Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/23/2006 R August 23, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 23, 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 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION for the Land Development Code Amendments, 2006 - Cycle 1, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Tor Kolflat Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff ALSO PRESENT: Catherine Fabacher, Dept. Of Zoning & Land Development Review Jeff Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good evening, everyone. This is the second reading of the 2006 cycle one LDC amendments, and we'll start the meeting with, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, would you please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Commissioner Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: All present and accounted for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Yeah, it's certainly good to see everybody here. Paul, thank you for making the drive in. I know it's -- for you, it's probably harder than the rest of us. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, no. I enjoy the drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Immokalee Road at night. What a great choice. Page 2 August 23, 2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I go by 1-75. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. If no one's going to vehemently object, I suggest we stop at eight o'clock tonight. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No objectors? And at 6:30 we'll have a IS-minute break for the court reporter. I'd like to remind everybody that since this is being written down by the court reporter, she needs to be able to keep up with our speech, and she can only do so when we try to speak a little slower and we don't talk over one another. So I ask, again, that we all be recognized before we speak. Members of the public that do speak on issues, we ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes, that way we can get through everybody's points that need to be made tonight. The first issue tonight will be the boat canopy issue. Following that, I'm not sure. We'll see who from the public is here from what issue and we'll try to accommodate you at that point. Right now, Catherine, we'll go into boat canopies. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we need to know the pages that we need to be referring to when each issue comes up because we have such thick books now. MS. FABACHER: Okay, all right. Well, this will be on page 151. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: I'd like to start by saying the Board of County -- Catherine Fabacher, for the record -- that the Board of County Commissioners had directed through our boss, Joe Schmitt, that we hold a series of public hearings which began back in March. You're going to hear -- Linda's going to make a presentation on that just to give you an outline. And we were charged with looking at Page 3 August 23, 2006 bringing a vote as to allowing boat canopies or not, and that's strictly what we tried to do in this amendment. And Linda is our -- one of our public information specialists, officers, whatever, and she attended all the meetings. And I asked her to kind of help me with this because -- and I attended all the meetings, too. And we made the presentation. And I asked her to help because I can't sit here and do that, but -- so she's graciously agreed to come before you and master this technology and give you a brief overview of just what went on at the public meetings. Thank you. Linda? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. BED TEL YON: Good afternoon, Commissioners and audience members. For the record, Linda Bedtelyon, community planning coordinator for community development and environmental services division. As Catherine stated, we'd like to show you an abbreviated version of the program that we presented at our neighborhood information meetings held this past spring. So I'm just going to run through this quickly. Following the presentation, I'll turn it over to planning staff and probably Susan for Q and A, as my knowledge of the issue's history is quite limited. Let's just get started with this, and hopefully it's going to cooperate with me. We'll see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See where it says new slide up on the top on the right? Maybe that's what you've got to hit. MS. FABACHER: No. There's a little symbol at the bottom left-hand corner. Looks like a little projector. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It says start, yes. MS. FABACHER: There we go. MS. ISTENES: Looks like a screen. MS. BEDTEL YON: My problem is I can see far away but not close up. Page 4 August 23, 2006 So -- okay. Some -- so staff has come up with some language for the LDC amendment to this initiative by the board direction and -- in a response to boat canopies voiced by the property owners in Collier County, and these were some of the issues that they stated. Impact on view, impact on property values caused by perceived degradation of view, aesthetics, damage to property due to storms. And then these were -- this is a list of the meetings that we had last spring, the first being the North Naples President's Council Meeting, the HOA meeting that Maryanne Devanas kind of heads up. And then the one that I attended was the March 15 , North Naples property owners out around Vanderbilt Beach area. And you know, I can say there were probable 50 or so folks at that meetings. And there was a lively exchange of comments and concerns that evening, so I think that the intent of having exchange and dialogue was met that evening. March 22nd was Commissioner Halas' town hall or the advisory committee meeting that he typically has, and it was brought up at that meeting. And then on March 22nd there was a meeting down in East/South Naples for the Isles of Capri folks, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave that -- those meetings -- just so we can understand it, were those meetings advertised and held for the boat canopy issue, or were these just their -- just regular meetings in which they may have discussed the boat canopy issue? MS. BED TEL YON: Right, no. These were specifically for the boat canopy issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. Mr. Chair? Catherine Fabacher. That's half right. MS. BEDTELYON: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Half of them were publicly advertised and noticed legally in the paper, the one on the 15th and the one on the Page 5 August 23, 2006 22nd. March 3rd and 22nd we got on the agenda, and that was just kind of an opportunistic situation. So those weren't preadvertised. Thank you. MS. BEDTEL YON: I misspoke myself on that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could we also know how many people attended those meetings? MS. FABACHER: Well, the 22nd was about the same, 50 or 60. North Naples, they filled Sugden -- the Sugden auditorium at the library, and then Mr. Halas had about 20, 25 people who sit on a committee that he has -- meets with periodically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MS. BEDTEL YON: Okay. And then these are just some examples of approved boathouses, and I take it this is the -- MS. F ABACHER: Language. MS. BEDTEL YON: -- the language for a boathouse. Building or structure used for the storage of boats, watercraft or equipment that is accessory to boats or watercraft. And another example of a boathouse meeting the current code. The roof matches the roof of the house. This was taken in the Hickory Shores area. And, again, another approved boathouse. As you can see it matches. Vanderbilt Beach area. Okay. This is an example an illegal canvas boat cover with no building permit and no zoning approval out at Vanderbilt Beach. And here's another one in violation of the Land Development Code. The proposed action is to amend the LDC to allow boat canopies under the same criteria as the boathouses. And these are some of the criteria: Setback, however -- let's see, 25 percent of canal width or 20 feet into waterway; it may not protrude, whichever is less; height limited to 15 feet; limit of one boathouse or covered structure per property; must be completely open on all four sides. Page 6 August 23, 2006 And the current boathouse criteria is, again, the roof must -- must match the roof of the house in material and color or be the typical chickee palm thatch style; single-family dwelling must be constructed on site prior to or simultaneously with construction of boathouse; must be positioned on site to minimize impact to neighbor's view. And, again, these are some of the issues that were discussed. The durability and maintenance. And these are some of the issues, of course, that the property owners brought to light. Damage to other property due to -- to other's property due to bad weather. In the event of a storm, can the canopies be taken down beforehand? How do the property owners do that? And, you know, how many of them will do that? How many folks are here at the time of a storm event? And then we did advise, you know, the property owners to notify you all, to notify the Board of County Commissioners, and let -- you know, let their opinion and their voices be heard. So we gave them this information as well. And then we also gave them the schedule for the public hearing meetings. So that's the end of that. And at this time I think Susan has some comments she'd like to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. BEDTEL YON: Thank you for your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did, and I would appreciate it if you would bring your screen back up again, please. MS. BEDTELYON: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Back. There you go. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you go to the first -- I think it's the first item? MS. BED TEL YON: The very first? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I believe so, where that boat is. MS. FABACHER: That one? Page 7 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it. MS. BEDTEL YON: Okay. Hold on. Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Just to a question. Because the question is posed, will a canvas be taken down? Do we have any rules and regulations regarding things like that dock -- that dock box or those planters having to come down during storms or to be put away? MS. BEDTEL YON: I'm going to defer to staff because, again, I'm just not real familiar with the history. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, all right. But I pose that question because that's part of, you know, the concern that we have is whether or not we have debris blowing about and what have you, and I think we need to look at this in a more broad sense. Okay. That was what I needed to talk to you about. Thank you. MS. ISTENES: Thank you. Susan Murray Istenes, zoning director. To answer your question real quick, Mr. Murray, no. Just like we don't have rules for people bringing in their patio furniture and things like that, it's -- there are no rules presently in the LDC that talk about planters or dock boxes or anything like that in the event of a storm, but they're also not considered structures. I just -- Linda pretty much covered it. The purpose behind the meetings, which is to inform the public that there might potentially be a change and to try to gather a feel for what the public felt, how they felt about that, but essentially it was really just to tell them, here's the proposed change and here are the meeting dates, and those would be the appropriate times to come and speak to the elected officials and you all as well. And one last comment I just want to make is, the amendment you have in your hands right now is the form that is supported by staff, so I wanted to let you know that. That's all I have, unless you have questions. Page 8 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the members of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have another, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I do. I think I'd rather listen to the public first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First. I was thinking the same thing. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. I'll pass then. We'll take it all up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Another time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public speakers? I don't know if everybody knew enough to register. I'm not concerned about that formality, although I believe staff is. So if you haven't filled out a registration form, please submit one, but that isn't going to prevent you from being able to speak here tonight. So with that, do we have any that are filled out? MR. KLATZKOW: We do, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with those. MR. KLA TZKOW: The first speaker -- and I apologize if I get your name wrong, is Cheryl Lewandowski, to be followed by John Crohan (sic). MS. LEWANDOWSKI: Do I go over here? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Either one. MS. LEWANDOWSKI: Okay. Hi. My name is Cheryl Lewandowski, and I'm a waterfront property owner on 3rd St. in Bonita Shores. Well, I guess it would be Little Imperil Shores. And I'm -- would like to have the opportunity to put a canopy over my boat to protect it from the elements actually. I don't have a fancy boat. It's just a deck boat. And I do have a cover for that boat. But if anyone has ever tried to put a cover on their Page 9 August 23, 2006 boat while it's hanging over the water, you pretty much have to be a circus performer to be able do that. So I think it would be really helpful and useful, not only for me, but a lot of other people, and especially if they're older, too -- I think that's why so many people get rid of their boats after a time. So I'm just asking if you could please grant us the canopies for the boat docks. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker? MS. FABACHER: That was John McCrohan. MR. McCROHAN: Hi. My name is John McCrohan. I also am a property owner on 3rd Street in Bonita Shores and also in Little Hickory Shores. I live in Bonita Shores, and my dock is in Little Hickory Shores. I've been a part of this canopy issue for quite some time, and there are some things. When you asked about debris flying, there are services, if I'm not mistaken, that will allow someone to have someone put shutters up at their house while they're not here in town, if they're living outside. There are also those services provided for the canopies, if you'd so like to get involved with that. It is, of course, up to the homeowner as to whether or not, after the hurricane, he wants a ticket or not. But unfortunately, as you well know, most people do not take these things very seriously until after the fact. Just like most screens in Collier County, if I'm not mistaken, pending a hurricane, they should be cut with a knife. If we checked that, I believe that is an ordinance, in order to keep the screens from blowing through the air and hitting other structures. However, how many are ever sliced by anything other than the wind? So just to make you aware that there are those services available for these as well as for putting up your shutters, taking care of your pool or anything else. Page 10 August 23, 2006 The requirements in Collier County, I find, are kind of interesting pending these canopies because they're allowed to protect the recreational vehicle, they're allowed to protect your car at home, your boat at home, provided it is at your home. Now, I own this property -- it is only for a dock -- and I am not allowed to protect my boat. I find that that's a little odd. We worry about the canopies being taking down for storms. I would like to ask this commission a question. Do they ask the airports or the schools to remove their canopies for a storm? I'm at a loss for an answer to that. Because if we look at Collier County Airport, Collier County schools, we will see canopies in most of them. And I find that it's kind of almost hypocritical to say that we can use them anywhere but over a boat. Now as far as the canopy issue goes, calling it a boat dock house, I feel that's very out of context. We're looking at boat lift canopies. These are attached to the lifts. They do not cover the dock as a regular boathouse would. I would love nothing more, for you to tell me I could put up a boathouse. I would love that. Greater expense by far. More dangerous in a hurricane? I believe so. However, when we talk about in reference to boathouses, I don't feel that that is really justified here because I feel that it is a separate -- a separate type of building structure. We do not have all building structures have the same code. They do vary. In this code I notice that we get to where it talks about, same as a boathouse. A boathouse, as I said, covers boat -- on both sides of a dock. A canopy covers one side of a dock. I would like, of course, to have a canopy over both boats, someday when I can afford two boats. Right now I can only afford the deck boat that my wife wants to protect and take family out in. But to get back to really the issues, I feel that we really need to stay with -- focused on what canopies are and not get too far into what Page 11 August 23, 2006 boathouses are because, again, I feel that really the downturn is to protect the area during storms. And during storms, I believe that a canopy is less destructive than a boathouse but yet serves the same purpose for the boat owner to protect his property. And those properties, as we all well know, can get quite costly with boats. But that's pretty much all I have to say. I didn't have time to collect my notes, unfortunately. Yeah, I think that's pretty much it. So hopefully I can have helped you a little bit. And if you can see your way to letting us have the canopies, I would be more than grateful. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker? MS. FABACHER: Next speaker would be Mr. Jeff Garard. MR. GARARD: Hi. My name is Jeff Garard. I also am a waterfront property owner in Collier County. I'm really going to reiterate some of the things that Jack just brought up, so I won't waste a lot of your time, but I think the key emphasis, too, is distinguishing between whether these are actually just a boathouse or just a canopy cover. I mean, this very building actually has canopy awning covers as you enter this building, and I don't know whether those are taken down during storms, but I think it would be a double standard if we had to, you know, mandate these types of things to people around the county . I mean, me, personally, I would take mine down because I don't want to have the expense of repairing it. It only takes about 20 minutes to do. And I think it's a better alternative to what you're seeing up there on the screen. One, because of the affordability of it, and I think that's a big issue with construction costs here in our particular area. When you start talking about truss design and the permitting Page 12 August 23, 2006 process to develop something like that, I'm liable to have more money into a shingled or a tiled-type facility than what I actually have in the boat, the boat lift and everything that's out there on my dock. So, again, I'd really greatly appreciate it if you guys would consider our input in what we're looking to do here with the canopies. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker? MS. FABACHER: Okay. That would be Mr. Jack Paul. MR. PAUL: Good evening. My name's Jack Paul. I live on Heron Avenue, and I've had a boat lift cover for eight years now, and it's done a wonderful job protecting my boat. Nothing was said about anything. And Hurricane Wilma came through, and the poor thing got torn. It didn't hit anything. It got torn, dropped in the water. Didn't hurt anything. My next-door neighbor, which has one similar to that with a tile roof, he lost tiles. Now, whether they went through my back yard or not, I don't know. I was at the house. But there was no damage done, and I defy anyone to try and tear some of the material that goes into those boat lift covers. All I can say is, let's leave it the way it is. You know, after eight years, it's been wonderful. No neighbors complained. My boat's been safe. It's lasted longer. All I can ask is, let's stay with it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MS. FABACHER: Mark Allen. MR. ALLEN: Commission, my name is Mark Allen. I'm a surveyor. I'm a product of Collier County. This is my 50th year. You guys know that, I guess. I've got the most recent standard that they've put out for these boat dock canopies, and there's a couple of items that I'd like to point Page 13 August 23, 2006 out. I think everyone else has brought out that the economics, the usefulness, the availability for maintenance to be able to take them down during storms, I think those have all been covered, and I think that's very obvious. But in item G, it's on page 154. It says, standard for boat dock canopies. I do not know of a canopy that goes over a dock. They all go over the boat lift. I'm not too sure that that wouldn't be more efficient or more proper terminology. Because when we use boat lift covers, that now specifies the area of which it's going to cover. I think that it's a pretty good point. The next thing I'd like to address is the fact that, being a surveyor, I don't know if the county and the commission knows that -- that you realize that every time there's a property that has any construction on it, we as surveyors have to go out and locate all improvements. We have to verify the setbacks, the height, which is all certified by us surveyors, which goes back to the county for verification of their location and be sure that there's no violations. As a matter of fact, the home cannot have that tie beam poured until that 10-day spot survey is done. This kind of goes to Mr. Murray. You had touched on this at our last meeting, and I don't believe I was really able to address you. But if you look at item A under G, what that does is that seems to send us right back into what we've already done. To achieve one of these canopies, the way I understand this, it sends us right back into going back to the setbacks, going back to the location of the dock, which is already of public record because the dock itself was CO'ed. It received a certificate of occupancy. I don't know why we have to go back, and come back to the board and ask the board again for another variance, or whatever it may be, to be able to put this cover over our boat lift to cover our boats. So I'm just not Page 14 August 23, 2006 sure -- I'm just not sure about item A. The rest of these standards, except for the wind load are covered by public record, which the survey's already been done. It already is in existence, if you look at the rest of it. The setbacks, they've already been inspected by the county or they wouldn't have a CO for that particular facility. So I just feel like -- it was Mr. Schiffer that said, gee, he was wanting to separate boat lift covers and boathouses, and it seems to me that this item A is right back in the boat canopies, which refers back to the boathouses, which, gee, I don't see where we've accomplished anything. I'm not sure how that works. I don't understand that. Really these boat lift covers essentially should (sic) be more than a fence permit. You've got the information, you've got the location of the building -- you've got the location of the building, it's certified, it's been given to the county, it's been approved, it's been CO'ed. Why are we starting over? I don't understand it. I just don't understand it. Seems to be redundant to me. Anyway, I hope that maybe you guys can see clear that we can have these canopies. I think they're very effective. I always drop mine, put it in the boat, boat on the trailer, take it to the house, secure it for a storm. As I told you before, I received a citation for having a boat canopy structure. Didn't say anything about the canopy. The reason there was no canopy is I had taken it down for Wilma, taken it home. I left the structure, the framework, and, of course, Katrina come through. I was waiting for it to get through before I put it back up, so that's why it wasn't there, because it was secured. