Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/30/2006 S August 30, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 30, 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 1 :00 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Brad Schiffer Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Tor Kolflat Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff ( absent) Paul Midney ( absent) ALSO PRESENT: Catherine Fabacher, Principal Planner, Zoning & Land Development Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. This is a continuation of a meeting that started last week for the second hearing of the LDC Amendments First Cycle. And the secretary will please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff is absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to start today with the issues that involve the huge number of people in our audience. Richard Y ovanovich is the first one and then the young lady from code enforcement. We will do that next. So Richard's issue is starting on the -- this is the STP issue. I believe that is on page -- well, there's a discrepancy on the pages. Do we know, Catherine, what page it starts with? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the white pages, 219. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Two-nineteen. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Two-nineteen on the white. Page 2 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have 209 on one of mine so... COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Rich, is this LDC -- (Multiple speakers.) MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 10.02-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 03-B-4-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: B4 -- 4B and C. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That is on page 219. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Of the white pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Has everybody gotten there? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Not yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are we all set? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Catherine, do you have any information before we ask Richard what his concerns are? MS. FABACHER: Catherine Fabacher for the record. You'll recall that Tom Cook came and spoke on this the first time on our first hearing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. FABACHER: And there seemed to be some confusion about how they had thought it was taking away their time. And the way Tom explained it, it adds to their time as far as -- I think that's Mr. Y ovanovich's concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that the only comment you're going to have? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that's all-- MS. FABACHER: At this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm not asking you to make stuff up. But if that's all you have on it, that's fine. And, Richard-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: For the record, Richard Y ovanovich still Page 3 August 30, 2006 on behalf of Collier Enterprises. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have to. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. I tried to do the simple math about how this is actually adding time and it simply doesn't add up. The -- the original rationale that was in the first cover sheet was that you were actually providing more time by making the changes. And in reality you're not. Because previously you were getting SDP issues. You get your approval of it. And then you would have up to two years before you pulled -- you actually started work on the SDP. That gave you your opportunities to get your building permits approved, get all your contractors in -- in line. And then you had, I believe, 18 months to complete construction. And you get a six-month extension. The way this now reads is you have two years from the dates you get your approval letter, assuming I got the right version, you get your approval letter from the county to start and finish construction of your horizontal improvements and you can get a one-year extension. So if you do the math, the best you're going to have -- the longest period of your time you're going to have is three years under the new revision. Previously you had 30 -- 18 months. So that would be two years plus 18 months plus another six months which would be four years, correct, if I do the math right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had done the same kind of math. And my -- my notes say the same thing you've just said. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And -- and I think reality is -- is you're probably not going to go forward with your site improvements until you get your building permit. Or I shouldn't say, not everybody, but a lot of developers will wait until they have their building plans approved to get all of these coming at one time. And with this world of contractors as busy as they are for site improvements and for vertical construction, you may not be able to get it all done in a two-year period. And that's why I'm simply saying we should go back. And I think I put it in my letter to everybody. Page 4 August 30, 2006 What I'm saying is go back to the way it used to be. Two years to -- two years to start construction. Two years to get done with a one-year extension is what I'm recommending. A two, two and one scenario and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think a simpler procedure is if this doesn't -- if this isn't clear enough and it doesn't make an improvement as to what staff intended to those reading it, then I don't know why we would even need to consider it. Just leave the system as it is. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I certainly don't want to go backwards. I would like to do two, two and one. But if we go back to the way it was, at least it's -- I believe people understood how it works and were comfortable with that scheduling to get things done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What was the reason staff came up with this in the first place, to make it more confusing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They got -- I believe the intent to bring it up was to actually lengthen the time frame to help, but I think the way it's written it doesn't do that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's the point I'm trying to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When Tom was here, he explained it in the way that he saw it that it did do it. But, unfortunately, the public that's reading it, including myself and now Richard aren't seeing it that way. It's nice that there was an attempt to change the time frame. I don't know if we need to make it apparently worse than it is. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that the change was made to eliminate the ability to delay the start of construction up to two years. So your reasoning for this amendment is not what is stated here to us. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think they changed the reasoning. If Page 5 August 30, 2006 you go back and look at the original sheets, and I don't have them with me, it did say originally it was to increase -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Not what I have. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. If you look at the new rationale, they changed the rationale. The original rationale was to give you more time to get it done. And now they've change it to say , Well, no. Really what we're trying to do is eliminate that initial two-year period which is less time. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's why I asked the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are we in a situation now where we have to deny this as it exists or do we make a motion to deny it to make it go away? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Just make a recommendation. If we don't agree that this is better language and if we don't want to change the language, we just simply say we make a recommendation to deny. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We have to make a motion or a recommendation or a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation. A motion to make a recommendation. We have to vote on it, but -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Ms. Caron, you had an issue, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I'm just reading off of the very first sheet that we received. And it states one thing in the change and a separate thing in the reason for the change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the two do not jive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reasoning is what I was referring to. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly, yeah. Page 6 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reasoning says, Complaints from the community -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Being enough time to complete the project. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And what I'm referring to, I'm sorry, it was the first change sheet you saw when this originally came through. The change and the reason both said there wasn't adequate time. So I don't know what -- I don't know what's happened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you have a concern? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do. And this is the only sheet I've seen. I haven't seen more than one if anybody else has. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Maybe I -- maybe I -- maybe I was referring in my letter to the reason and not the change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Richard, one of the things I think you may have wrong, he has the date of the approval letter. Then he goes, i.e., commencement of construction. Would the approval letter and commencement of construction be the same date? I don't necessarily think so. I think that he's thinking he's doing us a favor and he's not. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You get -- you get your approval letter and it says -- it's like your building permit. You get an approval letter and you have X amount of time to come pick it up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. How many of those are renewed constantly? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. So I think -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The thought is is there something we could do to his wording but change the years to give us the equivalent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the equivalent is there now, what do we need to change it for? Why mess it up? I mean, I know the system works now because I was actually involved in an SDP that was forced to complete their work within a time frame. And it happened. It Page 7 August 30, 2006 worked. So I'm just wondering why mess with it? Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then I guess the reason we would deny is the date of approval letter is not the commencement of construction; thus, the logic then kind of falls apart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we have to provide a reason. Simply we recommend whatever we want to recommend. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I would like to recommend that we reject it based upon it's ambiguous and it's way too confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion to recommend denial of 10.02.03B.4.B and C. