have Mr. Don Pick -- MR. KLATZKOW: Worth. MS. F ABACHER: -- Pickworth come. That was the one that we needed to add a free-stranding clock tower in the activity center, No. 9, as part of a settlement on a lawsuit -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: -- for Seagate. Next page, 20, that's the amendment on page 123. That's the one where I would like Dwight Nadeau. He is -- they requested this. RW A requested this amendment, so I'd like Dwight Nadeau to present that on the 8th then -- or he could do it Thursday. Let's see. Access management, did we -- did we -- Nick's going to bring changes on that. Page 269 August 1, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: What page are you on? MS. FABACHER: I'm on page 20 of the summary sheet, and I'm on -- it's one -- it's the amendment on page 127, the one that requires the interconnection, and you had asked him to do some more -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, but he comes back on the 23rd with that. MS. FABACHER: Oh, all right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Anything we discussed we're done with. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: The corrections we asked staff to do, they bring it back on the 23rd. MS. FABACHER: All right. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We take one final shot at it, and we're done. MS. FABACHER: Okay. I'm on page 21, and one has been withdrawn, and Mike spoke about that today, on page 135, the buffer requirement. I'm on page 22 of the amendment sheet, and Mike spoke about the land -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait. Wait. Stop. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The lots -- I'm still on 21. What did you say about the one on 135? Was that done? MS. FABACHER: Yeah, we -- Mark talked -- Mike talked about that today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I just want to be sure. Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. On the next page, again, Mike talked about the one on page 138, and Bruce talked about the page -- the one on page 143. On page 23, the first one on page 147 that's been withdrawn, and then today Mike talked about the next one on page 149 where they relocated the water body requirements, landscaping Page 270 August 1, 2006 requirements. And then the boat canopies we talked about today. And then the criteria for the dock facilities on page 155, that's one where we may want to have Joyce come back, but we did begin to discuss it today. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Well, she'll be back after the 23rd. MS. FABACHER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: We discussed it today. MS. FABACHER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: All right. MS. FABACHER: Okay. And then we did Barbara -- I'm on page 25 of the summary sheets. And on page 159, protection of sea grass beds where that made the site visit optional, Barbara talked about that. We have not done exterior building color -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MS. FABACHER: -- on the bottom of that page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are we going to try to do that tomorrow, Mark? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't know. Are we going to get -- I don't know how many we're going to -- let's just -- let's get through the list, and then we'll have to discuss how far we can go. MS. FABACHER: We haven't talked about fences and walls, so we'll have to talk about that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Are you -- I notice that that one's got your name on it. Why didn't we go into that just now? MS. FABACHER: When we went before the DSAC, they had said -- Bob Mulhere had said he thought we had it in the wrong place. Then I met with Susan, and then we got unsure as to what the right place would be, and so we wanted to get back with Bob Mulhere on that -- and he's been on vacation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: -- as to what he had meant on that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Thank you. Page 271 August 1, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Okay. Same page, on 167 Diana discussed those signs. Next page, which is 27 of the amendment summary sheets, Diana did both of those. The same thing on the next page, on page 28, we finished with all of those. The same on 29, we finished with that. Let's see. We talked about this with Nick today on page 30, on that management and monitoring. He needs to come back with some changes -- text changes on the 23rd, and I think we spoke -- spoke with Trinity Caudill-Scott on the one on page 187, which is page 31 of the amendment sheets. I think she's going to come back with some more text on the 23rd for you there. Barbara spoke about the EAC membership on page 20 -- on 32, and it's on page 192 in the book. Barbara spoke about that today, so she needs to kind of -- I think you asked her to go back to the drawing board and try and find another -- a better method than increasing the board to 11 people. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: I can't re -- recall whether we spoke with Sharon Dantini if she was going to come back on the -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No. MS. FABACHER: -- stop work order. We didn't do that? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: No, we did not. MS. FABACHER: Okay. We still need to do that one. Okay. Now, turning to page 34, that's one where we need Joyce for the first one on page 197. Well, no, that wasn't the one. That's the one I explained to you where the accessory and the principal structures just to clarify. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We wanted to hear it again. MS. FABACHER: We did. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. That's Thursday. MS. FABACHER: Okay. All right. And I think Barbara discussed page 201, submittal -- the EIS amendment. And then on the Page 272 August 1, 2006 next page, 35 of the summary sheets, that's withdrawn. Page 36 of the summary sheets, that's withdrawn. On page 209 with Susan Murray Istenes on there, that's the one that Mike was talking about where Susan was going to rework the larger picture, and his amendment -- his landscape administrative deviation was going to be part of this larger -- and I think Susan had been tasked by the board to look at some ways to try and help older, older structures that just sit there for lack of a small -- a foot here, that kind of thing. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Did you say that was withdrawn? MS. FABACHER: That's withdrawn this cycle. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Then we're on the one under that. I think you spoke with Mr. Preston on the stormwater management today. I'm on page 37 of the summary sheets. Page 219, Tom Kuck talked to us about the -- that one, 10.02.03, where you could eliminate the ability to delay start of construction. Remember that's the one where -- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Amend Nick's -- I think -- did Nick have changes to the -- we heard it the first time, the TIS review fee. Okay. I'm on page thirty-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Eight. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. God, this is just not one of my fortes. Okay. Traffic counts be provided, that's the hundred percent buildout. That one's going to have to have a lot of work and come back on the 23rd. You spoke -- on -- the next page is 39, and on page 225 we spoke with Phil Tindall, and that seemed to be fine. We spoke with Maryann Devanas on the -- the amendment below that on page 229, and then on the last page of the summary sheet we still have to hear from Ray Bellows on the new PUD matrix that's going to replace the PUD document, and then we're still going to hear Page 273 August 1, 2006 from Nick again on the final one. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Based on the rate at which we've been going -- it's been faster than the previous meetings, but I don't think we're going to get through this Thursday afternoon, so in -- as far as the board goes, do you want to at least get through the items that we have as written currently in our packet to some extent Thursday with those people that can attend just to -- MS. F ABACHER: If that's your direction, yes, that's fine. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I mean, on -- what do you think, panel members? We're already here anyway. Do you want to -- do you want to try to kill some time and get some more of this through on Thursday afternoon? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. I'll make the list of that. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As many as you can schedule -- MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: -- in the afternoon on Thursday why don't we do that. MS. F ABACHER: Is that at a time certain? At one, say, or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, whenever. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I don't know if -- it'll be a time certain after -- probably after one. When we get to the end of today's meeting, we can make that a continuation. I notice Mr. Jackson's here. We might -- we have a half an hour. We can probably knock out the Gateway and the Bayshore if that's okay with the -- MR. KLATZKOW: You may -- you may want to have Patrick here. MS. FABACHER: Well, we could do everything but the-- everything but the administrative deviation. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Yeah, but that's the bulk of it. Page 274 August 1, 2006 That's the bulk of it. I'd rather wait for Patrick. I mean -- MS. FABACHER: Well, he's-- COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I'm sure that everybody's going to want to participate in the deviation discussion. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: And if those other two gentlemen were the ones that wrote most of it, out of fairness, we ought to do all -- do it all at one time and have them all here so ... MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to make a time certain or a date certain for that particular one? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: I -- you know what. I don't know why we couldn't do it first thing Thursday afternoon to get it over with. Do you want to start at one? MS. FABACHER: We'll need to check their schedules. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Right. MS. FABACHER: It's not -- it might not be enough notice, but, yeah, I'll -- I'll check with them. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: If they can do it Thursday, why don't we try for Thursday. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll go back to the 8th. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Fine. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. I'd -- I'd rather hear that whole thing together, and that way everybody's got fair input and we're not -- you know, because I'm sure that they're probably in agreement with Mr. Jackson, and we have plenty of questions. I'd rather have all of them here to answer those questions and so forth. MS. FABACHER: Yes. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any other issue today then? MS. FABACHER: No, I think -- oh, excuse me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Quick question, Catherine. Page 275 August 1, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We -- will we be getting updates on anything? MS. FABACHER: Well, I was going to give you a whole update package for the 23rd about two weeks before that, but -- but before then I -- I don't think I can get -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. FABACHER: -- some of this stuff out of staff by then. Did you want to say anything about -- they've got to announce a continuation to Thursday. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think we have. We're continuing this Thursday at one o'clock or as soon thereafter we can get to it. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: That's right. This meeting will be continued till Thursday at one or thereafter, and we'll-- MR. KLATZKOW: Pending schedules we will commence with the Bayshore issue. COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. We're over with for today then. (The proceedings adjourned at 5:35 p.m.) ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:35 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 276