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker? MS. FABACHER: Mr. John Gettinger. MR. GETTINGER: John Gettinger with -- I live in Punta Gorda. Page 15 August 23, 2006 Owner of Waterway Boat Lift Canopy -- Covers. Couple of issues here that's been brought up that I believe, in my opinion and from my customers' opinion, that aren't proper. The first issue is property value. I have had numerous people say that the canopy has increased their property value, not decreased it; had people tell me they purchased their house because it had a boat lift canopy there. And another one they were deciding to buy -- deciding not to buy did not have a canopy. Blocking the view. This -- you have a boat there. It's already there. Somebody wants to think they're blocking -- a neighbor says, it's blocking my view, would just be glad he doesn't have a big yacht or a troller parked there because that would really block their view, and there's no problem with that. Hurricane. My experience with the hurricanes, everybody took them down. And I went through Charlie ground zero. I had -- I've probably got 3,000 of these up, and I had one in Charlotte County that was damaged that had the top taken off. And we had one 80 mile an hour gusts at the hospital there even though we only have a category four hurricane. Sides. You want them open. It's okay, but I would say 25 percent sides would be acceptable to most people, and leave 75 percent open. All this permitting and everything, these are going on boat lifts that already has a permit. The dock has been permitted. The lift has been permitted. It's like was said before me, here we go, why do we have to go through this great expense and everything before? Because we could not put these up if it didn't already have a lift that was permitted. We offer a service to take them down, too, and I'm sure other companies that I compete with would do the same. That's about all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Page 16 August 23, 2006 Next speaker, please. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Rick Palazzo. MR. PALAZZO: Yes. My name is Rick Palazzo, and I own a property on Egret Avenue. I also had a boat lift. I got it taken down. And I don't understand why I got cited to begin with. I've been living there for almost 30 years, and the boat lift is -- I mean, the boat covers have been on boats here since I came down here. So all of a sudden since I got one up there a few years back, they decided I was going to get a citation. And I feel I was singled out, because number two, I got my neighbors that never got a citation. And I feel that if they could have them here for over 30 years, why can't I have it? And why can't these other people have it? They bought a property, and they value their property, and I value mine. And I can't see this whole thing about a boathouse and a canopy. It's the same thing. It's not. I don't know if anybody knows the difference between a cover or a boathouse, but somebody doesn't. That's all I've got to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MS. FABACHER: Gene and Nancy Lavy -- oh, Zilavy. I'm sorry. I murdered it. I know it. MR. ZILA VY: My name is Gene Zilavy, and I live on Flamingo Avenue, and we also have a boat cover. And we bought this property in 2001, and it was existing there. And we had no idea that this was going to come up. And we were -- this was an existing part of the property that we bought. And we also went through the hurricanes and so on, and mine did come loose. And what happened, it formed a bucket in the top of the canopy and made like a barrel there and filled full of water. And some of the structures gave way under it, but the canopy did not go anywhere. Page 1 7 August 23, 2006 What happened was, it was not from the hurricane itself. It was the corrosion of the joints on the piping that was holding it up, and the joints have corroded, and that's -- and the weight of the water caused it -- part of it to collapse. And it stayed right there. It didn't go anywhere. And I'd like you to continue this. I'd like to be able to put this back up and continue using it. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Additional speakers? MS. FABACHER: Mr. Paul Boyer or, I'm sorry, Boyce. MR. BOYCE: Yeah, my name is Paul Boyce. I live at 273 3rd Street. Now, I own a house there. I live there. And I go by the boat docks every single day and I see these canopies up there. And I think every one of you people up here should drive down 3rd Street and have a look at them before you make any decisions. There's nothing wrong with them. I mean, I would rather have the canopy over my boat dock out in back instead of me looking at this out my beautiful picture window out the back of my bay, because a canopy -- it's a smaller structure, and it's not going to devalue the house. It's going to make it actually more valuable. It's going to take -- keep your boat -- if any of you people up there own boats, I'm sure you don't want to wax them every two years because of all the sun getting on them. And I guess what I'm saying is, you people have to come up there and drive down the street. At the end of our street, there's two big homes, and they have big huge boathouses, and you tell me if they look nicer than the canopies, then you can make your decision. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Jim Boswell. Page 18 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to say, he certainly couldn't be Mr. Jim Boswell approaching. MR. BOSWELL: He's my alias. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because he already spoke under a different name, so I was a little worried there. MR. BOSWELL: Mark, will you come back up here and cover me? My name's Jim Boswell. I live at 270 3rd Street. That's Little Hickory Shores. I also have a waterfront home, and I own a -- one of the boat dock lots on that particular street. And I just recently built a dock there. Seventeen months to build a dock. That's an amazing feat, isn't it? I hope you don't have to permit these canopies, but I definitely feel that they're a worthwhile investment to protect our property. I don't see -- I mean, this pushes the envelope of good sense. If I had to come in here -- if my roof got blown off my house -- and begged for you to put the roof back on my house to protect it, I'd feel pretty silly. I think it'd be pretty silly saying you can't put it back on there. The same thing goes here. I'm just trying -- we're all just trying to protect our property. Obviously, being in a wheelchair, I have no choice but to go for a canopy because I can't put a cover on the boat. So if you don't give it to everybody else, just give it to me. How's that? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. ALLEN: That wasn't Mark Allen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, please. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Mark Miller. MR. MILLER: No comment at this time. MS. FABACHER: All righty. The last speaker slip I have is from Mr. Joseph Fuller. Page 19 August 23, 2006 MR. FULLER: Hi there. Thank you. Good afternoon. I am an attorney. I represent the Collier County Boat Owners' Association, and I have several of our members here today that have already addressed you. I'm not here to argue a lawsuit that we presently have pending prior to -- or before -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope we're not going to press charges about that now. MR. FULLER: Yeah, really. How's that? There you go. I'm not here to argue the merits of our lawsuit, but I do want to give you some background and information as to how this arose. This goes back several years. Mr. Palazzo, who just addressed you, got cited several years ago for having a boat lift cover up here, and actually he was cited in June 30, 2005. One of the voluntary corrective measures that he could have taken in order to comply with the citation was to, in no later than 30 days after -- well, pardon me. He had to obtain a complete and sufficient Collier County building permit from the Collier County Building and Review and Permitting Department no later than 30 days after CCPC approval. He also had to -- if he wanted to voluntarily comply, he had to remove not only his boathouse but also his dock and all structures. Okay? This is in the citation as part of it, and that is part of the reason why we have filed suit. The Collier County Land Development Code does not address or define a boat lift cover, a boat canopy, a boat dock canopy. I don't care what you want to call it. And in order to affect people's property rights and to tell them what they can and cannot do with their property, you have to give them due process of law. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to slow down a little bit so she gets the transcript accurate. MR. FULLER: I'm sorry. I've only got three minutes, so I'm Page 20 August 23, 2006 trying to get it all in. But you have to give them due process of law. That's been the problem with this case all along. Now, boat lift covers are different than boat canopies. You see the definition that's been presented to you up here? This is a recent definition of a boathouse. The prior definition prior to October 2004 required a boathouse to have a permanent roof. Part of the issue in this case is that these boat lift covers are temporary structures. They are attached with a clamp to the boat lift. I have photographs for you if you care to see them. It's a clamp that's attached to the boat lift. The clamp can be undone, the entire structure removed, or you can take and remove the cotter pins that hold the frame into the clamp. Pull the cotter pins, the entire frame is removed. You take the bungy cords, remove those. The canopy itself is removed. These are temporary structures. They really have no business being permitted. But if they are going to be permitted, they certainly, by all common sense, are not boathouses. Now, the definition that has been presented to you here in terms of the amendment to the code, again, requires boathouses to go through the process of 5.03.06F, okay? And, again, that is a $4,000 Planning Commission procedure, from what I understand. The cost of that well exceeds the boat lift covers. You can get Mr. Gettinger up here to tell you what the average cost of a boat lift cover is. The whole purpose of this being put in this proposed amendment is to preclude and to try to discourage boat lift covers from even being applied for in Collier County. I suggest to you there is an inherent bias within staff with regard to boat lift covers. That is going to be addressed in the lawsuit. We have evidence of the fact that there's somebody who says that they will never approve these things ever, and this goes back four, five years, in written form, in memorandum form, the very same person Page 21 August 23, 2006 who was asked to give and render an interpretation as to whether or not these things fell under the code as a structure. Again, common sense tells you that these are boat lift covers. They are temporary structures. If staff wants to permit these things, my clients are willing to work with them. There's no question about that, but this is not a process that -- when you've got a properly permitted dock that meets all the setback requirements for a dock, you have a properly permitted boat lift, and this is a temporary cover that attaches to, temporarily, to the boat lift and can be removed. This is one of those that, to require anything more than a permit just to put up a structure is -- is, again, begging the question. Again, I would point out to you, ladies and gentlemen, that there is already a section of the Land Development Code, 5.03.01, under home occupations, accessory uses and structures, and it is called canopy tents and shades. And right now all you have to do is go down and file for a permit and you can get a permit to put up one of these structures that is a frame, aluminum frame with a boat canopy cover on it, in your back yard, to protect your recreational vehicles from sun damage. And taking a structure that you can go get a permit for and put in your back yard to cover up your A TV s your -- whatever you've got parked under there, and to take that structure and to put it on top of a boat lift and suddenly call that a boathouse is absurd and it defies common sense. Okay? When these things are already permitted in people's back yards, there's no reason why these things should not be permitted and allowed on people's boat dock covers to protect their most valuable recreational vehicles, their boats, okay? Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Do we have any other speakers, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. Page 22 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If some of you came in late or didn't know that you needed a slip to be filled out that is to talk on this issue, I'm asking now, if you feel like saying something, you're more than welcome to come up, just fill a slip out before you leave today so staff has an adequate record of your name and everything. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess I'm kind of confused because since we last met, what we've really done is exactly what I think Mark Allen said, is we've really made us able to go through the same boathouse process, only essentially allowed to make a boathouse out of canvas. And I kind of thought we were going to look at coming up with a standard that was separate for boat canopies. MS. ISTENES: Susan Murray Istenes. That wasn't what we were directed to do by the Board of County Commissioners. So we're following their direction. What I'd suggest is, if you all want to do something different, that you make that a recommendation and vote on it, and we'll certainly carry it forward to the board. One thing, I'm a little confused, because it kind of sounds like people didn't maybe read the amendment -- and I'm talking about the audience -- because this is actually allowing covers. Mr. Fuller, I don't know if you read it or not, but I was a little surprised at your comments because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, direct your speech to us, please. MS. ISTENES: I just want to make -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll try to resolve it. MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, you're right. Maybe you could clarify it because it is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. What is it you specifically don't think was understood, and then maybe -- maybe we didn't understand it either. Page 23 August 23, 2006 MS. ISTENES: Okay, good. Good question. Standards for boat dock canopies, okay. Essentially what this amendment is doing is it is allowing canopy as a roof structure type. Okay, that's it. You have your roof -- roofing material, same as principal structure, chickee or frawn sty Ie, and now with this amendment, it could be a canopy. The standards are all still the same as the regular boathouse. You have your setbacks, your height, you're open all four sides, and your process to go through the Planning Commission to get approval; however, canopy would then be allowed as a roofing material type under what we drafted. And I noted at the end of Linda's statement also that we told you guys we endorsed the amendments as presented. So I just thank you for asking me to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I understand now where you're -- I think what I heard to be a concern is that the process to go through this for a canopy that is over a structure that has already gone through the process may be unnecessary. MS. ISTENES: A littler onerous maybe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's where I think the concern IS. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the setback criteria under boathouses, I really don't know if you really need to consider that as applicable if the canopy is tied to a legal dock or a legal boat lift, because a boat lift then would have to be tied to a dock that is legal. So if you have a legal dock and you have a boat lift you could put there with a building permit and you put a canopy over that lift, you're still within the footprint of the legal dock. So I'm wondering where staff sees the need to come back through the public process again. MS. ISTENES: Well, I'm not putting on the record that we see the need to come through the public process. Page 24 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: I would -- and my hesitation -- and the reason it was -- nothing was changed in here was because that wasn't really the direction of the board. We're following the strict direction of the board. What I've heard in the past, and even planning commissions before you all, has been, gee, you have a set of standards here. You've got a setback, you've got a height, all the other standards in place, and the review by the Planning Commission ends up to be somewhat perfunctory . I mean, if they meet the standards, essentially you're compelled to approve it, and that's something that staff analyzes when the boat dock petition comes in. My suggestion would be, if you find that the standards meet the concerns of the community and that you feel that the Planning Commission hearing isn't necessary because the standards are adequate, then you might make that recommendation to the board, and we would certainly carry that forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe -- go ahead, Brad. I'll let you go. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Susan, you know, when I asked my question, you kind of trumped me by saying, the board told us to do this, so that doesn't give me any freedom to discuss canvas structures other than boathouse canvas structures? Because the concern I have is that -- and I think the testimony is that a canvas structure they're talking about is not as big as a boathouse. And I think the last thing we want is huge canvas structures in the back of these houses. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. I'm not really going to argue the point with you. Because like I said, we support canvas as roofing material. So if you -- if you want to have -- use the current standards or you want to change them, that's fine. Page 25 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think to help staff get through this and us get through this tonight, why don't we make some suggestions that staff can take to the BCC based on what we feel is the right way that this needs to go? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I'd like to do, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we just do that? Now, Catherine -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Susan said we can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, no. MS. ISTENES: Oh, no. You can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff can't. MS. ISTENES: I can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She said staff can't. They feel they're restricted by the way it was told to them to produce this, so that's where we come into the picture, I think is rendering recommendations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern -- my concern is that we went through a list of things that we would have liked to have seen, none of which are addressed in this amendment. So if we give it to staff, are they just going to put it back in this form and take it to the board? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think what we need to do is go through that list again -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. We can go again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- give it to staff with an explicit -- see, tonight's the night that we make recommendations. Let's just make it a recommendation and send it forward. That way staff will be obligated to send it forward, just like they were obligated to come here tonight with something that they felt was their interpretation of the Board of County Commissioners' direction. So -- and Catherine, I know you -- did you have something you wanted to add? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, Catherine Fabacher, for the record. Page 26 August 23,2006 I just wanted to say that Susan's right, they just wanted to take a safe step here, and then if you have recommendations to modify it and they may have recommendations -- I wanted to say one thing about the boat lift cover. I don't believe that this amendment would prohibit you from having a boat lift cover. This gives you the opportunity to have just the boat lift cover or to have a structure that goes out even further -- a little further than the dock, and that being because I think -- I don't know if it was Mr. Gettinger or another representative of boat covers, who said that. He found instead of the pieces down the side, the more -- the more effective way to protect you with shade was by allowing more of an overhang. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think-- MS. F ABACHER: So that is simply why staff had left this. But I don't think that it prohibits just a plain boat lift cover because it would be within these requirements. I could be wrong, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's get through the discussion of the panel. Mr. Schiffer, you want to continue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. One thing, I think the definition is a good thing. I don't know if we have a definition for canopies, but essentially what we're talking about is fabric structures, right, that we're going to allow fabric-type structures -- MS. ISTENES: Fabric. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- which is how it is in the building code. You know, there's engineering data on fabric. MS. ISTENES: Right. Fabric as their roofing material essentially. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And was that the instruction from the BCC to allow fabric as a roofing material for boathouses? Page 27 August 23, 2006 MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because I think that -- I don't think -- let me -- my opinion is, that would be not a good-looking thing. That would be a big fabric structure, to me, I don't like. So what I'd like us to do -- maybe we could start now -- is to start defining what a smaller structure -- like all the pictures they're showing us -- that isn't one of them -- is not of boathouses made out of fabric material. They're canopies or fabric structures closely over the boat, which are really the boat lift structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe to help us get through this, we have standards under G, A through E. Why don't we discuss our likes and dislikes about each one and then try to craft a recommendation on each paragraph, and then we'll get -- and that way we've got some kind of organizational manner in which to come up with any concerns or conclusions that we want to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let's start with A. Let's eliminate A -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and that's -- but we need to eliminate it, but it has to be tied to something in order for it to be a permittable use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not -- I was midsentence there. Let's eliminate A and replace it with a definition of what these structures are. I really like the concept of the boat lift canopy as a structure. Essentially that's not overhanging the dock. It's totally covering the boat which is the intent. The closer it gets to the boat, the better it covers it so we're not going to find, you know, a lot of extra area around it. There's a concept of whether it should overhang the dock or provide curtain. I think we'd allow that. But I would like A to be a Page 28 August 23, 2006 definition of what the -- and I think we should drop down to a boat lift canopy and not allow big canvas structures. So is that okay or should I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think we're heading in the right direction, and we're talking about -- pardon me? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm sorry; go ahead. I was mumbling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And your point, Mark, is that it would only be allowed over a conforming dock to begin with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's where I was going to go next. Instead of referring it back to F, why don't we just simply include with an A, it's a -- it's covering applied to a lift that is legally permitted -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on a dock that is also legally permitted. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That should be step one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you get those done, then you've already got everything in line to allow these as a permitted use. And if you go beyond that alignment, just like if you go beyond that alignment for a dock, you have to come before us. That's the exception then that comes before us. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it will be over a conforming dock. I think that would be the best way, because it's conforming to code, which means they got a permit, I mean, plus other things. The height. I don't think it should be 15 feet tall. I think in these residential neighborhoods, a IS-foot tall structure isn't necessary. I mean, I think we could get some of the people that build them, they might give us a better height. I mean, if you -- it would be good -- I wonder if -- Susan, is there a way to get some pictures of the boat Page 29 August 23, 2006 dock canopies up? MS. ISTENES: Canopies? I'll try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, the gentleman that's in the audience who spoke last time, I think we asked him what the height was, and I thought he said 12 feet would cover. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I think 10 feet would be better, but -- and I can -- yeah, from the top of the sea wall. Everything is measured from the top of the sea wall. So the boat is lifted out of the water. I think -- my concern is, I think if you had like six and a half feet, then you allow like an 18- foot drop, and then the pitch -- these are slight pitches to go up to the ridge being at 10 feet. I think that would be high enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may be a little too shallow, but I'd COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some people are shaking their heads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- like to ask the gentleman, if you don't mind -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, since you're in the business and you put a bunch of these up -- the gentleman right here with the -- could you come up to the speaker (sic) and let us know -- MS. FABACHER: Mr. Gettinger. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Gettinger, thank you. So many people spoke. I think we had 12 speakers. I can't remember all their names. MR. GETTINGER: John Gettinger, Waterway Boat Lift Covers. The majority of covers, probably 12 feet might do it. The problem that I've had lately is that with the hurricanes and the high waters, the owners of the boats want to bring the boat lift -- the boat up to its highest position that they're ever going to have in case we Page 30 August 23, 2006 have a hurricane, so, therefore, they're bringing it up a couple more feet for protection if they ever have that storm surge, so, therefore, the 12 feet would be pushing it. Another city that has an ordinance has it at 14 feet. Very seldom do I have to go 14 feet, but I have gone that a couple times when you have boats with a high tower or something on it. So -- but the owners want to keep that boat as close -- the cover as close to the boat as they can. And when I go out and measure one or something, we bring the boat up to its highest level they're going to want to bring with that storm surge, and then we keep the top as close to that as possible. Ten foot, I think, might be short changing it a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Brad, I think that's why I asked him to speak. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, no. He knows better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we've heard similar comments before, and I would hate to put something through that doesn't really effectively do anything productive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is I don't really want this to be -- these fabric structures to be that tall. So the concern is that if they can't fit it under a fabric structure, build a boathouse and go through the process to get -- the boathouse is only 15 feet. That's to the ridge. That's to the top of the boathouse. There's slope in there. The heights you're talking about, you're not going to get in the boathouse either. You're not going to lift this thing out of a storm surge elevation. I mean, the storm surge is going to be, you know, eight feet alone. The boat would have to be -- you know, a canoe you couldn't lift out of the storm surge, so that's not the big issue. And again, all of these we've seen have been really small, tight to the boat. I mean, isn't the protection best if you get the boat up into it as much as you can? MR. GETTINGER: You're absolutely correct there, but you do Page 31 August 23, 2006 have some small boats that have towers and stuff on them -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, as a-- MR. GETTINGER: -- that comes up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a middle-of-the-road position, why don't we work with the 12 feet, and then if someone is above that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twelve foot's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then they can come back in and ask for a -- not a variance, but like we do have docks -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and when they got to go farther out into the waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat and Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could I ask a question, please? Have you ever built a canvas boat slip covering a boat that's, say, 30 feet tall or 25 feet tall? MR. GETTINGER: No, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You've never done any of that? MR. GETTINGER: No, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You've seen those? MR. GETTINGER: I have seen them. They have them. At airports they have canvas. The Dolphins have got a new one that they play football in when it rains and things. You can do something, but that's beyond my scope to make something that big. I would not do a yacht or something like that. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So you don't have any experience in that area? MR. GETTINGER: Not building something that big. We might have another gentleman here that has that experience, but I don't have something that high. Six foot above the I-beam is the most I go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's one fellow shaking his head. Page 32 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, before you go forward, Mr. Adelstein's -- he's going to kick me if I don't let him speak. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So please, Mr. Adelstein, go forward. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If the dock itself is in compliance, as far as I'm concerned, I can't see any reason why we can't let a canopy be put on at no additional cost. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense. It's just covering a certain area, and I don't think there's any reason for it not to be done just that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Agreed. Mark-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there's one fellow trying to telepathically get me to know something. It's not working. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's try to keep it short and to the point. MR. BOYCE: My name is Paul Boyce again. I still say you people have to come up to 3rd Street because most of these boathouses down our street, they're not off sea walls. They're just off riprap, so where are you going to get the elevation from? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Top of bank. MR. BOYCE: Well, some of the banks are lower than the road. They should be a little bit higher. I mean, you need a standard, you know. I mean, you're saying from the sea wall at 12 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but in the code we do have it from the sea wall or top of bank, whichever's most restrictive. MR. BOYCE: Yeah, but see -- that's why you have to look at it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, some that are lower are going to have a lower roof than higher ones. MR. BOYCE: You know, but the water level's still the same, so what -- I mean, you're defeating it if you're saying -- if the bank is lower, then you're going to have to take a sea wall where the sea wall starts on 3rd Street near where I live and go all the way down at every boat lift instead of using -- I'm sorry. Page 33 August 23, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm -- we've got to go one speaker at a time. You're speaking, Mr. Schiffer's got a question. When he finishes, then Mr. Adelstein can speak again. So go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then throw a height out. We said 12 feet above sea wall or top of bank. What do you think it should be? MR. BOYCE: I think it should be sea wall all the way along. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if there's no sea wall, what do you do? MR. BOYCE: Then you use the existing sea wall four lots down or five lots down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The nearest sea wall. MR. BOYCE: The nearest sea wall, yes, because that sea wall is the standard height because I put some in for a gentleman on boat docks one and two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. We can do something like that, but you're concerned about where we're measuring from, not the number? MR. BOYCE: Yeah. Use the sea wall height, the existing one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Brad, that would be the height at 12 feet above the nearest sea wall. That would take care of that. MR. BOYCE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And that's what I was going to say, if there is a better way to get height, fine. But in that area, it isn't, fine. That's what it has to be, then that's what it is. MR. BOYCE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Brad, did you have any more? Or did anybody have any issues on A? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not A, no. Page 34 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does staff-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm a little concerned here about a blanket legally permitted dock. Where does that get us into the boat dock lots? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what -- I don't know what their position is within BCC. COMMISSIONER CARON: They're not allowed right now, and the BCC has said so in a supermajority vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Catherine. MS. F ABACHER: Catherine Fabacher, for the record. Ms. Caron, I think that's tied to one of the criteria that says you have to have a principal structure. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you. That's all I care. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Mr. Kolflat, did have you an issue? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. This item 5, boat slip canopies, is that remaining in, or are you saying that should come out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item 5? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On A -- or, excuse me, B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hold on a second. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: 152, page 152, up at the top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We haven't even addressed that. We're still-- we're on page 154, G(a). COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, there was another thing about being open on all sides up in F, and I think that we should allow the curtain to come down. First of all, I think they kind of look better with the curtain, and it does -- the reason they're building this is to protect them from the sun. It does give them a better chance. So I would like to see maybe a Page 35 August 23, 2006 maximum 18-inch curtain, drop curtain along the side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have comments? If not -- I don't have an objection to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we go to B? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep, that's where we're going next. Number B is the wind loading, and I don't know -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only problem I have with that is that somebody really could -- and the question was asked, how come we don't cut down schools and things, is you can design fabric structures to withstand the forces. I mean, we wouldn't have the aviation industry if that wasn't true. So I think something -- that there should be something in there where somebody could spend the money to engineer a canopy that would not require to be taken down. Now, whether -- I think he's right. Code enforcement's not going to run around to see if the canopies are down. The storm will determine that. So the only concern about having that ability is that if code enforcement was going to run around and take them down, it would be difficult to distinguish between one that was engineered and one that wasn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think this is more an issue of what the standard in the industry is, Brad. I don't think -- I mean, I think you're going someplace you don't need to go on this because it's the industry standard that's being applied here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There is an industry standard? Then why don't we just adopt that? I mean, a real standard or -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's what we're saying is that they'll all stand up to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's a building code issue. Page 36 August 23, 2006 I mean, we're not allowed to determine structural capacity in the Land Development Code anyway, so maybe we just take the whole thing out and it has to pass the building code under fabric structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a gentleman in the audience that's been trying to get our attention. If he has an issue that involves the knowledge of the wind loads and the structures on these, then maybe you should come forward and identify yourself and address this a little bit if we can. Since we're having to rewrite this language sitting here today, I think we need all the help we can get, so MR. MILLER: I'm Mark Miller from Sun Master of Naples, awning construction. Been in the business since 1976, and we build structures all the time that meet the existing code, 140 miles an hour, with the covers being able to be removed at 75 miles an hour or sustain 140 miles an hour. It just depends on the structures. We have huge canopies along the Gulf Coast with all these condominiums, and they've survived some of these storms. In regard to this, you're looking for something on a boat canopy, which I can understand, that's economical and something people can put on and off. If you have to go through 140-mile-an-hour engineering, you're talking about a major structure, and the cost goes up exceedingly. Basically if you go out and buy an umbrella and stick it on your boat, nobody's going to say anything about it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's right. MR. MILLER: And this is basically what you're looking at, economical coverage for somebody's boat and something that you can go out and take on and off at will in the event of a storm. So I think that having to meet the engineering code of the 140 is just going to totally eliminate these structures. So keeping in mind of a temporary structure and something that could be removed easily in the event like a -- I mean, they take Page 37 August 23, 2006 umbrellas the same size of these covers that you go out there and stick it on your boat. It wouldn't be normal, but to prove a point, you could get by with something like that. So I think in that sense, you need to look at the engineering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, were you aware that the engineering to withstand a wind load of 140 miles per hour is without the canopy cover on it? MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying that a bare frame, as we've seen like this one on the picture right here, the bare frame generally, without a canopy, without any kind of covering fabric over it couldn't sit there in 140-mile-an-hour wind and withstand it? MR. MILLER: Well, a lot of these structures are conduit based clamps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MILLER: And I don't know that without having engineering, but when we put up structures, they aren't anything like that for 140 miles an hour. Now, if somebody's building these things and has the engineering, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only because I know that screen enclosures have to have a wind load, but their structures are much heavier because the screen stays in place. If you were to take the screen out -- and the gentleman said, by cutting the screen, well, you're assuring then that the load will never reach that maximum height. MR. MILLER: That's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I was just wondering if you realized that this was with the cover off of the metal? MR. MILLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Page 38 August 23, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- why don't we just make it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're fine. You can sit down now. MR. MILLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- up to the building code? Because, first of all, the 140 miles shouldn't come from the Land Development Code, it should come from the building code. And there is a section of building code fabric structures, so it's well -- and it should be an engineering permit as a canopy would have. I think the canopy in the code is what allows you to move it and engineer just the frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the language then read something to the effect, boat canopy frames shall be engineered to withstand a wind load consistent with the requirements of the building code? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. The only problem I'm still having, I still think it should be called boat lift. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. I agree with you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are we done with G(b?) Let's go on to G( c). G( c) is the one that talks about the colors, and it's referring to the surrounding habitat, such as beige, blue or green. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's basically the color of the unit that's there. The home has got a beige one, it gets beige. If it's green, it gets green. It seems to be consistent with what the home is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's not what -- this is saying surrounding habitat, such as -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Surrounding habitat, whatever MS. ISTENES: Like natural habitat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what I was thinking Page 39 August 23, 2006 you're getting. It's more of a pastel -- I mean, a neutral color, not a bright color, is what I think that staff was getting at. Does anybody have any comments on that? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I agree. I'd like to see it be the same color as the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you can get into -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Roof. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can get into some -- yeah, I don't know if we need to go there with this language. It seems to be pretty -- it keeps it pretty concise as it is. If you go to the house, you might end up with a lot more coloration than we would want to see allowed. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I note that from the last time when Ms. Boyad -- I massacred your name, but I -- she brought up the question of white, and white is not included in here. And I just wondered whether or not -- because it isn't a color as such, right? It's not defined as a color -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But gray-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- but does it need to be in here if we're going to discuss that part of it? I don't -- I'm not really keen on oranges, reds, and the rest of it, but beige, blue and green, I just wonder -- that's -- blue? I don't know. A natural habitat and blue, that's the sky, right? I guess that's the natural habitat? I'm trying to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the water, the sky. I mean, I'm not COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is really getting, I think, very tight. But I just wanted to introduce again the idea of white because it's absent from here, and that's my only interest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, white in nature is concrete, isn't Page 40 August 23, 2006 it? MS. ISTENES: Not natural. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At least in Collier County. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mostly concrete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't know how to factor in white. Mrs. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think just for Mr. Murray's benefit, the reason the colors were limited was that the neighborhoods are wanting to avoid the sort of circus tent of colors that could be if everything else were allowed. And so this was the compromise that everybody decided on were the three colors of beige, green and blue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may respond, and I thank you, and I understand that. That's that neighborhood, but I don't know that there are people in Isles of Capri and Goodland that have that concern. And I did read this tome here, this little book, and it does indicate that there was an interest in preserving the rights, if you will, of the parties in those other locations. Finding this balance is going to be a chore, I suspect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe -- does anybody see an objection to adding white? I mean, it's not really a bad color. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It just gets dirty easy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, so does beige. I mean-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: White would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on G(c)? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let me just -- I mean, I think what's good about the intent of this, which is why it's not a good idea to paint it the color of the house, is what they're trying to do is Page 41 August 23, 2006 blend it into the landscape around it. A lot of times these are out in the mangroves and stuff. And, you know, the house could be some, you know, brick red house, and you don't want a brick red awning. So what it's saying is, tuck it into the natural landscape as best you can. I think that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on to G(d), and that just says during storms of 70 miles an hour, they'll be removed. Does anybody have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it should be taken off and it should be part of the requirements of B if it's engineered to withstand the wind, it doesn't have to be. If it falls under the building code that it has to be, it has to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have to agree. I think it makes sense that way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just if I may, to add to that. One of the pictures that we could see if we moved forward on this was an excellent example of canopy that, in reality, could very well be structured into a boat and -- no, further, please. Well, I'm not sure where it is now. Try one more. Okay. My point though is that some of these structures, some of the boats can actually sustain a structure of its own and can have its own canopy such as some of these pontoon boats, and they have to be able to sustain the same wind loads or they lose the canopy and they lose the equipment, et cetera, et cetera. So I think that Brad is right, that the issue belongs where it's appropriate in that part of the code or the building code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So D is -- consensus is D comes off and it just becomes part of the building code. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. B covers it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: G(e). Any issue? E is-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's too late, because that's Page 42 August 23, 2006 something we should have determined when we reviewed the docks. So once it's a conforming dock, that's a moot question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree with you, because the dock would be legal, so why would you need that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, so -- read back what you got for A, because A's the important part of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, it was to replace -- A was to be replaced with a definition of the canopy as to what a canopy, boat lift canopy is. We're supposed to address the language to make sure it applies to a legal dock with a legal lift, that the height would be no greater than 12 feet above the nearest sea wall, that it could have a surrounding side curtain no greater than 18 inches in depth. Those are the notes that I have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only thing is, the interest is that it covers only the boat slip area or the lift area. It's not to cover the dock itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think staff has understood that as our definition. MS. ISTENES: Not quite. May I ask for some clarification? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. MS. ISTENES: Boat lift canopy is the term you want to use? Okay. Where would that go exactly? What if you don't have a boat lift, what do you do then? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then you just have a dock without a boat lift. MS. ISTENES: So you can't have a canopy if you don't have a boat lift? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if someone's leaving their boat in the water, I'm not sure what good a canopy's going to do. Mr. Allen, you're going to have to sit down. Page 43 August 23, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I asked him, because he was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, did you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- trying to signal something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next time ask the chair and-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mark, if you want to come forward and identify yourself and address Brad's issue, that would be fine. Go ahead, Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, I just wanted to say that I have a boat that I'm currently -- I have a slip. I'm currently building a 28- foot high canvas cover for that slip. Now, what I understand, from what you're writing now, is that that would not qualify to be permitted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In Collier County. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: In Collier County. Well, this is in Collier County. It's in Naples, but it's still in Collier County. And Mark Miller's been working on this and he knows that we've got slips that are going -- or covers that are going in that are 28 feet high, and they're just canvas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got a 28-foot high -- that's two stories. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, that's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's more than we want to get into tonight, but that's pretty steep. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's what I understand. You keep going back to these smaller boats, and there are some bigger boats out there, if you get out in the water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what waterway is that on? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's on -- in Naples. Naples Bay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get Mr. Allen's point out of Page 44 August 23, 2006 the way, and we'll -- MR. ALLEN: The question was about the boat lift covers. If you have only a dock without a lift, there can't be a cover. There's no support system for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what I -- that's what I was trying to say. MR. ALLEN: I mean, you don't have it to work with. And while I'm here, these -- when I went to Mr. Perico in 2001, I took engineered plans for my framework. They're right here in existence. At that time it was for 110 miles an hour. That's what these are, so they do exist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MS. ISTENES: May I continue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. MS. ISTENES: Thanks, sorry. Okay. So let me make sure I have this straight. A boat lift canopy is only -- can only attached to a boat lift, and if you don't have a boat lift, you don't get a canopy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. MS. ISTENES: Okay. The covering -- or the boat lift canopy will only be allowed to apply to a lift on a dock and lift that is legally permitted? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: So I'm going to take that to mean, there won't really be any setbacks for -- it just -- it goes with the lift. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It goes with the lift so you can't-- MS. ISTENES: And whatever is on the lift is what the, quote, setbacks will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Because you couldn't have the lift in the position it's in without being legal to begin with. MS.ISTENES: Understand. I just want to clarify that. I heard before on the height, 12- foot maximum height from the nearest sea wall, however, then I heard, I think it was you, Page 45 August 23, 2006 Commissioner Strain, say if it was higher -- if they wanted it higher than 12 feet, then they'd have to go to the Planning Commission for approval; is that the consensus? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just like they'd have to come to us if they wanted a dock out beyond the standard. So whatever typical standards they want to exceed, whatever they have to do, they have to do. I mean, in a dock, if you go out past 20 feet, you have to come before this board right now, or whatever the distance is. MS.ISTENES: Yeah. It depends on the waterway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, so same thing. MS. ISTENES: Canopy frames have to be able to withstand the requirements of the building code. Does that include the canopy itself too, the fabric itself? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what the thing should really state, that it obtains a building code permit, so everything has to meet the requirements of the building code. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, I don't think the canopy has to. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Just the frame? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's not -- it's in there but it doesn't have to be that -- to that extent. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if the frame meets the intent of the code and the frame's calculated with the canvas, then whether the canvas meets it or not just means the canvas will rip and the wind will blow through it like it would a screen enclosure on a pool screen. i think that's the philosophy. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's right. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Page 46 August 23, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just -- Mr. Schiffer first, and then Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I definitely think it should meet what's in the building code because, I mean, I've watched canopies come partially apart, then they become whips and they actually can destroy a building just by swinging pieces around crazy in a storm, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I was a boat owner until Wilma. But I will tell you, I'm very much aware of canvas and it flying around. And you really do want to take them down if at all possible. And if you don't, you will sustain the potential of it tearing the frame as well with it. So 140-mile-an-hour wind is just the wind surface on that -- or the wind on that surface. So I would encourage -- and I surmise that the building code reflects that. I don't know that, but I would surmise that that's the case. I think -- I would ask the question, in -- with regard to those other canopies at homes and such, are they required to come down? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They are? And so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't look at me. I'm not -- I can give you my opinion, but it won't mean a lot. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I have to ask the question because I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If they're legally permitted, they would pass an engineering review. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there would be requirements on when and -- when you cannot have the canvas up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So my guess is that by putting it Page 47 August 23, 2006 under the code, we've actually taken care of those two issues? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think so, too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron and then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER CARON: I would just like to see, can we call up the building code so we know exactly what the building code tells us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's like the IRS code. We'd be here all night just trying to answer it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, seriously, we're relying a lot on a code that I don't know that you've read, and I haven't read it. Maybe Mr. Schiffer's read it or at some point he's read it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm a trained professional in this, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If we had to verify the code for everything we did, we would never get through a single meeting in this county, so I have to take -- COMMISSIONER CARON: This is a very specific thing that we're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me assure you -- I know the code so well -- that there's nothing you could write in this that would make it so the building code didn't review it, so it's a moot point to dance with it anyway, so -- MS. ISTENES: Two more points to clarify. You want the colors as remaining, except add white? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I want to get back to the colors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Are we going to rule out the Page 48 August 23, 2006 possibility of making it the same color as your house? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What this is, you'd have four colors, beige, blue, green or white. Now, if you've got a pink house, you couldn't have a pink canopy. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. So we're ruling out the possibility of making it the same color as the house unless the house is one of these colors? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Or unless you're using a different roofing material. This is just for canopies, this color. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: All right. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Then you want to remove E? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Let me just go over two things real quick. Based on what you've proposed, I think the impacts are going to be as follows: Essentially you're removing the public hearing process for approved boat lift canopies, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as they match the legal lift and legal dock. MS. ISTENES: Right, as long as they meet all this criteria. And actually the only criteria you said if it didn't meet had to go back before you was height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, any -- yes, because that would be the only issue that we brought up that would be changed from what was already permitted. MS. ISTENES: Okay. And then based on the language you've proposed, it sounds to me like this would allow the boat dock lot owners to have a boat lift canopy. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, because the adjacent structure or the principal structure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, let's just get -- first of all, the Page 49 August 23, 2006 boat dock lots, from what I understood from staff -- MS.ISTENES: Jeff maybe could help me out, but I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. Let me finish. MS.ISTENES: Yeah. I don't want to mix it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me finish. The boat dock lots, from what I understand, were not to be addressed under this particular discussion of the canopy. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm trying to get us through the canopy issue first. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's just get through that, and then we can have a discussion separately on the boat dock lots. MS. ISTENES: Okay. I think I'm all set. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some more that I don't think got in there. One thing I'd kind of like to do is limit, you know, how much it could cantilever into the waterway and stuff. I mean, theoretically, I could take that dock there and I could design it to come, you know, 20 foot back and 20 foot forward. So I think what we'd like to do is make sure that it doesn't stick out into the waterway more than three feet, which is what we're allowed up above with the boat dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wouldn't that be within the limits of the dock? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did we define it to be exactly within the limits of the dock? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we said. MS.ISTENES: You had-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's hear the whole thing. Read it all back again. Page 50 August 23, 2006 MS. ISTENES: Replace the definition and have a boat lift canopy definition. The covering applies to the lift on an approved dock and lift that is legally permitted. So I read -- I hear that as being only allowed to be constructed on the lift itself, so the supports for the canopy would only be constructed within the lines of the lift. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which you would need more than that because the boat sticks out beyond the lift, front and back, so MS. ISTENES: Sure. It could run the length of the lift, I suppose. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let's put a limit that it can't -- and the people will have to nod. It can't extend more than one foot over the dock area or in the back of the boat. We've got to come up with something, because it doesn't -- if you look at the picture, it doesn't just fit over the lift. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I'm not disagreeing. I'm trying to think of a solution. This whole thing was a boat lift canopy, and the intent was to make sure that the lift was covered. But correctly so, it's got to be supported by the structure that supports the dock, not the lift. So if it didn't exceed the limitation of the dock structure, meaning the support piling, with the exception of an overage a little, like we allow in the code, wouldn't that meet what we're trying to get to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, because the problem -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm asking Brad a question, and then, Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The problem I'm having is the intent is not to cover the dock portion itself. It would have piles on both sides of the dock walkway. I just think we could come up with something where it can't exceed more than one foot over on each side, and then some dimension front and back. Page 51 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your baseline for that, the boat lift itself is suited to a given weight which translates into a given length, and you can then use that as your baseline for one foot over, two foot over, whichever is your pleasure. And I think that's a more reasonable way of going about it. Because if you make it too general, you're going to get into his size boat, and what do you do then, you know? So you want to go from the lift, which is your controlling factor, and then it's intended for certain size boats, to a certain size boat, and then go whatever distance beyond for your bow and your stem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. That's what I'm trying to come up with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. No, I would agree with Mr. Murray on that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you -- MS. ISTENES: One foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that give you anything to work with? MS. ISTENES: Yeah. I hear one foot beyond the bow and the stem of the boat -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MS. ISTENES: Help me out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I asked because I didn't follow it either, to be honest with you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Try one foot on the sides. MS.ISTENES: One foot on the sides. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And six foot on the front and back. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's big. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then could we have -- Mr. Page 52 August 23, 2006 Chairman, could I ask a member of the industry a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. We need to get through this, and we're not going to get through it amongst ourselves, so any help we can have tonight the better. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me ask you some questions. MR. GETTINGER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How much would the -- should this thing cantilever or be able to be built off to the sides of a boat lift? You know the boats with the lift, so -- MR. GETTINGER: Coming off to the sides -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. GETTINGER: -- of the boat? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The lift. MR. GETTINGER: Customarily I do 27 inches. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Off of the lift? The lift -- MR. GETTINGER: Off the lift, off the lift. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is the support, 27 on the side. Okay. MR. GETTINGER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, let's make it two feet on the side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not 27 inches. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but we're going to have a side curtain, too. I mean -- and then how about front and back? What's the story there? MR. GETTINGER: Front and back, typically you go the length of the boat. And the boat usually -- most I -beams, or the beams that lift, are usually 12 foot, six inches. That's typical. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. GETTINGER: So a lot of times you have the bow of the boat sticking out there much further, another 10 or 12 feet. Page 53 August 23, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On front and back? MR. GETTINGER: Back usually is more like five feet. Could be two foot, could be five foot. Depending on whether you've got a 30- foot boat or 20- foot boat. If you divide it up on the average one, you'd probably go out 10 foot on the bow and four foot on the stem, plus your 12 foot, six in the center, and that would give you about an average cover. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, if we tied the distance, front and back, to the mooring piling, it couldn't go out past the piling, three foot forward or three foot back. Not saying it matches the piling, so that it covers the walkway and other parts that we don't want to cover, but the alignment of the canopy, because the piling has to be spaced or positioned to accept a certain size boat. MR. GETTINGER: If you show -- oh, excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have a -- if you have the canopy tied to the maximum spread of the piling, they can't put a bigger boat there anyway legally, so wouldn't that bring it back into play? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. GETTINGER: If you look at that there, from here to here is 12 foot, six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, unfortunately without the speaker, the court reporter can't take your words. That's going to be necessary, sorry . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we would define that by being within the piling of the boat slip area, not the -- we don't want to pick up the walkway, just the boat slip area. Would that do it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was thinking of, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can't extend past the pilings within the boat slip area. That's good. I like that. Then the only other thing I think that's missing is the requirement to allow the curtain down the side. In other words, we do have to note Page 54 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made that note to Susan when we started, 18 inches. MS.ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: She didn't -- when she read it back, it wasn't in there. MS. ISTENES: Sorry. Allow maximum 18-inch drop curtain along the sides. That includes the front and rear as well? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. You'd only have it on the sides. I don't think -- MS. ISTENES: Just the sides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the sides. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is, when we orphaned ourselves from F, it was in F that says it has to be open on all four sides, so I think we should bring that down into G also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the exception of the 18-inch drop. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe make a line that allows for the 18-inch drop. So bring five down, add the 18 inches there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bring F5 down, but then add the caveat that there can be an 18- inch drop on the sides. Okay. Does that get us there? Susan, does that get your questions generally answered? MS. ISTENES: I think so. Within the pilings of the boat slip area, not the walkway, is going to be the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Excluding walkway. MS.ISTENES: It's excluding the walkway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: Eighteen-inch curtain along the sides. I didn't understand F5 down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, there's a phrase up in 5 that says, all boathouses and covered structures be completely Page 55 August 23, 2006 open on all four sides. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We still want that. So when we cut ourselves free with A, move a paragraph similar to that down so it would say, all boat lift canopies shall be completely open on all four sides with the exception of 18-inch side curtains. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just want to -- I want to question this, you know, orphaning ourselves from -- completely from F. So the -- there will be no setbacks? It will just be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- whatever the boat lift cover? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. There are setbacks. The setbacks have already been approved by a legal process to put the dock in and to put the lift in through the building permit. So the setbacks are already acknowledged if the -- because the footprint that's already there is an approved legal footprint. So you can't have a canopy beyond that footprint, so your setbacks are already established. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Well, what about the maximum number of structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Based on boat lifts. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you need to move that down. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Maximum number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would be just based on boat lifts. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you can have more than one -- well, you can't have more than one boathouse, but you can have more than one boat lift cover? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure you can have more Page 56 August 23, 2006 than one boat lift. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have more than one boat lift, don't you want to cover every boat? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Susan, do you have something else? MS. ISTENES: Clarification. Did you want to allow more than one or only one? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: One per boat lift. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One per boat lift. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're looking at one per boat lift. MS. ISTENES: One per boat lift. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Sir, did you have a statement regarding what we're talking about? MR. GETTINGER: Yes. About the length, I'm really confused on that. These are nice walk-around docks, but you have a lot of boat lifts that are out there on four pilings. The pilings are usually 12- foot apart and I didn't quite get the drift. But if you've got 12 foot apart and you can only go two foot or three foot beyond that, you're going to have a 16- foot cover on a 26- foot boat, the way I was understanding. Maybe I misunderstood it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go farther then, Susan, do you know, based on our dock requirements for dock permits, do the pilings set the spacing for the boat? I mean, can someone have piling -- a couple pilings close together with a dock that they come in for that the dock's spacing then, based on the piling, is, say, 16 feet, but put a 30-foot boat there? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Especially with a lift. MS. ISTENES: Sorry. You're going to have to rephrase that. I'm not -- Page 57 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we're trying to get at is, if you have a legal dock -- MS. ISTENES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's of a certain size, the anticipation, at least in the ones that have come before this board, is that someone's going to put a boat in there that's -- that the dock is adequate to handle. MS.ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could they come in, based on the piling, and put in a much bigger boat and still be legal? MS.ISTENES: No. I mean, your pilings essentially are going to measure your end points. In other words, your extensions that come before you are for distance out in the canal. There's already set setback requirements. If somebody wants to vary the setback requirements, they have to get a variance. So what comes before you is just in a boat dock extension where it goes out beyond the limits of the code -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS.ISTENES: -- which is slightly different from a variance. So -- and the distance is actually measured from either the furthest piling or the boat. So in other words, if the boat is moored in the dock and the boat extends beyond the walkway, that is counted, per the code, as the distance out in the canal. So am I answering your question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sort of. What about side to side? What if you have a dock that's parallel to the shoreline and you come in from the side, would the boat generally be sticking out past the rear piling? And I think that's where we're getting at. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if it is, then we haven't found a solution then. MS. ISTENES: Well, the boat is still subject -- as I read the Page 58 August 23, 2006 code, still subject to the setbacks like the piling is. It's a little bit different. To answer your question, you're -- technically your boat has to meet the dock setback as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got a wide lot, a lot that has a lot more water frontage, he may put his dock in the middle. MS.ISTENES: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And thus the boat could still extend out past the piling -- MS. ISTENES: Oh, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- which I think is the point this gentleman is trying to make, so I -- MS. ISTENES: As long as you're not violating the setbacks, your boat certainly could extend beyond the length of the dock structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're back into a problem with the length of the canopy because of the potential for a boat to overhang the pilings. Thank you for pointing that out. It's a good point, thank you. We want to leave here tonight with a resolution, not with questions. So why don't we take a 15-minute break and come back and resolve this. It's now 6:35, so, let's -- 15 minutes; 6:50 we'll resume. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody could take their seats. Susan, we are back on? MS.ISTENES: Yes, you are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Hopefully after that enlightening break, maybe we've got some comments that have come into play here. So Mr. Vigliotti, did you want to go first? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, that's all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm sure Brad will -- Page 59 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad's not shy. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm sure of that. During the break we spoke to Mr. Gettinger, who manufactures these for a living. And we threw around some possibilities and we came up with a suggestion I'd like to bring along. Anything over 35 feet would have to come before us, and 27 inches wider than the boat lift, which he feels is a magic number, rather than two feet, for some strange reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, any comments on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I would have said two feet, but if those, you know -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: For some reason it helps him in his manufacturing process. He has to change his gauge -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It could be an industry standard. I'll bow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's like an eight-foot sheet of plywood, you know. It's what you're stuck with. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially what we're saying -- and I think what it was is that you could go to the sides, you can extend past the -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The boat lift. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- lift 27 inches on the side, and the lift can't be longer than 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the canopy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The canopy, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The canopy. The canopy's 35 feet max, or they have to come back to us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anything that doesn't fit in the spec of this they come back before us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, one at a time, so -- okay. Is that -- I'm going to get to you, Donna. Just a minute. Page 60 August 23, 2006 You're done? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you done? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That's 27 inches total or 27 inches per side? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Per side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Per side. COMMISSIONER CARON: Per side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 35 feet maximum overall. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My goodness. That was -- Mr. Vigliotti, thank you. That was a productive break. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The maximum length. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, is there anything you need further clarified? MS. ISTENES: Thank you. I don't think so. I -- let me just quickly look. Okay. So two feet goes to 27 inches off each side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS.ISTENES: And then 35 feet long maximum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS.ISTENES: Anything that doesn't fit that criteria has to come before the Planning Commission for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark, on page 154, item F, sub item 6. It says, roofing material, which I assume pertains to the canopy cover. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. That's why we have section G. Page 61 August 23, 2006 G replaces F. These are no longer boathouses. These are -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The entire F. All items in F; is that right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. We just rewrote the standards for G so that F is not really an issue anymore. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But are we addressing anything besides a lift canopy or only lift canopies? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only lift canopies. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, what about someone comes in with a freestanding canopy or wants a freestanding canopy; what will they refer to as far as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's in their back yard, they can get a building permit for it. If it's a freestanding canopy without a lift over a boat dock, they're going to have to come back before us, or I don't even know if it would be allowed. Susan? MS.ISTENES: Well -- I'm sorry. I was just reading over this to make sure I understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that Starbucks you've got there? MS.ISTENES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't bring one for each of us? MS.ISTENES: It's empty. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. That's it. MS. ISTENES: Sorry about that. I'm sorry, Mr. Kolflat, I didn't understand your question. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: If I wanted to come in and put in a freestanding cover for my boat -- now, this does not have a boat lift on it and it would just consist of piles driven down and supporting a canopy over the entire boat, would this code apply to that? And if so, where does it say? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Nope. No, it would not. Page 62 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. Go ahead, Susan. MS. ISTENES: You have to comply with the standards for boat canopIes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'd have to comply with these standards -- MS.ISTENES: You'd have to comply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so basically it'd have to be on a lift. If there's no lift, you couldn't comply, therefore it wouldn't be acceptable. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So if there's no lift, you couldn't comply? And if it doesn't meet the dimensions you've set up, it couldn't comply? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And there's no recourse for them to get a permit to build it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first, let me ask staff there. I mean, I'm sure if -- is it permittable, I think, is what he's trying to say under any circumstance? MS. ISTENES: I don't believe so the way these are structured, but I'm really shooting from the hip here because this is -- I'm still trying to put this together in my head as far as what the rules are going to be. But I believe you've established the standards for a boat lift canopy. You've established a definition for it, and that says to me, if it meets the definition, or if -- if it's a boat lift canopy, it has to meet the standards or else it comes back before the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But shouldn't there be a vehicle or a method that they can get a permit to build that? Or are you saying I just can't build this for a boat in Collier County? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're saying you just can't build it for a boat in Collier County. If the boat's lifted out of the water on a lift you can. If the boats sitting in the water, you can't. That's the way Page 63 August 23, 2006 I believe this reads. MS.ISTENES: That's the way I believe it reads too. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And you think that's good policy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's an acceptable policy at this point. I haven't heard anybody in the audience or anybody coming forward indicating that there's a need for a boat canopy without a lift. In fact, the whole emphasis for the past two meetings we've had on the issues focussed on canopies over lifts. You know, this is a new twist to it, and I'm not even sure that the necessity of that application has even been thought out or researched here in the county. Maybe it's something that could come back as a future Land Development Code amendment if the need is there. I don't see anybody have ever expressed the need. So that's my thoughts on it. I'm not sure. Staff can comment if they want, but -- MS. ISTENES: Chances are, what will happen, normally what happens, is you impose a new set of standards and then somebody decides they can't quite meet those standards and they want to have it changed, so they either approach staff or you or the board and say, hey, you know, this is the situation. I want to -- this is the structure I want to build and I can't meet your standards. Could we amend the Land Development Code? Generally people try to meet the standards, like I said, and then you might get people in the industry coming up with something new or a better product or whatever, and it doesn't quite fit in the standards, and then you end up updating your code to address that. But it goes back through an amendment process and a public hearing process. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I've covered all the waters in the Florida coast from Mobile up to Jacksonville, and I've seen many, many of these covers, these type of covers, canopy covers, and I'm concerned that we don't have that opportunity to have that in Collier County since it's very prevalent. Page 64 August 23, 2006 MS.ISTENES: I guess I'm not familiar with-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we ought to -- Mr. Kolflat, if that's a need that is expressed, we can come back in and amend the code in the future. Tonight I think we've gone an awful long ways to address 95 or probably 99 percent of the circumstances in the county by what we've done here. That might be as far as we can hope to get this evening without going back and almost reinventing the wheel on an issue that we haven't really known the necessity for at this point. So I would hope that we wouldn't want to venture into a whole new area here tonight if we don't need to. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I thought the staff was going to come up with a separate section pertaining to canopies other than the boat lift. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think the instruction last time was only boat lift canopies, from what -- the rest of the members of the commission, are you thinking that there needs to be more addressed than boat lift canopies tonight? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think it's an issue we might have to address some day. But for tonight, I don't think it's an issue we should even start to get into. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein? No. Mr. Murray? Mr. Tuff? No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think some of the concerns Mr. Kolflat has is boats in the commercial settings, in marina settings, which these standards really aren't addressing. These are private homes, private docks. These are not, you know, where you're parking your Fed Ship. These are totally different areas and different standards. Page 65 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we ought to -- and there's nothing wrong with that issue, but I don't think it's an issue we can get into tonight and get through at this meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I just think we need to bring it up. And Mr. Kolflat, I would suggest that after you research it to see if there's any -- I mean, you could talk to staff and find out the needs for that. Maybe it's something you ought to consider recommending at another Planning Commission meeting that we implement an LDC amendment to look at it. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that process at all, so -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. -- Ms. Murray? MS.ISTENES: I'm sorry. One more point of clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS.ISTENES: What I hear you saying is establishing standards simply for boat lift canopies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: We still have standards for boathouses. And I think what I hear you saying is, they are different and they require different standards and different processes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. IS TENES: So my question is, for boathouses, where we have current standards in the code, we have the setbacks and the maximum protrusion and the height and the process for approval, which is through you, that should still remain; is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're not touching that. MS. ISTENES: Okay. I just want to make sure so I can clarify that to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Page 66 August 23, 2006 Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to move we forward this with an approval as amended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With a recommendation to approve as amended to the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed to the motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion-- COMMISSIONER CARON: You lost me at more than one-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- carries 9-1. MS. FABACHER: Eight to one. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- boat dock -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Motion carries, 8-1. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- or boat canopies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 67 August 23, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would happened to existing canopy structures? What kind of grandfathering situation occurs? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess that's more of a staff issue question than mine, so -- MS. ISTENES: Right now they've been deemed as not permitted, so they're going to have to comply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to have to comply to these standards? MS.ISTENES: To these new standards, if they were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So then that still works. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yep. MS.ISTENES: So there's no legal nonconforming status granted to them because they're illegal structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they'll be considered existing structures in the building code and they'll have to meet the building code at the time of construction or -- MS. ISTENES: Not if they -- they don't have permits, most of them. And if they were issued permits, they were issued in error because the use wasn't approved and the roofing material didn't match the Land Development Code. So my guess, my best guess is, they're going to -- they're not legal, nonconforming, they're illegal structures, and they're going to have to conform if this is adopted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What kind of process does it take to consider those grandfathered? MS. ISTENES: That might be a better question for Jeff because it's more of a legal issue. You've got illegal structures and you somehow want to grandfather them in. Page 68 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far with illegal structure, I mean, that's -- isn't that point being debated by -- MS.ISTENES: It's been settled by the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has it? MS.ISTENES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I guess, Jeff, then the question is, if these structures are there and they didn't have a prior building permit, now we're saying any structure going up to apply this way has to have a building permit, they have to meet this criteria. Any of these that, from the past are already existing, would they all be required to come in and apply for permits? MR. KLATZKOW: I would probably opine that they would, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: But I would hasten to say that I think what you've done here today probably brings the bulk of them into compliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think so. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, that's what we're hoping. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the objective. Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We came close. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's move on, but before we do, I have one other question I'd like this board to -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Were we not going to discuss that other issue of the boat dock lot? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's where I was going. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. ***** CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know this issue is not about the boat dock lots. The boat dock lots are an issue though in regards to canopies. We've just made -- well, we just recommended that canopies be made somewhat legal in regards to legal facilities. Boat Page 69 August 23, 2006 dock lots, by the fact they were granted variances, have legal dock facilities. I, myself, I can't see why what we've done here today doesn't apply in the same manner to boat dock lots. It would be, to me, a bias and an unfair way of treating these people if they were singled out as this not applying to them. But I wanted to ask this board to consider a recommendation of a -- to the BCC that boat dock lots be included under this provision for canopIes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think we'd all move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me try to get some discussion on the table first because there might be one person, or maybe two, who don't agree with this. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I would absolutely be opposed to that. I think that was settled in September of 2003 by a supermajority of the Board of County Commissioners when they said that the boat dock lots were different than other lots. I mean, these lots started out as boat launches. They've been granted variance after variance to -- it's been like incrementalism here -- to give them more benefits than other people in their neighborhood have. And I'm going to -- I'll stand by the Board of County Commissioners when they said that these lots have gone as far as they should go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you have a comment you wanted to make? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do. You know -- and we heard that hearing. One of the problems I had with that is that they had canopies going from property line to property line. So essentially what they were building was this zigzag of canopies. They would not be able to do that with these, so I kind of feel that this would be a Page 70 August 23, 2006 proper way to address the dock conditions they have there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my point in this whole thing is that the boat dock lots, if anyone did not have a problem for their upland neighbors, it would be these people because they don't have any uplands attached to them, so there's no views being blocked. So if anybody was hurting nothing, it would being the application here. So I strongly believe the boat dock lots ought to be allowed to have this, and I think we ought to let the BCC know the feeling of the majority of this panel. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would echo that comment, and equity, I think, is an important consideration here. And I agree. Brad Schiffer said it. We've now essentially -- if it follows, if this carries, we will effectively legitimize the standard that will prevent the zigzagging and whatever else, the reference that he made. So I think we're on the right track. And again, I'll restate it. Equity, to me, is a rightful thing here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So do I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you have one more? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, what I'd like to do is, let's make this a motion where we revise paragraph D, number 1, where it says, on unbridged barrier islands -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where are you, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's on page 152. It states, on unbridged barrier islands, and we can say, and boat dock lots, a boat dock shall be considered a principal use. There's only this handful of boat dock lots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a clean way of doing it. Susan, do you have any concerns on that? MS. ISTENES: Yeah, thank you. A couple things. The history of the boat dock lots, they've been granted the right to have a boat Page 71 August 23, 2006 dock only through the adoption of a resolution, I believe it was, quite a long time ago, because they don't have a principal structure already in place and they never will because they're nonconforming lots. And so they were granted the authority through a resolution to have a boat dock -- boat docks themselves. So I'm -- again, I'm kind of going back to a legal question. I believe in that resolution they -- a legal description was provided of the lots, and I think it applied to all -- I think there's 29 or 30, maybe more, lots. And it applied to all those lots. The difficulty here is -- well, that's one question. Is it appropriate to address it in the LDC or is it appropriate to address it through another legal mechanism? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is a recommendation, so -- MS. ISTENES: So whatever works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I think we can make a recommendation. MS. ISTENES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the BCC wants to do it in a different manner -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. Because I think Brad is specifically trying to reference this portion in the code, and I guess maybe my recommendation would be maybe just to make a general recommendation rather than trying to restructure the code because the attorney might have a different opinion on how that could be established. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: And I think the way we'd approached it would be that we would present the recommendation to the board, and if there were any legal concerns or if there were any planning concerns, we would note them to the board, for example, that this might not be a lawful thing to do given the history. But clearly you can make the recommendation. Page 72 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, did you have something else you wanted to add? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I would actually like to try to keep it in the LDC because one of the problems when you review the history of the boat dock lots is they're kicked around to resolution. Is it a launching facility? I mean, it is a semantic nightmare. So if we put it in something like this, it would be crystal clear as to what they are. And who's to say we shouldn't have more of them? I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you at all, Mr. Schiffer, and I -- with that I think we'll look for a motion. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by Mr. Murray to do what? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To include in section D, under 1, the document, to include on unbridged barrier islands and boat dock lots. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On unbridged barrier islands and boat dock lots. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On unbridged barrier islands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And boat dock lots, comma. Is that what you're trying to say? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You could finish it for me if I got lost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On unbridged barrier islands and on boat dock lots. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And on boat dock lots, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Does that work? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. Page 73 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made by Mr. Murray. Motion's been seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Thank you. Catherine Fabacher, for the record. Just a clarification. We're talking about boat lift canopies, not boathouses, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't take us somewhere we're not going, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: I wasn't clear on it and I wanted to be clear on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. We are. We're talking about canopIes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're actually not. We're talking about the determination of a principal or accessory use. Different topic entirely. MS. ISTENES: Well, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've already got-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Same section. MS. ISTENES: Actually DI refers to boat docks and not boat lift canopies. So I'm not sure that motion was -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It does? MS. ISTENES: -- really covers boat lift canopies. Yeah, it just talks that, boat docks shall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Catherine, I'm glad you pointed it out. We'll be back in another discussion on this then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm not so sure. When I read that, I think it's how to determine what's a principal and accessory use in terms of docks. Once you get the dock, you can get all the accessories that come with it. Page 74 August 23, 2006 MS. ISTENES: I think it just needs to be clear. It's already been determined that a boat dock is a permitted accessory use without a principal structure on the boat dock lots. So I think where you're trying to go is allow the boat lift canopies. I cannot get that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know our intention? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you think you could verbalize that into this D 1 in some manner that it gets to the BCC with our -- clearly with our intention? MS. ISTENES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- comfortable with everybody here? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just -- I'm comfortable with it, but I need to ask the question. We're talking about 5.03.06, dock facilities. And so when you get into determination as principal or accessory use, I guess it's because the thesis is that it's tied to a principal residence or something? That's the limitation you're inferring? MS. ISTENES: Correct. The limitation is -- what the exception of what's presently listed under D 1 and with the exception of the boat dock lots through the adoption of a resolution many years ago, is those are the areas that are allowed to have boat docks without a principal structure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're saying that we need a steppingstone, so to speak? We need another piece before we could make that work in here; is that what you're indicating? MS. ISTENES: No. I'm indicating that boat docks are already a permitted accessory structure on boat dock lots, and I think what you're trying to do is allow boat lift canopies to be a permitted accessory structure -- Page 75 August 23, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MS. ISTENES: -- on boat dock lots. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the intent of your motion; is that correct? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was my intent, yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the intent of the second; is that correct? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8-1. Thank you. Two hours and six minutes, we're done with the canopy issue for the LDC amendments, second cycle. Thank you all for attending, for those that were involved in this issue. N ow I need to ask from the audience, who is here for any other issue? Page 76 August 23, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. Catherine, we have two staff members here, Mr. Bosi and -- MS. FABACHER: And Ms. Jourdan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Jourdan. MS. FABACHER: Mrs. Jourdan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't we take their issues next. MS. FABACHER: All righty, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're so happy, they don't want to leave. MR. ALLEN: We want to thank you guys very much. ***** CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to first tell us what pages we need to start following you on, and then we'll be able to work together at this. MS. JOURDAN: For the record, Jean Jourdan, comprehensive planning department, senior planner. According to the page I have, it's 17, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is the-- MS. JOURDAN: -- hopefully we have the same page. MS. FABACHER: And I believe you all got a -- Catherine Fabacher, for the record. I have a green -- have this on green paper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a smart growth issue. MS. JOURDAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. JOURDAN: Yes. What this is, the Planning Commission had heard this before. It is LDC amendments to implement two existing growth management neighborhood subdistricts. This is regulations to implement those subdistricts. First of all, I just wanted to point out that the Planning Commission had directed staff to make some changes. Staff made those changes. In addition to the changes the Planning Commission Page 77 August 23, 2006 asked staff to do, we also did some deletions in the sign area. The reason we did that, the because language is already in the LDC so, therefore, it was redundant. Also the Planning Commission had asked that I give them some information showing the language which was already in the Growth Management Plan which is now in these LDC regulations. So if you look on page -- starting on page 18, number 2A, you'll see GMP A, okay -- I have a handout if you'd like that, which corresponds with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. I mean, I don't know if we -- what is it, the GMP language? MS. JOURDAN: Yes, yes. So if anyone -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we need them. MS. JOURDAN: No one needs it, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we're fine. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. The changes are done in strike-through underline, so -- actually double strike-through double underline. So if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with page -- oh, Mr. Adelstein would like to see the GMP language that you have. MS. JOURDAN: Anyone else want a copy? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You might as well give them all one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need one. Why don't we start with page 18 and just go through the pages page by page and see if there are any comments so that we can work our way through the pages that we have. Does anybody have any questions on page 18 of this issue? Jean, the only thing I'd like to point out is I still am concerned, although the FAR, 2B, produces an FAR of .18, that's so low that I Page 78 August 23, 2006 don't know why anybody would do it. But having said that, if it's in the GMP we're stuck with it. I think the proof is going to be, if nothing happens with these amendments over a period of time, then we're going to have to come back and amend them again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Amend an amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I just wanted to make that statement. MS. JOURDAN: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any -- nothing on 18? Let's go to 19. And Jean, on G on 19 it looks like you have to build four units per acre. Is that what that's saying? MS. JOURDAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you wanted to come in with a lower density project, you couldn't do it. You'd still be -- you've got to do at least four? MS. JOURDAN: Correct. In order to use the subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, okay. And on M, all buildings shall be limited to five stories. Since that is the language in the GMP, by implementing language in the LDC, we can't say five stories means X number of feet high? MS. JOURDAN: Yes. We can be -- we can be more -- we can clarify more so. We can add on, but we can't take away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest that we add the distance for the height. Five stories? I mean, some developer is going to 25 feet per floor and you've got a hundred-foot high building. So is there a consideration for height that the board would like to see? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Fifty feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me give insight on the word story. But, you know, this -- I went over that last time and you said we couldn't touch it, because I gave the example of you could put Page 79 August 23, 2006 a mezzanine in and that wouldn't count as a story, so essentially what appears to be two floors is one story, so we could get a 10-story building -- the appearance of a 10-story building out of this, but you said we couldn't change that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, staff at the time indicated we wouldn't change the GMP language. I think what we're indicating now is we can change it as long as it is -- MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. In the LDC we can be more restrictive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which is fine. That was the intent as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the height? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to see 12 foot per or 60 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you're the architect. You've got-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that would be the zoned height, which is -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's fine. I mean, I'd like to see, you know, 200 feet, but, you know -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Twelve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sixty feet's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixty feet zoned height IS the recommendation that we're providing. Anybody else have any issues on page 19? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm not happy with the 60 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, you might as well get it on the table now, because this is the last chance you get. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm really not happy with the 60 feet, and then going over with the rest of that. We've been dealing with 50 for a long time, and I'd like to see it stay that way. Page 80 August 23, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought commercial is 75 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I though 60 feet is a reduction from what's allowed. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: All these are only commercial? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is residential with a commercial component. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what I thought. And if I could pick which one I want, I'd rather have it my way with the 50 feet, because we've got both of them in there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The intent would be that they're mixed units. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the restriction is at 75, where commercial, standard commercial, we're actually bringing it down. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. On a commercial unit 12 foot per story is pretty common. Residential, you might be able to get away with a little less. And Brad, you could probably help me out with this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, when you said 12 per unit, I think the commercial would be greater than 12, but some of the residential could be less than 12. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then, of course, the penthouses. I forgot that. We have to add -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But if we could average it at 12. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll accept the 60 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, guys. Page 81 August 23, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sixty feet, yeah. Sixty feet is, I think, an acceptable five-story building with mixed uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Catherine, did you have a comment? MS. FABACHER: Yeah, thank you. Catherine Fabacher. Just a point of clarification. I think, was it Mr. Vigliotti, Mr. Murray, said that commercial allows 75 feet. That would be -- that would be C-4 commercial. These uses are limited to C-l to C-3. So just for a point of clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the maximum height in the C-3? MS. F ABACHER: I think it's -- what is it, Susan, 50? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Fifty feet. That's what I thought. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I personally have no objection to 50 feet if that's where this board wants to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, guys, yeah. Let him finish before -- MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. I have it. Catherine Fabacher. Maximum building height, C-l, 35 feet; C-2, 35 feet; C-3, 50 feet; C-4, 75 feet; C-5, 35 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: It says here that we're not to exceed the underlying zoning, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. That was the -- I'd forgotten that. That's a controlling factor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Mr. Adelstein's point -- so his -- well, wait a minute. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is valid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that added language, we don't need to peg a height to it because if it can't exceed the underlying zoning, then it doesn't really matter. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thirty-five. Page 82 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The whole thing's a moot point. Okay. We don't need to discuss the height then. It's covered by that point. Good catch. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, one more point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Fabacher? MS. FABACHER: Catherine Fabacher. But if it's mixed use, what is the underlying zoning? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's residential. MS. FABACHER: Well, it's residential. Some might be C-l in there, some might be C-2, some might be C-3. I don't know if this is a consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: W e'lllet staff deal with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, no. Let's not do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just kidding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay. You see how I didn't think that was silly. That does happen like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we should say, not to exceed the underlying zoning, but in no case greater than, and come up with a number. And if the underlying zoning that is currently in place, the maximum can be 50 feet, why don't we just say not to exceed 50 feet, and that covers anything up to that point. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- Catherine, you're looking at me agaIn. MS. FABACHER: On second thought, let me ask Jean. The underlying zoning would be a PUD, a residential PUD. MS. JOURDAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we now don't have C-l, -2 or -3 zoning applied here. We-- MS. FABACHER: We have those uses, but we don't have underlying zoning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Page 83 August 23, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's residential with A. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we do need to set a height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're back to where we started. It's been a great conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think if we want to try and accomplish something with the mixed use, I think 60 foot gives the developers a little more leeway to be a little more creative, give them a little more commercial component, second floor, third floor. I think the extra 10 foot will really help, and I think the areas they're going in, I don't think the 10 foot's really going to make a difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else got any -- Mr. Schiffer agrees. Anybody else got a comment on that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm still in line with the 50 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's see. Why don't we have a consensus then so we can get to a bottom line in this. How many like 60 feet? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four, five like -- six like 60 feet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Got ya. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means three like 50 feet, so 60 feet Page 84 August 23, 2006 carries the day. Thank you. Now let's go on to page 20. I have one question for staff. Since this is basically going to happen in exist -- or PUDs, and it would be residential PUDs with a commercial component, would it be better for the public, due to noticing, advertising and everything else, that maybe the commercial component be through a conditional use application so we can itemize what uses some are going where, because some neighborhoods may be better used for others? MS. JOURDAN: Well, since Mr. Bosi is the one who does the commercial one, I'll let him answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was wondering what he was here for. Okay. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, comprehensive planning. I'm not really quite sure of that statement. I'm not sure if -- because these are design guidelines for what you are rezoning a mixed-use project to a PUD. You want to put in that PUD that they're required, the commercial component's going to require a conditional use? Maybe I'm not understanding the question. Because these are -- these are design guidelines for projects that are going from probably agricultural -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: -- to mixed-use PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the fact they're adding commercial has to be done when they come in for the rezone for the mixed use to begin with? MR. BOSI: That could be part of the PUD process. That's part of the PUD process can be contemplated by this board and then ultimately the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I didn't understand that. Ms. Jourdan? MR. BOSI: Yeah. The commercial component I'm talking about Page 85 August 23, 2006 is a separate animal. But these ones are designed for the mixed-use PUD process. These are the guidelines where, when a mixed-use PUD is going to come before the Planning Commission, they'll have to follow these guidelines to implement the allocations of uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mike. Does that-- MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. What you are referring to would be for the C-l, C- 2 and C- 3 by right. This one is separate from that. It's residential, so it would have to come in in the form of a PUD, so, therefore, it would come before. It would be noticed, whereas the next one coming up wouldn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much for that clarification. Page 20? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, they don't have to be internally located though. I mean, do they? MS. JOURDAN: Excuse me? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, for example, 0 says, if the component is not internally located, then its frontage -- it gives a ratio, so there's nothing that's forcing the commercial to be internally MS. JOURDAN: No, no. The commercial does not have to be internal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it would fail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it would go through a process that vets it in the public, so that's all I was concerned with. MS. JOURDAN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The PUD process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have a question on page 20? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. Page 86 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 21? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, go ahead. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah. I'm sitting next to Brad so I'm getting all interested in design numbers now. Looking at this overhang, it has eight feet plus five feet, which is 13 feet. Is that not a rather long overhang for an awning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a canopy. That will be a street lift canopy. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: With or without the lift? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We went through this the last time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's not a cantilever. I mean, it can be supported, so structurally it's available. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, you have eight feet of it tied up with -- I'm sorry, quite a bit of it tied up with dining area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So how much you go out past the dining area is not a lot. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It just seemed to me to be large. Maybe it's not. I'll just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, the court reporter is very carefully trying to look from person to person. I'll try to look more at each of you, and we need to be recognized in order to speak. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: NO, it's not your fault. I've been letting it go. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think the 13 feet comprised Page 87 August 23, 2006 two different things. One is an eight-foot dining and display zone, and the other one is a five-foot minimum pedestrian travel zone. So they encompassed -- it encompasses two separate activities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Ifwe look at the picture of it, you're looking at the awning or arcade. That is not 13 feet. The tree area is where they put that. It would seem to me you're talking about more like 10, 11 or 12 feet where the awning -- or on the arcade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think, doesn't it -- Jean, doesn't it sayan eight-foot dining area and a five-foot pedestrian travel zone? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yep. MS. JOURDAN: Yes. There's language in here which corresponds with the sketch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It says five feet minimum street plant zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you looking? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right here. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're in a different place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. This one points to this -- it's outside of it. This one is five feet and this one is eight. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Eight. And this one up here is going to this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the 13 feet we're talking about is between here and here. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Got ya, okay. Okay, excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a lot of different copies of stuff, so the stuff piles up on us. Mr. Kolflat, did you get your question answered yet? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? Page 88 August 23, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Just one thing. This-- would there be no right-of-ways or anything in this area, right, Bob, right? These are all internal -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bob, I mean-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob Murray? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I should ask staff? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is going to have to be the one to interpret this. Bob can speak to the intent, certainly. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The answer -- what is the question again so I'm sure? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question was, is I'm concerned on this sketches, especially on the other one, where the right-of-way would be in the sketch if there was one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The answer may be, there isn't one, you know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The answer is that the road was intended to be internal and private and that this is a rendering that is a general rendering, and it provides alternatives. It was to try and capture the sense of it and not every specific. And so in terms of an awning or an arcade or any of the other factors there, these were to comply with the building codes, to be structurally sufficient to do the job, et cetera. And I'll go further and say, the dining and -- dining and display zone, or more the dining zone, could also be outside, and the sidewalk can meander. It was an -- trying to establish a set of parameters to work from visually. And -- did I cover that? That was the intent. And how do you folks feel? MR. BOSI: Correct, and the very first part of the statements were the most important. These are internal, and the right-of-way Page 89 August 23, 2006 exists at the street and only at the street. The right-of-way design for these do not intermix with the pedestrian pathway section. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 21? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry. If we could go back to 20. I just wanted to look at what now is Q, the setback for proj ects which are adjacent to residentially zoned properties shall be minimum of 15 feet. The question arose last time, 15 feet, but no buffer requirement. Where did that go? MR. BOSI: The Land Development Code will require buffers from this project to its neighboring projects. I don't know-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Between-- MR. BOSI: -- if there was a -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It will, okay. MR. BOSI: -- buffer requirement included -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Because I'm just -- MS. BOSI: -- in the last version. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just looking at questions that came up at the last meeting. MR. BOSI: Yeah. The Land Development Code will still mandate the appropriate buffering type based upon the adjacent property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, you had a comment? MS. F ABACHER: Yeah, a little clarification. Thank you, Ms. Caron. I think if you look at number 5 on page 22 and actually going over to small Roman numeral v on 23, it says, landscape buffers per section 4.06.02 of the code. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But there are no landscape buffers required internal to the project, just external? MS. F ABACHER: Well, you'll recall this is that -- Page 90 August 23, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what everybody's happy with. MS. FABACHER: -- commercial and urban-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, guys, please. Ms. Caron asked a question. Ms. Fabacher, you want to -- if you can answer it, fine. If not, we'll ask Mr. Murray. MS. FABACHER: The -- it would indicate that -- the text would indicate what you said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, did you want to contribute any more to that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for clarification, if any is needed, the -- again, the idea was that this is treated as a proj ect. There can be freestanding residential, there can be a mixed commercial with residential so that they would have an expectation of some foliage around, but not buffering in the way that we generally see it. The buffering would occur on the outskirts of the project adjacent to any other project. So everything internal is considered the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other -- we're on page 21, or up to page 21. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Still 21. I'd like to follow up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- on Mike's answer. Mike? And the concern I'm having is where would setbacks and all that be measured from this profile? And let me give a situation. Let's say that we build -- we have a street and we're going to put the commercial up on the street, and we meet the ratio that's defined. Where is the property line in that sketch? MR. BOSI: Where is the property line and -- are you talking for the overall project? Are you talking for the individual parcel that sits a building? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, anyone. You can give me Page 91 August 23, 2006 -- where's the overall -- this is on the perimeter of the project. I'm up against the street right-of-way, thus I'm not internal. Where's there property line? I'm allowed to have commercial there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That doesn't apply. MR. BOSI: The property line would be where the boundary of the property line is designated on the survey. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So there -- the setbacks that I would be building from are given to me where? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They're not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's no underlying zoning anymore, so it would be purely reviewing the PUD as to where you placed your building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Once again, the intent of this was that if you were to build on an arterial or a collector, all of the LDC requirements, all stringencies would apply. If you have a road internal -- and you just said external, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if you have a road internal, that is essentially -- whether it's subdivided or not, that's essentially within the project, and that is according to the developer's interest. But any frontage on a major or a collector would then be subject to all the stringencies of the code. So whatever is appropriate would have to be followed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, please wait to be recognized. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought you did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I hadn't got that far yet. I was trying to. So that way we have a pause between speakers and this young lady can accurately reflect everything. Any other questions on up to page 21 ? (No response.) Page 92 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have two. Mr. Bosi, how wide would the roadway be? Not anything but the roadway, curb to curb. MR. BOSI: And are you referring to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Internal. MR. BOSI: -- internal street projects? It would be the minimum allowed by the transportation department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's 50 feet, from what my understanding is. What do -- or what do you think? MR. BOSI: What do I think should be the minimum street requirement for an internal street project for a mixed-use project? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Here's where-- MR. BOSI: Twenty-four feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Here's where I'm going, Mike. You've got 24 feet there and you've got 42 feet on the two sides of this internal right-of-way. So that gives you what, 80 some odd feet. To do a commercial project right now you don't need 80 feet. You need 40 or 50 feet right-of-way. Fifty feet, I think, is what the minimum is, and some PUDs have come forward and asked for less. Where are you going to put the service utilities, FPL, UTS, Sprint, Time Warner, the gas company? Because right now Bayshore has come in and realized that what we had pointed out to them during their process was, that by putting your buildings right on the edge of your right-of-way, you've got a problem where utilities could go. Right here you have a problem because if your right-of-way is the street, you can't pave over, you can't put awnings over, you can't put trees over, you can't put benches over, utility easements. The utilities are going to say no because they've got to come in with backhoes and rip it up every time they want to put a new line in and replace it. So has anybody determined where those utilities may go in a project like this? MR. BOSI: That would be a question -- I would have to say that -- I'm not sure if the Smart Growth Committee contemplated that. I Page 93 August 23, 2006 would think that the utilities would have to be located under the sidewalks in some manner. And what your statement is saying, the utility company would not do that, they would have to rip up the sidewalk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A sidewalk they might, but not -- you've got awnings now over the sidewalks. So you've got tables sitting on top of the sidewalks underneath the awnings. And I'm just wondering how far you're going to be able to go with the utility companies when they're going to have to have lines that are going to be active underneath those areas. And Mr. Murray, if you have -- did you guys contemplate any of that during your discussions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. In fact, this is exactly, I think, the same question you asked the last time which was -- I think the answer came back that there were vaults that they talked about initially at the point where it's closest to the street itself. As far as ripping up sidewalks to get to -- I would agree with you, that's probably not a desirable thing to have to do that, but I can't imagine them having to do that very often. Now, I'm -- now, going beyond that, I don't know how to answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason I'm pointing it out -- and vaults, yes, you could do vaults. You still have to have access to the vaults. I just put in two 120-foot long vaults. I can tell you the cost is absolutely phenomenal. I can also tell you that when you are requiring at least 80 feet of paved surface between end to end, that's far in excess of what the minimum is in the code now. And it goes back -- I'm not against this. In fact, you know, we recommend approval to go forward. That's fine. But I don't think you've got anything in here to give anybody any incentive to do this program. In fact, it's a disincentive to do this program because you're taking your FAR and dropping it down to such a low ratio compared Page 94 August 23, 2006 to anywhere else in the county you could go and not have these restrictions, then at the same time, having to deal with things like vaults and wider right-of-ways that aren't required anywhere else in the code, you've taken any productive land, not produced productive land. I just think it's -- I mean, I think we're going to have real serious problems with seeing this happen in this county. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I wish we'd had you on the committee, because I don't think we had your skill or knowledge in that area. But I can tell you the contemplation was to create a difference from the standard that exists today. You get more street and more use of your land without having this elongated sidewalk or wider sidewalk, this pathway. So I don't know. I mean, this is an attempt. You're probably right; I can't argue with you. You know your business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And don't give up too fast, Bob. The experience I've had with these mixed-use things, this is a private area. It's not going to be a public right-of-way. It doesn't have to meet those standards. It certainly has to meet roadway widths, fire department turns, stuff like that. But the utilities will probably be in the back of the building. Whenever now we're designing these downtown kind of things, we're certainly not treating these little pedestrian streets, which are essentially the evolution of a shopping mall, we're not going to put utilities through that. You'd be behind the buildings. What Bob's picture here, I think, is doing is trying to create the profile of a little downtown street. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It probably wouldn't have the utilities running in the sections in this profile. They would be coming in from the other side of the buildings. Page 95 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the concept and what is trying to be done here is good. It would be nice to have this in Collier County. We could walk around the streets and have -- I think it's a great idea. In order to see it happen I was concerned that there's not enough incentive here to make it happen. That was my only comment. I'm not against this. In fact, I was certainly hoping we were going to recommend approval of this revised language so that we could at least get it on the table. And then if it doesn't start to happen in a fair amount of time, maybe we would look at new amendments to the LDC to make it more incentivized. Who knows? But I was just concerned about some of the restrictions based on what I'm seeing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, your question, I'm concerned, because it means they didn't get it right. This is not a dedicated right-of-way running down the street of this thing. Does anybody think so? I mean, because if it is, it would have those problems. If it's just a private drive within a downtown, a little shopping area -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a -- dedicated right-of-way means dedicated to the county. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there are right-of-ways on plats that aren't dedicated to the county, and that's what people normally drive down. So it's dedicated in the sense it is a right-of-way. It just isn't Collier County's right-of-way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But does it have to have the utilities in it where Collier wants it, or could they feed the buildings from the back alley or the back? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You could figure -- I mean, I haven't seen it done, but I'm sure it can be done. I mean, it's just something that has got to be thought out, and I didn't know if that was addressed or not, and that's why I asked the question. Page 96 August 23, 2006 So with that, I don't need to dwell on that issue any more unless you all want to. But we can go on to page 22. Anybody have any questions on 22? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 23? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 24? Under 7A, you reference visually interesting. I'm just -- don't know how clarifying visually interesting is, because there's a lot of opinions on what is visually interesting. Mr. Schiffer has a book of strange, strange things that would not be accepted in Collier County, but they are visually interesting. So I'm not sure if visually interesting works. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But clarify that they're buildings you're talking about, okay. You're talking about buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The court reporter can skip all that if she wants. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. That would be a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He has a very unique book of buildings all over the country, but I'm not sure that those would fit into Collier County. So visually interesting, I'm just wondering if there's a better way to -- better terminology that you could suggest using. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It is smart growth language. I imagine it's probably commonly used language too, but it is smart growth. That's right out of their books, so -- MR. BOSI: I would suggest that the language really doesn't provide a design criteria, but it kind of gives the reader the impression that there's going to be visually interesting, and then the regulations that create the visually interesting follow beneath it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you think that language is something Page 97 August 23, 2006 you can deal with when it comes to you, that's fine. But I hate to see you come back in here with an angry customer or angry citizen that says, this is visually interesting to me, and look what I can build, and then his neighbors get upset. So I -- you know, I'll continue on. Anything on page 2- -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: B on page 24. Originally you were supposed to pick one of the following. Now it's just an option. Is that MS. JOURDAN: Right. This is the way the language was intended to be written. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MS. JOURDAN: But it got written the other way, so we changed it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on 24? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-five? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-six? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-seven? COMMISSION MURRAY: Could I just make a point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The statement was made -- Jean had made the statement that they removed the sign language because it had been approved. It really hadn't been approved yet. It had been recommended for approval. Diana Compagnone came before us with language. So the assumption is, if that's approved, this will be approved? MS. JOURDAN: Well, I'm not an expert in the sign area, but Diana had asked that we remove this because she said it was already existing code. Page 98 August 23, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I know that what came before us before was approved here; the sign language was approved here. I think almost all of it; if not all of it. And so that would, hand in glove with this. But if it should turn out that that's not approved for whatever reason, or pieces of it are not approved, that this would all go down the tube. MS. JOURDAN: I'll make sure that I check with Diana on that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please. So I mean, this is the same as what was written and forwarded through us, and we agreed with that. So I would hope that -- I can understand why we wouldn't want redundancy, but I'm concerned that it's not yet already approved. That would be my issue. MS. JOURDAN: No, see, it was my understanding that this language already existed in the code, therefore, it didn't need to be in here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if I'm in error, that's fine, but I'd just rather be protected. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. I will check into that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 27? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 28? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty-eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-eight, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Down at the bottom, you're saying that it has to meet -- and you're coming up with codes, I mean, not exactly worded right. So wouldn't it be better if we said, would meet the governing codes? I mean, because it isn't exactly the fair housing act accessibility. It's the fair housing act. But I mean, in other words, codes are going to govern the handicap accessibility. We can't control which ones they are. We can't tell people to use some and not others. So wouldn't it be wise just to go -- just say, the governing codes and stay out of the -- Page 99 August 23, 2006 because, for example, I can think of three codes. Does that mean I don't have to meet the third one? MS. JOURDAN: Actually I can't answer that because I got this -- I'm not an expert in that. You have to remember I'm kind of like the keeper of this document, not the author of the entire document. And I got this from Russ Muller, and he's the one who gave me the information and asked me to put this in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. County Attorney, could you help with us this one? MR. KLATZKOW: I think Mr. Schiffer's correct. I think saying something to the effect that, and meet all applicable codes would be better than this language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. KLATZKOW: And after, all codes do change and names do change, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. Can you state what you wanted in there again, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I would say, meet the governing codes, you don't need to use the word governing. You could use applicable. MR. KLATZKOW: All applicable codes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Say, and meet all applicable codes, and you strike the rest of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it on 28? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move to 29. Questions on 29? I have a couple. Up on top, little double i. Parking structures without ground floor retail. And I probably asked this question before; I don't remember the answer. Does that mean if you put in 10 square feet of ground floor retail, or whatever the minimum is, then you qualify, or Page 100 August 23, 2006 do we need to put a -- do you intend a minimum there? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You did ask that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I'm just wondering if the intended -- what is the minimum that someone could get by with and qualify for double i? Are you worried about that? MS. JOURDAN: Well, Nancy Gundlach, who has expertise in landscaping, she's the one who put this language in here. And the last time she did address the issue when you had raised it before, but I don't remember what her answer was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're a lot younger than me. You should remember these things. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Somebody answered it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember either, but if she answered it satisfactory, fine. Maybe you could check with her if she didn't. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Triple i -- and I asked this before, too. All structures with uncovered parking on the top level shall have planter rooftops around the perimeter. Was the intent 100 percent around the perimeter, or were there allowed to be breaks? MS. JOURDAN: Well, we added, per spacing requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ah. Well, what is that? MR. BOSI: One tree every 10 spaces. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then number, double i, f, on the bottom, commercial areas must utilize on-street parking to meet at least a portion of the parking requirement. How much is at least? One? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought we had more language in there for that previously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just curious, if it's at least, can someone just say, we're going to count one parking space, and that meets the at least. Is that what the intent was? Page 101 August 23, 2006 MR. BOSI: I don't know what the intent was. I know that the argument from an applicant would be one is at least. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: It satisfies that. I don't know if that was the intent, if we wanted more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that be acceptable to staff? Or are you thinking more would be necessary? Are you trying to get somewhere, is I guess what I'm trying to ask. Was there a goal you hoped to reach by that statement? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I could talk to intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What my recollection of intent IS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In such a small area, what we had -- our intent was to provide most -- most of the parking elsewhere in the rear in the parking structure, whatever, and that the minimal parking that would be available for commercial would be used basically for handicap. That was the intent, okay. Now, we recognize that there would be other cars on there. But I mean, at least one. I thought there was more language to this. You didn't change -- this wasn't modified? MS. JOURDAN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That was my recollection of it. I do agree it needs to be tuned up just a bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would staff -- and I would feel comfortable with staff realizing there's an issue between now and the BCC meeting and make some kind of -- Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Catherine Fabacher, for the record. I had spoken with Nick in transportation, and he said that this couldn't happen on collectors or arterials. It would be local streets only. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. Page 102 August 23, 2006 MS. F ABACHER: I don't know if it says that there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think there needs to be some cleanup done to this. I'm just suggesting, as part of our recommendation to go forward, to provide some more clarification. It's to your benefit anyway, so -- MS. JOURDAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 30? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before you go -- and there was a question you brought up on double -- or triple i. I think that, you know, Mike, you came quick with that answer. Oh, you mean the island spacing. Could we put that in there and then say, per island spacing requirement or something? Because that isn't clear here. And Mark's question was good, your answer was good. But let's make sure somebody reading this at midnight would come to the same answer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Per island space. MS. JOURDAN: Was that on triple i? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's on -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Up above. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Back to Roman number three or something, or triple i or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the second question I asked on this page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that -- and just, I would say, per island spacing or per parking lot island spacing, or something that comes to the answer as fast as you did, okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question for you, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to understand that. You see, I think, you know, the intent here was to try and get it nice Page 103 August 23, 2006 and spaced out relative to Mark's question that time. But I'm trying to figure out how this correlates when you use an island, because there may not be an island at the top of the roof on the top of a parking structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. But what -- the spacing requirement is that of an island, and that's what you're saying, right? So you would go to the landscape code, find out what the spacing required for a parking lot island, then come back here and use that spacing. I think that's what happened. MR. BOSI: That's how I as a staff member would interpret that regulation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't have landscape island COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I defer to -- MR. BOSI: That was the intent, or this -- if that wasn't the intent, I'm not aware -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have an intent that I have a recollection of. And I certainly defer. MS. JOURDAN: This was put in by Nancy, so I will check with her to see exactly what the intent was, and maybe we can clarify it a little better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be a good thing. Thank you. Anything else on 29? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll, at lightning speed, move to 30. Any questions on page 30? Jean, your first paragraph up on top where it says, the second sentence, the shared parking analysis methodology will be determined and agreed upon by county staff. Do you need criteria in order to be able to adequately say you agree upon it, or how arbitrary is your agreement going to be? Page 104 August 23, 2006 MS. JOURDAN: This language already exists in the code, and we -- actually, I believe -- no, this was taken out of Ave Maria, was where this was taken out of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just made me feel completely uncomfortable now. MS. JOURDAN: Sorry, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I definitely like to see how you're going to clarify it. MS. JOURDAN: Maybe Catherine can answer that, because we did get input on this. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. Catherine Fabacher, for the record. I think you just have to agree on the methodology you want to use. Earlier in the cycle we had proposed a methodology, but then other minds had prevailed and said we shouldn't really define one. We should just have one that the transportation can agree to use with the applicant. It's like, you look at the different peak hours and the type of use and see what kind of traffic it's going to generate. You're not going to put four restaurants together and hope to share parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only question I have is, is this -- can someone come back, if one proj ect uses one agreed upon methodology and it gives them a better outcome than another, could an applicant come in and feel that they were not fairly treated and have some cause of action with the county? MS. FABACHER: That's a legal question, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you like that, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: No. I think you're between -- fix an old problem. I mean, the more criteria you put in here, the less staffs going to be able to actually work with an applicant. The looser you put it, the greater the applicant's going to have to say, this isn't fair. So it's a balancing act. I mean, you can define everything and Page 105 August 23, 2006 then get to a point where nobody does anything because there's no flexibility, or you can keep it very flexible and, you know, hope that everybody can sit down and put together a reasonably prudent plan. It's just a balancing act really. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't have a problem with it, then I certainly don't. Ms. Caron, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's fine. I checked my notes from before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have another one on page 30 if nobody else does. V, triple i, I think that's 8, although it's not a Roman numeral, I don't think. Last sentence, if parking spaces are to be used to meet a residential parking requirement, that may not then be utilized to meet a portion of the commercial requirement. Here we go back with portions again. What portion? Any portion? How about just the word none then? MR. BOSI: To me that doesn't sound like it's utilizing a portion. It's trying to make the statement that if you utilized on-street parking -- that on-street parking for residential, you can't use it for commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's where I'm going. That's why -- don't you want to make it more definitive? MR. BOSI: I would agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or you could say, utilized to meet any of the commercial requirements, something like that. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And lOA, loading docks, solid waste facilities, recycling facilities and other service elements shall be placed to the rear or side yards of the building in visually unobtrusive locations with minimum impacts on views. Are you comfortable being able to weigh that in in an applicant's Page 106 August 23, 2006 submittal as far as what's visually unobtrusive? I mean, it's all back to arbitrary language. We have so much of it in the code, and so many times it puts staff on the line for making a judgment call that they later get criticized for. If you guys are comfortable with it, that fine. I just wanted to point it out to you. And if you have a better suggestion, you might want to make it. If not, then we'll just go forward. MR. BOSI: The one thing I will say about this language is whatever determination staff would make upon this, you're going to have the opportunity to review it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're dumping it back on us. Thanks, Mike. COMMISSIONER CARON: Good job, Mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we've wrapped up the first part of the smart growth. And honestly, it will be the only part we get to tonight. I'm assuming we can take a motion for anything we want to do. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'd like a motion we forward to the commission a recommendation of approval with the amendments we made. Part of that motion, I wouldn't mind, after you make the amendments prior to the commission meeting, that you send them to us, at least email to them to us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you made the motion in reference to planned unit development district section 2.03.06 LDC amendment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what the second has done, too? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both nodded affirmatively. Any other discussion on this issue? Page 107 August 23, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. With that, I think we'll end our discussion for tonight. We will continue this meeting until 8:30 on the 29th of August. And for that meeting, Mr. Adelstein will be starting out the meeting because I will be having teeth worked on which is a very -- I'd rather be here, can you believe that, than having teeth work on? So I will be late that meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: At 8:30? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thursday (sic) the 29th at 8:30. MS. FABACHER: No, excuse me. Tuesday the 29th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Tuesday the 29th at 8:30. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Next Tuesday? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. Tuesday. One week from today. No. MS. FABACHER: From yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From yesterday. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those teeth really are bothering you. Page 108 August 23, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll-- MS. FABACHER: Could we -- excuse me, Mr. Chair. We talked about what we were going to hear then, and we -- didn't we decide that -- should we hear this first? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to do is, why don't we finish the smart growth issue right away in the morning and get that done, and that's something that I'm not -- MS. FABACHER: I think we said environmental. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, then environmental. Then I would hope transportation, because that's -- MS. FABACHER: Well, also then we've got the Bayshore and the administrative deviation, and hopefully we're trying to get transportation for after lunch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? Why? MS. F ABACHER: Well, I'll have them come sit here all day if that's what you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I don't want anybody to sit here even as much as we do, Catherine. But the last time we took the environmental first and transportation second because a lot of the people that were here for environmental were experts and professionals who also wanted to comment on the transportation. Is there a reason we can't have them follow the same sequence that we did originally? Because Bayshore/Gateway was not first up last time around. MS. FABACHER: That's true, but I think Mr. White and -- Mr. White and Mr. Fernandez had asked that they could be heard then. I don't think they can come on the 30th, so I'll ask them if after lunch is okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you please? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I don't mind accommodating them, but I don't see any reason why they can't accommodate us in Page 109 August 23, 2006 regards to how we did the process last time. I'd rather be consistent with the way we processed forward in our last review. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. In working with the EMS on that section of code, they actually requested if they could have a time certain when theirs would be coming up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's after we get done with environmental, transportation, and Bayshore. That's as certain as I can tell them right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So would it be Tuesday we'd get to them or we don't know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't see why we wouldn't, Brad, but I can't give you a time. Tuesday morning -- by noontime Tuesday we can probably give them a definitive time for the afternoon. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or the next day or whenever it's happening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or whenever, yeah. Mr. Adelstein, did you have something? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we will reconvene here Tuesday. Thank you. Page 110 August 23, 2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:00 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 111