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second on the motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next issue I'd like us to take up today is to accommodate the young lady from code enforcement. And I'm sorry. I forgot your name so... Page 8 August 30, 2006 MS. DANTINI: That's fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to help us by telling us what page you're on. MS. DANTINI: Okay. This is actually on page 195. And, Catherine, I hope that they've gotten the amended -- MS. FABACHER: Yes, they do. It's on -- it should be on a golden rod sheet. MS. DANTINI: Thank you. Sharon Dantini, for the record, Code Enforcement Training Coordinator. And the last time that we came before you, you had had some questions and asked us to complete a few things. In addition to the amended ordinance based on your recommendations, you should have a copy of a handout that has a picture on the top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was a very good example. Thank you. That worked out real well. It was really easy to see what you were talking about with those kinds of pictures. MS. DANTINI: Thank you. What I'd like to point out about this example, first of all, is that this person actually did comply with this. This is used only for an example. So I always hesitate when I use a person's property that they're afraid that we're going to use them as an example. So I do want to point out that this particular -- in this particular instance, we did not have to issue a stop work order. They actually did comply with this voluntarily. So with that said, the information -- we have the two GIS pictures on top. And I think that may be what I'll do is put this up here too. MS. F ABACHER: Upside down, Sharon. MS. DANTINI: I'm sorry? MS. FABACHER: Upside down. I don't think it matters. MS. DANTINI: Okay. We have the two GIS pictures. You can see one's a little bit darker than the other in those pictures, but the picture on the left is the picture before the property was actually cleared. Page 9 August 30, 2006 The picture on the right, and that's right here, the picture on the right is the one where they actually did clear the property. This is a two-acre parcel of land. And when people obtain a building permit, it, of course, only allows one acre of clearing for that particular property. On the next page we wanted to show you some of the examples of the damage that was done to the property. And, again, on the visualizer, they're not showing very well, but they actually had cleared almost the entire property. There were just a few trees standing when our code enforcement investigator received a call to go out and inspect the property. This was a -- this was a complaint that was phoned in to us. And, again, with the next page is the example of the clearing that was done, the sizes of the trees. The investigator had placed their foot on the stump of the tree to show you the actual size of the trees that had been cut down. That next sheet that you have there, I'm just going to take it here so I can read it a little bit. What I did was to show the proposed citation process or if we should have to issue a stop work order. In other words, this person has not voluntarily complied with us and stopped work based on our stop work order. Then what we would like to be able to do is to issue a citation at that point in time. The maximum penalty would be $500 for the citation. And, again, that's a maximum. It may not necessarily be that much. This person can then contest that citation through the office of the special master. That's done two times per month. If they're found not guilty, then there would be no fine assessed. If they're found guilty, then administrative costs may also be assessed for staff time involved in pursuing the case. Depending -- depending upon the case circumstances, the costs may include the following things on this particular case. After the fact, fees, which are up to four times the original permit fee, and restoration costs ranging from $40,000 per acre to $120,000 per acre. Page 10 August 30, 2006 It's pretty expensive. Under the current process, what we would do if someone should choose to not follow our stop work order is to obtain an injunction and there would be costs involved with that, of course the attorney costs for the county and attorney cost for the respondent's attorney. A letter is sent to the respondent to pay the specified fines. And if not, then a court hearing is set. And a court -- and that is based on court docket availability. And those are often things we have no control over. It may be a week. It may be two weeks. It may be a month. Those are just things that we really don't have any control in. Ordinance 05-55 provides authority for fines to be assessed up to $15,000 per day per violation. And depending on the case circumstances, costs may include after-the-fact fees of up to four times per event and restoration costs ranging from $40,000 to $120,000 per acre. On the very next page what we did was we did a comparison time line. MS. FABACHER: Do you have any extras of those, Sharon? MS. DANTINI: Yes, I do. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. I'll come get them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's upside -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Upside down. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remembered where it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to ask the commissioners, if you're going to speak, please ask -- wait to be recognized before you do so we don't-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Inaudible.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No. If you're going to want to speak with anybody outside of the microphone or in the audience, please wait to be recognized. Thank you. MS. DANTINI: The time line that we put together, the top time line is based on what we are proposing with the citation associated Page 11 August 30, 2006 with someone who chooses not to follow our stop work order. And you can see that the citation would be an immediate issuance within the next -- that same day probably if they were not following our -- our suggestion to stop. Because we have special master hearings that are twice a month, it's a very quick process to get in -- get them into a hearing before the special master. All they would really need to do is request the hearing based on the citation that they received. And these lines that are associated with this are days. Each day is a particular line. So that you can see by the fourth day, they probably have contested that citation. And we could get them in a hearing by the -- about the ninth day after they choose not to follow the stop work order. At that point in time a decision would be made. And the costs involved -- what we did was we used the costs that are probably extreme. Most often they're not going to be that extreme. But just to make the comparison, we used the extreme. That cost would be $50,750 that could be charged against this respondent based on the two acres in this example. The next example -- did you have a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I was going to see if anybody did. Anybody have any questions on the panel? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We may -- we may not have any questions at this point. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you opening up for questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I was asking. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, then, oh, fine. I thought she was still continuing so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was trying to get to this point-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Page 12 August 30,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and see if you had anything to say. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just have a question relative to suppose -- how would -- how would code enforcement handle -- suppose there had been a fire on a particular property and a person started clearing the burned areas, would -- would code enforcement issue a citation? MS. DANTINI: You know, I -- I'm -- I'm really not sure if-- because I'm not that decision-maker. I'm sorry. I am not. But I do know that a clearing of property permit is required. And that is a $250 permit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Ten trees or less? MS. DANTINI: Uh-huh. So I -- I would assume that, yes, we would probably -- we wouldn't issue a citation. We would ask them with a stop work order to stop work, first of all, and then go obtain their permit. We're probably not going to just automatically issue a citation. We're going to try the stop work order first and -- and see if they will stop that route. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DANTINI: Okay. The next time line that you see there is our current time line that we have. The stop work order is issued at that certain point. Should someone choose not to comply with this, then it's going to take us at least a week to get -- receive an injunction through the court process. And that's just obtaining the -- the injunction. All that time if a letter is sent and they still don't comply, then a court hearing would be requested. And, again, that's just totally dependent upon the -- the court time frames that they have. What we've done for this example is we have what is probably the average to receive a court date is two weeks. So that is what we used in this Page 13 August 30, 2006 example. Yes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein had a question. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm going back into the idea he was talking about about a fire and then trying to get the thing cleaned up for himself. MS. DANTINI: Sure. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And you're saying that you recall a citation on this. And the case will go to court. And I thought you said four to eight days. Is that what the first part of this was? MS. DANTINI: That's -- now, if you're asking in this -- in that example if they choose not to comply with the stop work order -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There was a fire there and they tried to clean the mess out. And you said that they'd still be a citation because they had, obviously, cleaned out the other things that had burned up. MS. DANTINI: I'd -- I'd like to clarify the process that we are asking for. I -- I hope that will make a difference. Weare asking to issue a citation if a person has not complied with our stop work order. In other words, they've not voluntarily complied. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, in other words, after he started cleaning them out -- MS. DANTINI: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- and you've asked him to stop work on it. Okay. Let's say he did stop work, what would happen then? MS. DANTINI: At that point in time, he would go down and get his after-the-fact clearing permit and, you know, whatever those fees would be charged. There may -- may be some type of mitigation involved. But, again, that's a voluntary compliance which is not really what we're asking for. We're -- this whole thing that we're asking for is when someone Page 14 August 30, 2006 chooses not to comply with a stop work order. Because a stop work order is currently in place. That -- that is a process that we currently have at this time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. DANTINI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other -- do you have more? MS. DANTINI: Just the time involved bringing this into compliance. The fines could go up to 300 -- $500,373, $850,000 which is quite a bit. Now, I'd like to also point out that these fines are in addition to any state and federal fines so... COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Would you repeat the fine numbers? MS. DANTINI: Sure. For our new proposed process we determined 50,750. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Fifty thousand? MS. DANTINI: Uh-huh. That's -- that, again, that's probably going to be the high end. And the court process, the process that we have now, it could be as high as $373,000 for this person. And then in addition there would be state and federal fines associated with it too. So any -- all this time that this violation exists, those fines would also accrue. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In your -- excuse me -- in your wording you have administrative or judicial. Who would make that decision? MS. DANTINI: Our -- our code enforcement staff would make that -- we currently have those processes available to us on any of our functions whether it be quasi-judicial, whether it be judicial or administrative. So based on the circumstance, we -- we probably would use the Page 15 August 30, 2006 quasi-judicial which is the citation and special master in this case because it's a shorter time frame and less costly to the person. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, has your department reviewed this language? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And are you comfortable with it? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not uncomfortable with it. I don't think it does any harm. I don't know it does anything additional we can't do already, but it might be suspenders to go along with the belts that we already have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would -- it's my understanding that this is for actions that are underway, not past-tense action. MS. DANTINI: That is correct. That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you're driving down a road and you see somebody that doesn't have a posted permit and it looks like they're illegally doing something, your department could call in, determine if it is. And if it is an instance that, say, doesn't have a permit, then you could walk out and issue a stop work order? MS. DANTINI: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. In those cases where that happened, is code enforcement ever wrong? I mean, have they ever had an instance where they stopped work and they found out they shouldn't have because there's been an error in the interpretation or lacking of a research in order to get out of that? MS. DANTINI: Well, I -- I -- nothing comes to my mind right now. But, very honestly, I've only been here four years. I suppose there's always going to be that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I was asking is a lot of times when people are doing something, whether it's legal or not, they're doing it with worker's equipment and cost. To put a stop work around it -- stop work order on the job means all that money that they're Page 16 August 30, 2006 paying for the workers and equipment also gets lost. And that's fine if they're doing something wrong. They should be stopped. But on the other hand if they are stopped and there's not a legitimate reason for them being stopped, is there any recourse on the part of the property owner against the county. MR. KLATZKOW: No. I would -- I would -- no. I would think that it's like an arrest that turns out to be unwarranted where you get arrested for a crime you didn't commit. You spend the night in jail. He finds out it was somebody else. You have no recourse. It's just part of the process. The county has immunity on this. Now, if the county, knowing that it shouldn't have issued the stop work order and continues to act in this matter, that's different. As long as -- as long as it was just a reasonable mistake made in the ordinary course of business, there's no liability. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this language change was not initiated or not -- does not go through, does that change anything in regards to the question I just asked? MR. KLATZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's where I'm trying to find out is how much of a burden this puts on the public anymore than there already is. Apparently, it doesn't because we already seem to have most of the opportunities that could be problematic in place anyway. So Mr. Vigliotti and then Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I see you have a citation contested date. So, in other words, once you give them the stop order, they have a few days to contest that stop order? MS. DANTINI: Yes. They-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: In a hearing situation where they get to vet their opinion if there was a mistake? MS. DANTINI: Yes. And once -- in the new process once we issue the citation; that is actually what they're contesting. And they Page 1 7 August 30, 2006 have a 20-day time frame to get that information into the office of the special master to contest where they're actually heard before the special master. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But my question is: If you give them a citation and a stop work order on Monday, hypothetically, can they come in that same day and the next day request a hearing as soon as possible or would they have to be delayed? What I'm thinking is if they have equipment on the job and things on the job, if they come in that same day, will they get a hearing in a day or two so that they can give their side of the story. MS. DANTINI: They would get a hearing within two weeks. Our special master currently is scheduled every other week for hearings. Now, again, if they went through the court process, it would probably be much longer. We don't just on demand hold special master hearings. There -- there is a specific schedule for those. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. But if the inspector was wrong, it would take -- the job would have to stop for at least a week and a half or so before they get their day in court, per se? MS. DANTINI: And, again, you know, I -- I wish I could stand here and promise to you that every single action that code enforcement takes will be 100 percent correct. And I will tell you that our staff does try to do that 100 percent of the time. But I -- I'm -- I'm just very cautious of the always, because there's human error. There's -- all the time there's going to be human error. That is a factor. But, again, I -- I can tell you honestly that our staff is very concerned about what they're doing and how they do it as is our director. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. In basic situations where a fence is generated by -- by a couple or person, the Court immediately would normally in any other action but what we're giving go before the judge the next day. That is a way the criminal law structures are. Page 18 August 30,2006 You're now doing the same thing except you're saying, no, we can't go before a judge the next day because we have only so many of these people to do this. We'll do it in the next two weeks. Now, until -- until we can get the same juris -- juris prudence that we have from a criminal offense to this type of offense, which would cost what I hear $300,000 or what all these figures are, until you can submit to a person who has made -- you've said -- you've said you got to stop. He says he doesn't think he has to. There should be a judge or a mediator in there to say, wait a minute. Let's look this over. Let's see what this is. Because now this guy has 20 days and these people and the costs go up and he could be right. And until you do this and make it to a point where maybe 90 percent of your people are wrong, I'm not questioning the fact that you do a good job, maybe 95 percent. But you got 5 percent in there in which this person could be really financially hurt from something he did not do. And there's no way to, as you said, to make it even for them. It's just a shame it happened. I don't want to see that happen. Until you can say at the worse it would be a hearing the next day before a magistrate or a judge or someone in order to give this poor guy a break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, does the language that we're debating here today have any bearing on any -- the issue that Mr. Adelstein is referring to? MR. KLA TZKOW: Currently the county has the clear power to put a stop work order on any time there is a life safety issue. That's right out of the building code. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If they have a work order, they have a right to stop work order. MR. KLATZKOW: Some work orders. The county has that power right now. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Page 19 August 30,2006 MR. KLATZKOW: And ifin the situation where the owner believes it was erroneous, his remedy is always to run to the Court and get an order to show cause, you know, why this shouldn't be lifted. So it's not an inexpensive process, but the owner right -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I know it's not. MR. KLATZKOW: -- has -- has his ability to go to court, you know, and call the -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're saying to me-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to wait for him to finish. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. MR. KLATZKOW: What -- what this language is doing really is sort of expanding the stop work order to things that are more than just life and safety issues. That -- that's how I read it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't believe the one point. And the point that bothers me is that in her scenario we are not saying that he can go into a court and show that he's doing a process that is correct. Otherwise, he's going to have to wait the 20 days that she's talking about in order to get there. And the financial loss could be substantial. And I don't understand why it could be done that way. MS. DANTINI: Well, if I may, Sharon Dantini for the record. Anyone can go to a court of law and get their own short order. That-- anyone can do that at any time. That process is there. That's part of due process. The right of being heard. So that without -- I guess without saying that, that process is in place for people at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I believe I understand what you're attempting to do. And I don't really have a major problem with trying to stop people from doing things that are inappropriate. My concern is a safeguard issue. And, again, I'll raise the issue of the person who sustained a fire. Let's say they have a lot of woods around their home. And a fire would produce smell and so forth and very uncomfortable. The Page 20 August 30, 2006 person becomes industrious and goes out and tries to clear. Now, they should, according to our rules, they should go to the county and obtain a permit. A permit is from one to ten trees. That's $250 a shot. Ifhe had 30 or 40 or 50 trees on top of the loss of his timber that he had which was surrounding his home, he now has to sustain an expense of a permit. And I find that an equity issue and I'm struggling with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure that this issue involves any of that. I mean, I don't understand. You guys have got concerns over things that could happen. I'm not sure this issue is relevant to that. I think all they're trying to say is two things. They're trying to expand the usefulness from a health, safety and welfare to things that constitute irreparable and irreplaceable harm and nature, most likely illegal clearing. And they're saying that we give them a stop work order. We want some teeth in it if they don't comply. And that's -- they're asking for the teeth; is that a fair-- MS. DANTINI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- correlation? MS. DANTINI: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If saying out something is not that way, let me know, but that's the way I'm reading this. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: In addition it will happen in less time and in the end cost less money. So I don't see the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that people would have the choice of going to either one of those. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what they're saying is -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But if you -- if you take this route, it potentially can be resolved sooner and cost you less money -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to return -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- than going the other route. Page 21 August 30,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to continue my -- my thoughts. And I -- I don't disagree with your clarification of the issue. My concern stems from the use of police powers. They should be carefully, carefully done. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's my point too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And while I appreciate they want teeth in it, I think we have a lot of teeth. And maybe we may create an overbite situation. That would be my only concern. I appreciate that there are people who do things improperly. But I don't see anything that helps me appreciate that -- that we're really concerned for equity when we go out there. We're concerned for the negative. Now, I recognize code enforcement is responsible to determine, you know, the negative. Enough said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. As I understand this language, it does not preclude the proponent to go before a court immediately after a decision; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Mr.-- MR. KLATZKOW: It does not preclude it. That is correct, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So they still would retain that option ifhe so desired? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. You -- the county can go to court directly or the person who's been cited can go to court. It takes away no one's rights. This is simply adding additional avenues for a stop work order and putting some teeth into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, did you have something? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. I said what I wanted to say. And I understand where you're coming from. And I respect it as an issue if we were discussing something in a nebulous manner how this should be run. When we're dealing in realities, and I've been there before with situations similar to this, and found that the rules and { Page 22 August 30, 2006 (rights) were almost excellent for all things but a particular situation in which costs in my business 270,000 bucks and that was ten years ago. The thing just keeps rolling over. And the power of the county is a power that drags it out. This situation here is very similar. And I like the idea of being able to do it, but I don't see is any reason why at least it could be said in this document that the so-called defendant would have a right to go to court if he so desires at -- immediately after the thing was brought to his attention. He doesn't know that. He hasn't had the option to do it. It doesn't say so in here. Would that hurt anything? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if you want some precatory language added saying that this in no matter impinges on any of the rights, privileges that you might have, that easily could be added to it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That would be fine. And at least give the opportunity is if he goes to a lawyer -- she goes to a lawyer, they would have the opportunity to get it into court, in fact, the next day if they have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, is there any concern on your part for adding as Mr. Klatzkow stated purgatory (sic) language? MS. DANTINI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what you-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you-- MR. KLATZKOW: I'd be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- would you supply that so that -- if that is part of the motion and it goes forward, that's what it goes forward with? That may solve some problems. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? Yes, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does this refer to buildings also or just natural elements? Page 23 August 30, 2006 MS. DANTINI: Well, code enforcement issues for no permits -- no building permits and environmental issues most of the time. Now, the building department also enforces the Florida Building Code. And so, of course, they're out there issuing stop work orders also. That -- I hope that answers -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What kind -- I mean, if -- in other words, if there was a famous building, and I can't think of one, and someone was bulldozing without a permit, would this apply to that? MS. DANTINI: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, it could. And I think, ifmemory serves me right, the genesis of this was somebody with a chain saw it with an eagle's tree. And we were frustrated in how difficult it was to stop that. Because the only remedy was run it to court for injunctive relief. I think that was the genesis of this particular provision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, but, Mr. Schiffer, your question's interesting because he asked if someone had a historic building and they were going to bulldoze it down could this stop them, I don't see where it could. Under what premise would you -- would you say that a historic building is a serious threat to the harm -- the health, safety, welfare of the public or constitutes irreparable, irreplaceable harm and nature. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Irreparable-- MS. DANTINI: Well, irreparable (inaudible). (Multiple voices.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in nature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But a historic building is not in nature. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. But isn't the event -- the nature's referring to the event, not the fact that it's occurring on nature. MS. DANTINI: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I read it to mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Page 24 August 30, 2006 MS. DANTINI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't -- okay. That's interesting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The actions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it meant there was -- aimed at clearing; therefore, the nature was the -- they're referring to the -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- aspect of vegetation. MS. DANTINI: And I -- I suppose if that's confusing we could change the word "in aspect" or in -- MS. F ABACHER: Strike it. MS. DANTINI: -- or just strike it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Maybe that's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you had a motion, did you say? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I do. I'd like to forward the amendment to LLC Section 8.18.00 G.4 with a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second while we go into discussion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was some suggestions to add purgatory (sic) language by Mr. Klatzkow. Was that in -- would your motion -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would accept that. I'm not sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein, would your second accept that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. That's what I was telling Page 25 August 30, 2006 you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a suggestion to change "harm" -- after the word "harm" delete the words "in nature." That'll clarify it. Would you accept that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, will you accept that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other issues that anybody wants to bring up during this discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we have a motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion -- you do oppose? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. No. No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody approved? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carried 7 to O. MS. DANTINI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for your time, ma'am. MS. DANTINI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's hope it's used wisely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, let's go back. Catherine, let's just start with the very first page and work our way through it until we get Page 26 August 30, 2006 tired -- not until we get tired. Until we feel like quitting. And I already know how No.1 needs to be handled. Mr. Kolflat, do you have any problems with page I? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Why don't we have TGIF on it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Better use your microphone, sir. Yeah. Mr. Kolflat, you need to -- if you do speak, you need to pull your microphone a little closer too. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I have no comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any comments on pages 1, 2, 3 or 4? They all are part of LDC section changes to 1.08.01. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just by clarification double underline -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- means to put back in? MS. FABACHER: Catherine Fabacher. No. It means that these were the ones that you requested that we add -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Just wanted -- MS. F ABACHER: -- from the original amendment -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: -- that had two abbreviations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to recommend approval for 1.08.01 ? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 27 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. The next page will be page 3 which is Definitions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whoa. Whoa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's page 3 and page 4. No. Actually, just page 3. Ms. Dantini. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Green sheets? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's the white sheet. We didn't have any problems with it so there are no rewrites. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Got to find it. MS. F ABACHER: She just left. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I had a question on four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get to -- we're not to four. Four is another section of the LDC. Oh, no. It's listed separately, Brad. So probably should do separate motions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 3, 1.08.02, Definitions. There are two definitions, commercial equipment and commercial vehicle. Anybody have any problems? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval for those two definitions of Section 1.08.02? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) Page 28 August 30,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Vigliotti. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Six to one. Page 4, Dock Facilities. Is there any discussion on dock facilities? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just had a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Boat house is something that's defined in the definition. Should we bold that when it's a definition within a definition? MS. F ABACHER: Catherine Fabacher. We don't bold any of the terms in the definitions themselves -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. MS. FABACHER: -- of the defined term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions or concerns? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I may not have heard that. These things are terrible sometimes. This doesn't work here today. And he and I are both having difficulty hearing. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. We're not hearing it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Usually there's a volume control and we can get it. So -- so let me apologize for not being able to hear you. I heard something. Page 29 August 30,2006 Canopies are not -- should not be included in the definitions in this case. MS. FABACHER: No. Excuse me. Catherine. The question was, Shouldn't boathouses be bolded out because it's a defined term? And I said that in the definitions defined terms are not bolded out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that's what I didn't hear and -- MS. FABACHER: Right. That was the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sorry. MS. FABACHER: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When we go to break, Mr. Chairman, and see if we can fix that because it's very hard to hear sometimes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can fix it now. MS. FABACHER: Would you like to stop now and ask IT? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We can see if they can come back in and let's take a ten-minute break while we see if IT can come in and we'll be back-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My terminal's down, too, so that would be -- MS. FABACHER: Again? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See, I can't hear. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We can't hear from that side at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody, we'll just take ten minutes and come back at 1: 55. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The mics are back on everyone. Okay. We'll resume where we left off on definitions. We were discussing the 1.08.02, Definitions, for dock facility. Is there any other discussion on that issue? (No response.) Page 30 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 to O. Mr. Vigliotti stepped out for just a moment. Now, we'll move on to page 5, Definition, Section 1.08.02, for lot width. This had some rewrite done to it based on comments last time. MS. FABACHER: Yes. I guess -- I guess I'm it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can see the comments. Let's just see if there's any concerns on the part of the Planning Commission. Anybody have any questions on pages 5, 5-A or 5-B? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. And I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what this really represents is bringing back the old definition. Remember when we last left it we went to C and we started back where it was the definition, it was brought forward. We thought that was fine. And I do -- Catherine and I aren't seeing eye to eye on one of the interpretations so I would like us to kind of discuss that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're supposed to be doing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since we don't have anr Page 31 August 30, 2006 overhead, let me use an overhead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : We do have an overhead. It's just that your -- your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't need to see it because I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your screen won't work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How -- do I put it on or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead. MS. F ABACHER: Here. I'll -- I'll do it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can actually be the presenter. I did notice one interesting thing, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: Figure 9 is missing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MS. FABACHER: Figure 9 is missing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I have a figure. And the figure for the measurement it would be interesting if it -- City of Naples used this measurement. Because those family that just got -- that worked hard over there wouldn't have to worry so much. So maybe they ought to move to the county or maybe a friendlier organization. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, Mark, one for you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- and the argument is kind of over that. What this is is a description of what is the width of a site. That's important I guess in determining the minimum width of a site. So I think the code says what that shows. I don't think there's any disagreement on the rectalinear shape of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, before you go any further. There is an example provided to us that doesn't correspond to either one of the examples you just provided. So how does -- I mean, I don't -- I'm not trying to disagree. I'm trying to understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you can look at the one that's the cul-de-sac which is the one on the left. Page 32 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I think you do is you measure -- you draw a line, the chord of the arch -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and then you place that line parallel to that chord on the setback. Which to me would be the tangency in the middle of that curve. The illustration we have shows it -- that the setback is actually measured off of the chord which I don't get. Now, remember this isn't determining the setback. The condition in Naples you described was what is the setback of the site. This is solely to determine what is the width of the site. Actually, mine is less restrictive. In other words, you could get a tighter angle measuring it the way I do than measuring it the way -- it isn't staff. So I don't think it would throw us into nonconformity, but -- and I think Stan Chrzanowski we met. Do you know which version he would say the code says or -- MS. F ABACHER: I only know what version he would prefer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: He doesn't do a lot of this review as it turns out. I had spoken with staff who does a lot of this review. And they use the method that I have demonstrated here in -- on 5-B and Figure 10. This is the method that we currently use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Brad, the one the county uses seems a lot simpler than the one you've got with the formulas here. I mean, simplicity certainly helps with different types of people looking at these things. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I agree. And, again, this is not determining where the setback is. This is only determining what the width of a lot is. The problem you have when you measure a chord on a cul-de-sac is that the greater the owner, the greater the property Page 33 August 30, 2006 line on the cul-de-sac, the further that comes in. I mean, the case somebody might say that you could actually measure the setback from that. But essentially if you owned a large enough part of that circle, your setback would be in the right-of-way. So, I mean, the chord is -- is a nonpredictable way to measure a setback from -- to begin with. In our case the only concern is where is the required width of a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the required width by the county standard is basically you use the chord and strike a setback back from the chord and that becomes the width of the lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what I think what you should do -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pretty simple. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- take a second and just measure -- and just read the words to see what the words describe. If they describe that, then that's what it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I read the words. I also -- the pictorial would go with it. If you -- if you don't believe the pictorial relates to the words, where do you see the discrepancy? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the -- the fact that the line is -- let me get at the exact word in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's --let's -- if -- if -- if the pictorial is what the county is after and if you feel that's not clear, what descriptive language could we change or add that would help get us to that point? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let's -- let's just read it aloud. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll read aloud. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The minimum lot width on a cul-de-sac shall be figured by drawing a straight line at the chord. Everybody's tied together there. The next thing is then draw in a straight line parallel to it at the required setback line for that particular Page 34 August 30, 2006 zone. I think measuring off of the chord isn't defined in that sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then let's define it. I -- I -- the graphic clarified it for me. I understand what you're saying. I do know from talking to Joe Schmitt that the county has used the chord as the setback measurement. So I want to get us there. If we need to clarify it so there's no mishap especially has occurred in the City of Naples, that would be a great thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, remember this isn't requiring the setback. And Joe Schmitt was -- gave testimony via writing at that hearing that the chord is not measured. We don't measure from the chord for a setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought he -- apparently we didn't. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a real question here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, go ahead. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the length? How do you decide what the length of a chord is? In other words -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Point to point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Point to point, property line. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You mean from this side to this side? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is where the property line converges right here so that's where your chord -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This -- oh, that design? Okay. That's what I wanted to find out. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think what it's stating here is you're only using the chord to draw a line. And then you're taking the line parallel to that and moving it up to the setback and then that becomes the minimum allowed. MS. FABACHER: I don't disagree with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Now, in terms of -- Page 35 August 30, 2006 remember, this is not the term in the setback. The Naples case is what's the setback. This is not. This is what's the lot width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The setback -- our code says the setback -- remember we just reviewed it. So the right-of-way for the bulkhead, whatever, is the least and most restrictive. So, obviously, no way could you interpret measuring the setback from that sentence from a chord. Again, here this is only what is the minimum lot width. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just focus on the language change that you're suggesting. What is the language you're suggesting to add after the sentence that you previously read? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I think it's fine what I read. The problem we're having is when you read that sentence, people see two different things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We started this conversation trying to get somewhere. Now, you said it's fine the way it is. So does that mean there's no issue now? Mr. Kolflat, did you have an issue? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I had a question. This paragraph here we're looking at refers to a Figure 9 and also a Figure 10. I only have a Figure 10 in my-- MS. FABACHER: That's correct. We haven't finished Figure 9 yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would Figure 9 be? MS. FABACHER: Regular -- measuring a regular lot which would be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At the right-hand side of that? MS. FABACHER: Yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be similar to the right-hand side which essentially says you average the property lines and in such a way that the front property line can't be less than 80 percent of the width. Page 36 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me put it this way. I'm fine with the way it's written. I just don't like Illustration 10. I think that's -- the error is in Illustration 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ten of our -- our pamphlet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But if the writing's going to refer to a Figure 9 and a Figure 10, I think Figure 9 should appear in the writing. MS. FABACHER: You're correct. Staff has not had time to draw it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Figure 9 -- the intent of Figure 9 is similar to the right-hand graph? MS. FABACHER: Exactly, that Brad's produced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At least we know what it is. MS. F ABACHER: Right. Now, the -- this is -- remember, this is the old definition. And I have made some changes which I've indicated with a double line, strike-through and double line underscore to the original version. Because I think it cleared -- it cleaned it up and cleared it up and made it more understandable. But this does not talk about an average for the regular lot now, lot on the right-hand side of -- of Brad's drawing. It doesn't -- it doesn't refer to an average. It says the width between the side lot lines at their foremost points in front shall not be less than 80 percent of the required lot width. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. No. I think it does. MS. FABACHER: You think it says average? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. It says -- starts off, the width of any lot should be considered to be -- MS. FABACHER: Oh, you're right. Page 37 August 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- average distance. MS. FABACHER: You're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And essentially, but ifit kinked, there would be even more lines that you would average. MS. FABACHER: You're right. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is that if you do a lot the shape of like the one I've shown, which isn't square, that in no way can A and B be less than 80 percent, which is good. MS. FABACHER: I stand corrected. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, on the Figure 10, that seems to be the issue that you're concerned with, if Figure 10 was to correspond more closely to the way you're reading it, then your tangent would then your -- would match at the lot width. And then if you had to be -- and that would set your -- your lot width line further back because you'd have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- half a curve back into the lot further than you do now. So the way the county's doing it allows the setback -- actually allows the lot width to be measured from a closer point, therefore, requiring wider lots in the end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the width would have to be wider up front. What you're doing, it would allow for narrower lots because you'd be pushing the width further back? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. I mean, the -- the line where I show it is less restrictive than the line the way the county's measuring it. I think maybe what we should do is -- I mean, first of all, we have, you know, what the county's measuring and what the words say. Now these are the old words. So it's not like we're coming up with new words that's going to mess up the county. I mean, first of all, here's the big problem I have. I think that the words in the Land Development Code should be predictable. The Page 38 August 30, 2006 county shouldn't be doing something that isn't what the Land Development Code is saying. So I think we have to make sure that that's not the case. Because it shouldn't be a hidden code. The fact that this is less restrictive means that we're not going to make anything that exists nonconforming. If anything, we'll allow the tightening of the lots on cul-de-sacs a little. And it's not much. It's not much in dimension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd actually allow more lots or smaller lots. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tightening up -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, this isn't more restrictive, thus, it's not going to cause a nonconformity. I mean, the words are the words. You guys all read them and you guys all tell me what you think they mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any history of problems in the county using the definition that we had in place? MS. FABACHER: Well, since that was before my time-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was before Jeffs time. So it wasn't before mine, but I wasn't involved in those issues back then. MS. FABACHER: I think it was pulled out during recodification because it had operational provisions in it. And it was intended to go back in under -- in the administrative code. And it never went back in. But what you see, and Brad makes a good point, you're right. Perhaps we won't be creating any nonconformity since we'll be able to make it smaller. What he's saying is if you move the measurement back, then essentially you could have even a smaller width lot on a cul-de-sac. So in that case there goes my objection to creating nonconformities, though I have to think on it some more, but do you all agree to that, that it's not going to be a problem? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if -- if staff hasn't got a Page 39 August 30, 2006 problem with it as far as creating the hardships, is there a problem in defining how that measurement takes place or is it purely the graphic that dominates that definition? I mean, Brad's method of measurement is different than the one you came up with. How do we describe that in the definition if someone needs to come up with that every time? MS. F ABACHER: That -- that they would measure -- they can't go parallel then. They can't go parallel from the chord. They would have to draw a line parallel to the chord that sets back. So the setback from the arc, am I right, Brad? Is that what you're talking about? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think what you would have to say -- first of all, I think it would be dangerous to put this sketch in the code because it could confuse people and cause a situation like Naples had where people in good faith thought that you measured from the chord. That's not what our code says. This drawing could mistakenly give that impression. You would have to describe that you measure the -- then measuring the setback from the chord, place a line parallel to the -- to that line. But I think it's clear the way it's written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think everybody should read it and see if that's what it says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- I read it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But when I saw the graphic, it seemed to fit the graphic so I was comfortable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the -- not looking at this, what do you think? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I still have -- I'm still comfortable with the graphic. I -- narrower lots don't really enthuse me a lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's not going to be much now. This is fractions. MS. F ABACHER: Well, not on a really big lot. It's only -- you Page 40 August 30, 2006 know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, anyway, I want to make sure, let's get -- we got to move forward with this. And Brad's put an alternative on the table. Staffhas no objection to the alternative. MS. F ABACHER: Well, I don't want to say -- I don't want to speak for all staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Catherine, who is a member of staff, has no objection to the alternative. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. I have a question. Is this something we can resolve right now -- sorry -- something we can resolve right now or are you going to have to sit with staff or could we just make a motion to accept this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, we can do anything we want. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Because I'm just wondering-- MS. FABACHER: I'd feel more comfortable going back and talking to my supervisor and the rest of the staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this one will come back on the 7th. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. FABACHER: Okay. And for clarification, Brad, you're suggesting that we begin the measurement from the arc of the right-of-way? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm suggesting what this code says is that you draw a line, that's the chord of the arc. MS. FABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then a line parallel. MS. FABACHER: Parallel to the chord. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the important part of that chord. MS. FABACHER: Right. Page 41 August 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the only important part of that chord. You place the line parallel to that at the setback and that becomes the width of a, quote, cul-de-sac line or a lot would occur on the -- MS. F ABACHER: But what you're saying is you pick up the setback from the property line instead of picking it up from the chord? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says here, parallel to it at the required setback line. Now if you put that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, you're going to -- you're going to resolve this between now and the seventh. Why don't you two get together and come back so the seven of us haven't got to go on for another hour on this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We've actually been together. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, come here again-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- get to your -- to your resolution of this issue. But I think if staff wants to look at it and see if there's an unpredictable result and bring it back, that's fine. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to page 11. That's the next one we haven't done. Another -- another definition. I'm afraid to bring these up anymore. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As funny as it is, definitions are probably the most important things to get right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm beginning to realize that. This continues on page 12. Does anybody have any issues with the definition? And it's signed Mansard. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. Page 42 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti a motion to do what? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Approve it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Approve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A motion to recommend approval for Section 1.08.02, Definitions, 5.06.04, Sign Standards for Specific Situations. Motion's been made to recommend approval. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. The next one is on page 13. This is a clarification spelling out of the word "agricultural" and "whirl." And a restriction -- notification about additional conditional use restrictions in Golden Gate Estates. I don't think we had any questions the first time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on pages 13, 14, 15 and 16? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. This is Section 2.03.01 and Section 2.04.03. Is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. Page 43 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray. Commissioned (sic) by -- seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. Next page is 17. MS. FABACHER: Yes. We finished that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Yeah. And we finished 31. So the next one -- then we've got pages 49 and 53 are on for the 7th. Page 65 is on for the 7th. That takes -- 68 is on for the 7th. So that takes us to 64-A and C. This is Section 2.03.07 H. It's to amend the boundaries of the Santa Barbara Commercial Overlay District. We didn't have any issues on this when it came around the first time. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray to recommend approval of Section 2.03 .OH -- 07 H. Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. Page 44 August 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. The next one is page 75, overlay zoning districts. This is the Copeland issue. I'm trying to think. Wasn't Wayne Arnold represented -- MS. F ABACHER: Yes. And Mike DeRuntz. And you had asked one question from Mr. DeRuntz about the number of -- it was on those extra pages 1 and 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And he supplied a new sheet. MS. FABACHER: He supplied a new sheet that had the answer on it. And I'm trying to figure out which one it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was the second bullet, last line. Well, number of existing nonconforming -- conforming lots in Copeland urban area. And he said it was zero. And he's now supplied a sheet that verifies it was zero. Is that anything -- MS. FABACHER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that you recall? MS. FABACHER: No. That was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on this issue? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We discussed the child care services be allowed in the mixed use district. MS. FABACHER: No. That's -- that's Gateway Bayshore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on page 75. Page 45 August 30, 2006 MS. FABACHER: We're looking at Copeland. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm on 72. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seventy-five. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's to clean up the issues down in Copeland. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation to approve the Section 2.03.07, the overlay zoning districts. This is for the Copeland area. Seconded by Mr. Murray. Now, is there any discussion? Wait for a minute or two. Brad-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. The next one will be on page 97. Page 46 August 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I thought it would be 83. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I thought it would be 83. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Lindy, hold on a second. I'll check for you. Eighty-three was already done. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At least that's my record. Is that yours, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 97 is the subdivision design-- subdivision design requirements adding a maximum limitation to the height of a residential single-family home fill pads. I don't believe we had any issues with this so... COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray to recommend approval. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section 4.03.05. Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Mr. Schiffer, do you have discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We were going to define what is a house pad. What -- where you measure to. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, and he did. And I wrote it down. I'll find it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I have, the measurement system's good. It's just what is a house pad, the top of it, the outer edge of it? Who knows? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's see what she's got. MS. F ABACHER: All right. I'm going to have to -- you'll have to bear with me. I'm going to have to pull it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll move on to the next one and come back when you find that. So will the motion maker withdraw Page 47 August 30, 2006 his motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And will the second withdraw his? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll come back to page 97 shortly. The next one will be page 99. This begins the issue ofNGBD moving to NGBA. And we had presentation last time by Stan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't you make a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll start. We have several of these so why don't we start with the first section that we're discussing? And it is Sections 3.02.10 E, 3.03.05, 3.05.10 A5. Is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commission Adelstein. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. The next one is on page 101. It involves the same issue. It's Page 48 August 30, 2006 LDC Section 4.01.01. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicated.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by -- oh -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Either/or. If he'll make the motion, I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein made the motion. Mr. Vigliotti seconded the motion. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. The next one is on page 103. And it's the same issue, but this time it's a series ofLDC sections: Section 10.02.04-A.2.N, 10.02.04.B.4.E.XII, 10.02.05.E.2.H, 10.02.05.E.3.G, 10.02.05.E.4.A.I and 10.02.03.B.1.I.XI(c). Is there any discussion on all those LDC sections summarizing these pages in front of us and it goes to page 107? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to Page 49 August 30, 2006 approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein seconded. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And the next one, page 119. This is Section 4.02.23. The same development standards in the Activity Center No.9 Zoning District. This is the one, if you recall -- yes, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, asked that this be delayed until September 7th. Mr. Pickworth has asked to meet with Ms. Murray as I understand this and they are arranging a meeting this week on this topic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we will go past that one. The next one that I have on this -- yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a point of information. Yesterday you noted that one was drawn. It's on page 115. It's LDC Page 50 August 30, 2006 Section 45-6. Why was that withdrawn? MS. FABACHER: The one for RWA, it's a railroad chord? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Kevin Hendrix and Nick. MS. FABACHER: Oh, the setbacks? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I can answer that. I sat down with Nick. And at the end of the day the best way to do this is going to require an amendment to the comp plan. And so that we're going to go through with this, but we're going to have to amend the comp plan first and then we'll bring this back at the next available LDC hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it wasn't withdrawn because people didn't think it was important I hope? MR. KLATZKOW: No. It was withdrawn because, quite frankly, if you're going to do it right, do it right. And I didn't think this was really the best way to do it. And it's a significant issue for the county. So that people wanted to make sure they got it right the first time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's coming forward? MR. KLATZKOW: It will be coming forward sometime in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 135 would be the next page. And we have one comment before, change "adjacent" to "abutting" and they did that. This one covers -- goes to page 142. It looks like it goes to page 142. Yes, 135 to 142. And it's LDC Section 4.02.06. I'm sorry. 4.06.02, Table 2.4. Clarify B buffer within PUDs. Any concerns? Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. Page 51 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti indicated he would recommend approval. Mr. Adelstein seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. On page -- well, let me see where we're at. I have a -- in our summary sheet there's a page 138, but I don't have it in my book. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see why I don't have it because I didn't take anything out of there. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's a white sheet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mike Sawyer got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, here it is. It did hide in here. Page 138 is LDC Sections 4.06.05-B4 and 4.06.05-B5, allowing flexibility and location of building foundation plantings and combines two sets of requirements into one that covers all buildings. Mr. Schiffer, you seem to be resident expert in this stuff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we actually met and I think the staff did an excellent time. We met quite a few times actually with committees and this is what we ironed out exactly. I mean, I'm 100 percent comfortable. I mean, we have to have it. I'm 100 percent comfortable. Page 52 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, after all the beating up you do of foundation plantings, if you're comfortable with it, it's got to be okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I'll definitely make that motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Brad Schiffer. Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti to approve Section 4.06.05-B4 and 4.06.05-B5. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. Now we're on page 143. This is LDC Section 4.06.05 under general landscaping requirements correcting language for spacing between trios of sable palms. Anybody have any issues starting on page 143? And it looks like it goes to page 145. Page 53 August 30, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval of 4.06.05? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. Page 149 would be the next one. This is Section 4.06.02 D5 clarifying the requirements for natural and man-made bodies of water. Anybody have any issues, questions, concerns or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None? Is there a recommendation to approve Section 4.06 -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN. -- .02 D5? Made by Commissioner Murray. Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Any discussion? Page 54 August 30, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. The next one is page 155, LDC Section 5.03.06 G is to add language omitted during the recodification progress -- process. And it's about a boat dock extension. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation to approve? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to recommend approval. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Wait. Stop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do you want to get in discussion or do you want to discuss it? Let me -- let's get past the motion and go to discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein made the motion. Commissioner Vigliotti seconded the motion. Now we're in discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, one of the things that was supposed to happen is G is not a criteria. That was supposed to be moved under the secondary criteria as a statement. And then I Page 55 August 30, 2006 think that was going to bring us to reducing the number of criteria you have to meet to match that change. So I haven't got a revision for this so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My notes didn't indicate one was -- I must have missed that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My note indicates G as same as he just stated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you look at G, it's not a criteria. It's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One at a time, guys. And Brad just brought up a point. If we all agree with him it's not a criteria, then we need to move it. Catherine, do you have any input on this? MS. F ABACHER: That -- that was a scrivener's error. Joyce met with me and it's just a -- it had a number or a letter or something. It belonged in the next section. So it's just a scrivener's error. Sorry we didn't get that corrected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on page 157, paragraph G is deleted? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: No. No. It's another -- it's existing text. It's just not a G. It's going to be a three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm trying to get at. How do we clarify it? So on page 157, the letter G changes to the numeric three. Does the motion-maker accept that change? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept the change? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both the motion-maker and the second accepted it. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion as amended signify by saying aye. Page 56 August 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. We can go to page 159. Section 5.03.061, make the requirement of a site visit for boat dock permitting optional on the part of the staff. Anybody have any concerns, questions or comments? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None? Ifnot, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: We missed that one with Barbara yesterday. I guess we must have skipped it. Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, it was a -- my notes didn't -- last time I didn't think we had any issues so maybe -- MS. FABACHER: Right. We didn't. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's -- is there a recommendation to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti -- and Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Mr. Murray seconded the motion. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 57 August 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. The next one is Brad's favorite, color changes, color codes, color whatever. Brad, I think after last time, there wasn't a lot of issues. We got a very thorough explanation by the gentleman that came in. Do you have any issues? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you disagree with him? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you would. Anybody have any issues? Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: One word. In the physical -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Charts. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- it says charts and not checks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It should be charts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly would. MS. FABACHER: What section is that, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's under the Fiscal and Operational Impact. MS. FABACHER: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fourth to the last word. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer has made a motion to Page 58 August 30, 2006 recommend approval of 5.05.08. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. We're now on page 163. That had some revised language. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, it did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. This is Section 5.03.02, fences and walls, starting on page 163. It goes to 166. I had some questions, but is there any of the -- anybody else have any that they want to start with? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, I just have a couple. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 164, No. 10, it says, Whenever a nonresidential use lies adjacent to a residential use, the nonresidential use shall provide a masonry wall. Now, adjacent, if I'm not mistaken, means it can be separated by a roadway. MS. FABACHER: Or a canal. Page 59 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or a canal. So if you have a nonresidential use and it lies adjacent to a residential use even though it's separated by 1-75 or by -- let's say a collector arterial road instead, you'd still got to have a wall? Is that the way this would read? MS. FABACHER: Let's see, Mr. (Inaudible) spoke to me about that and he knew your preference for abutting. I was just a little concerned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a preference. I just want to make sure -- MS. FABACHER: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- everybody understands what it is we're requiring and when we're requiring it, so... MS. FABACHER: I think abutting would be correct more what we meant, but the problem is we don't define "abutting." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you do. MS. FABACHER: We do? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You changed the definitions to do that. That's why -- that's why I remember it so well. MS. F ABACHER: Oh, then you're right. It's abutting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So No. 10 should be instead of "adjacent" should be "abutting." Is that -- MS. F ABACHER: Correct. Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then if you look at A it talks about the -- where these will occur. And it says that the third line -- I'll start with the whole sentence. At the applicant's request, county manager or designee may determine that a masonry wall or prefabricated concrete fence is not warranted particularly where a local street lies contiguous to the rear of a residence or some other physical separation exists. Is there a reason that we limited that to local streets? Local street is an actual small street. I mean, there's other streets. We have Page 60 August 30, 2006 collectors and arterial streets as well. MS. FABACHER: Apparently --let's see. I don't have that answer for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, maybe since-- MS. FABACHER: Local street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I would think you would not want a deviation if it were a collector or arterial. You might grant one if it were a local. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I agree with that. MS. F ABACHER: I think that's the sense of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine. I wanted to make sure I understood it right. That's the only comment I had. So we would just suggest changing the word "adjacent" to "abutting." With that are there any other comments by the commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a recommendation to approve Section 5.03.02? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray. Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Is there any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 61 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. Page 167. This is going to be a fun one. This is for LDC Sections 4.07.04B7, 5.06.02A1C, 5.06.02B1, 5.06.04C1F, 5.06.04C4C, 5.06.06LL, 10.02.03.B1BiiFIV. I didn't write this code, so with that, this is removal and use of unified sign plan and replacing it with the requirement of an owner's letter of authorization. Anybody have any objections to this, concerns, issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a recommendation to approve those LDC sections? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Vigliotti. Seconded by Commissioner Murray. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Somehow this is striking a blur. We had a -- was this presented to us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what we're doing is eliminating the unified sign plan and instead having an applicant give us a letter? What is exactly happening there? MS. FABACHER: As Ms. Compagnone explained it, not all the tenants are the owner so... COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I remember that. Never mind. MS. FABACHER: Remember? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry. Page 62 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor recommend -- recommending approval signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. Mr. Adelstein, were you in the affirmative on that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, I think moving on to page 174, Sections 5.06.02A6D, 5.06.03A3, change from 8-inch address numbers in residential zoning districts to 6-inch address numbers. It's another one of those that we didn't have a lot of concern with before. Anybody have any concerns now? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: We did find out that they meet fire codes when they were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They did, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Correct? Okay. Thank you. I thought I had that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation to approve those two sections? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Murray. Page 63 August 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. We're on page 176, LDC Sections 5.06.04C4D and 5.06.04C4E. This addresses wall signs on multi-story buildings. Any concerns, issues or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a recommendation to approve those two sections? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 64 August 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. The next one is on page 179. The Section 5.06.04C18 to exempt signs on public use facilities in uses from Section 5.06.04. Are there any issues? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Move to accept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a motion to approve. Mr. Kolflat, I'll put you down for the second. Is that okay, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. Page 181. This is Section 5.06.04C4, adding point of location for height measurement. This was that we requested last time would be a modification to it. And they did do that modification on page 181 measured from the drive through grade adjacent to the menu board because it wasn't clear before. Any other issues? Page 65 August 30, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnone, is there a recommendation to approve? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you made a motion to recommend approval. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. Page 182 is the next one. Section 5.06.04C8A, delete reference to section of code that change and recodification. This is just a housekeeping issue. Anybody have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded the motion. Any discussion? Page 66 August 30, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 to O. The next one would be page 197. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Strain, I don't think you got all the pages in your packet after the incredible rework that Mr. Schiffer did on that one. So I'm afraid we'll have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On which one? MS. F ABACHER: After the fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, where are we at? I just said we're on page 197. Is that what you're talking about? MS. FABACHER: Yes. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we don't have all the changes that were supposed to come to us for that page because we do have some orange sheets. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is that 197? MS. F ABACHER: Well, we're -- I think we're missing the last two and I think the copy machine ate them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that one's going to have to come out on the 7th of September. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That doesn't have a date. MS. F ABACHER: Which pages were you missing, Bradley? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm missing page 198. Page 67 August 30, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Is everyone missing 198? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I got 198. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I'm missing-- MS. FABACHER: Telling you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I had -- see, when you didn't provide the page, I assume it was going to fall back on the old page. So I guess I don't have a new page 198. MS. FABACHER: I have a new page 198. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I do too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. The copier just-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, the thing my page -- my page 197 the other side of the page is 199 so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what mine is too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 198 must be on the edge. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a 198 and a 199 in the white book pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody with a white book has it. The rest of us do not. So we'll put that one on to September 7th as well. Page 201, LDC Sections 10.02.02A2, 10.02.02A4H, 10.02.02A7. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Didn't Barbara leave sick in the middle of this? We're going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's the one that's going to -- that is the one. No. This is -- yeah, you're right. MS. FABACHER: I think it was the EIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be continued to the 7th. That's the only remaining environmental one that we had. MS. FABACHER: Environmental, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is she feeling better, I hope? MS. F ABACHER: She's feeling a little better. I don't really want to discuss her personal condition. She did -- she did -- she did come In. Page 68 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MS. FABACHER: She's a trooper, but I hope she takes it easy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that wasn't Bob's question, was it? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I surely hope not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it was. MS. FABACHER: I'm not answering that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- the next section is page 243. This is LDC Section 10.02.13. And this is the one -- oh, we took care of this last night. I just didn't have it. This is Maryann Devanas' section. So actually we're on to page 245 . Well, maybe we're not. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, we're not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray Bellows had a Section 10.02.13. It's on my schedule. And we confirmed yesterday that we hadn't finished with it, but -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We don't have it. COMMISSIONER CARON: We don't have it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't even have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. Catherine, do you know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a 243. MS. FABACHER: I'm looking. It may-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It may just be a misprint. If it is, that's fine. MS. F ABACHER: We do have it. I just -- it might be -- I have it on page 232. And it should be originally a white sheet, I believe, or green. I think it's a white sheet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 232? MS. FABACHER: 232. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was just reading off the -- this sheet here. MS. F ABACHER: Right. I'll correct that. Page 69 August 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 232 was LDC Section 10.02.13. This is the one on the planned unit development procedures. Ray was bringing something forward to simplify the process. I think we talked about it when he was here. I had -- my notes now don't indicate there are any problems. How do the rest of you remember? Brad? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some notes that are -- first of all, I have a green 232, a white 233 through 236, a yellow 238 through 242. Is that the correct -- do I have the right kit here? COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know. Same here. Same here. MS. FABACHER: Then that would be correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: But, no. You know why? Because I think something that back changed. That's all it was. But we're originally working with the one you got originally. There have been no changes to this one. It was just that the pages behind it and for consistently I tried to -- that's how that happened. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray was going to get back to us with -- with -- I think he was going to show us this chassis. He was going to work out some form, but that's not important. On page 240 up at the top -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Something's wrong. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Green 240? White 240? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a yellow 240. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 240 we heard yesterday. MS. F ABACHER: Yeah. I have 232 through -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tell you what. This isn't going to be -- MS. F ABACHER: -- 236. I have 232 through 236 for -- for the PUD -- for replacement of the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick's transportation issue started on Page 70 August 30, 2006 page 237. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is all messed up. I don't know where I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, why don't we -- that's the last issue we have for today. And rather than hear it and vote on it without everybody having the pages clear in front of them, why don't we do that one on the 7th as well? MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why don't we do it now? We have plenty of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we don't have the pages, Lindy. You do, but not all of us apparently do. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I've got two sets. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lindy's got the book. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are we in a position to go back to the one that I had made a motion and then withdrawn? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we're going back to that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Well, actually, no. I'm having technical difficulties pulling up my e-mail on this machine. He's not having them, but I'm -- I can't scroll down in my mailbox, in my inbox. I can't pull it, but small -- I can bring it back on the 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: He did have it. I had a piece of paper yesterday. I had it written in my book yesterday. I have a different book today. So my apologies. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 240 is part of it. So down at the bottom there's like a small footnote that tells you what section -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- what section it's from; correct? Which if I look down at the bottom it's actually your file location for your computer. Page 71 August 30, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this is part of the right PUD? MS. FABACHER: If it says 10.02.13 PUD procedures 06/21/06 RB, Ray Bellows doc. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. It doesn't. Never mind. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. Forget it. You just added a new dimension of confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, let's summarize where we're at because I think we're as far as we can go today. That leaves a minimal amount hopefully to do on the 7th which would be a good day to clean up because it looks like there's just a morning meeting on the regular session. And then we should finish with that pretty quickly and move into the rest. But, Catherine, I'm going to go through from my notes and tell you what I think we have left. If I miss anything, would you -- MS. F ABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- bring it up? The first one that would be on September 7th would be page 5, lot width definition -- MS. FABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you and Brad are going to work out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we go to essential services. And this is the one involving the additional fire districts page 49; then the Bayshore overlay, page 53; then a Gateway triangle mixed use overlay, page 65. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Could I ask you to go back to the very first one that you said was on page 5? What -- I don't have it on page 5 of mine. Tell me what page of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the one that Brad drew the diagram of. (Multiple speakers.) Page 72 August 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Going by these numbers right here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yup. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think I left off on essential services, page 49. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Bayshore, page 53; then the Gateway Triangle, page 65; then the administrative deviations for mixed-use projects, page 68; then Barbara's preservation standards on page 93. That was the one that was going to be sent -- that was sent back to the EAC. And we were going to get a final -- an oral report from the EAC actions. And it was the last one of the day on the 7th. That gives Barbara and the environmental group as much time as they could to get back to us. MS. FABACHER: That was on -- that was the stormwater, wasn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. FABACHER: Okay. That -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Am I wrong on page 93 or was it page MS. FABACHER: It's 92. Ninety-two. Ninety-three is stormwater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ninety-two. Ninety-two. I don't even have a 92. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a 92. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We go from 89 to 93 on the sheets that we have. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, if you're looking at the beige sheets it says page 87. The white ones say 92. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My beige sheet says 93, for the record. Page 73 August 30, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Ninety-three would be the page -- the stormwater was sent back to the EAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, let's just go with page 93, then, as long as everybody understands that's the one. Page 97, Subdivision Design Requirements. We just talked about those today. It's the height of the fill pads. There's a question about that. We have page 119 which is the Activity Center No.9 with Don Pickworth. That'll be on September 7th. Then on page 201 we're going to finalize the environmental issue on that page with Barbara Burgess when she comes back on 9/7. And on that -- just before that I should have said also we're going to do page 197 which is Joyce Ernst, the specific requirements for after-the- fact encroachments. And the last one that we would have for that date is the Ray Bellows removing the PUD document and rewriting it. I had it on page 245, but apparently it's on page 232. MS. FABACHER: 232. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 232? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 232. So those are the issues remaining. It would have to be held and discussed on September 7th. Other than that I think we're in a position we can continue this meeting to the December (sic) 7th time frame which will follow our regular meeting on December ( sic) 7th. And, Jeff, do we have to give a time specific? MR. KLATZKOW: It would be helpful if you know what it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we don't. I mean, we're going to hear -- we have a hearing, but I would estimate it would be about mid-morning on the 7th. MR. KLATZKOW: You can only give what you have. So you would conclude your meeting and then go right into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. Okay. We will conclude Page 74 August 30, 2006 our regular meeting on the 7th and move right into this continued meeting right after that on the issues we just discussed. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to continue? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This meeting is continued. Thank you, Ms. Ford. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was continued by order of the Chair at 2:50 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN Page 75