Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/07/2006 S September 7, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE LDC MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida September 7, 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 10:00 in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: ACTING CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain (Absent) Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Catherine Fabacher, Principal Planner Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 September 7, 2006 ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: We'll now move into our continuation of LDC amendments. And we will begin with definitions, Section 1.08.02, Page 5 of the blue document and/or the white document that Ms. Fabacher passed out today. MS. F ABACHER: I had a question. I hate to ask you this, but I was wondering if we could go to the very last one, the PUD procedures, because Ray's here and we kind of need to send him home to mind the shop. It would be a preference to hear him first, and then we go back to order is fine. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I don't have a problem with that. Does anybody have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: So great, then we'll be doing-- MS. FABACHER: That's 10.02.13, PUD procedures. 10.02.13. That would be on Page 232. MR. BELLOWS: As you recall from the last meeting, this is an amendment to eliminate the requirement for the petitioner when applying for a PUD rezone to submit a PUD document, and eliminates the requirement for the county when adopting an ordinance to attach that PUD document. What we're doing instead is having that same information presented on an application. And what is adopted as an ordinance that will just contain the permitted uses, development standards, deviations from the Land Development Code and any developer commitments. That will be just in an ordinance. The intent is to eliminate redundancies that are commonly found in the PUD document, or conflicting information that's in the PUD document. F or this meeting, I brought a sample of the application. And let me use that on the visualizer. This is a sample of our PUD rezone application. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wish you'd turn the volume up, if you would. Perhaps on your panel you can hit volume. Page 2 September 7, 2006 MR. BELLOWS: As you can see, the application has the petitioner information. All this will remain the same. You can also go into the agent authorization, which is the same as always, the affidavit. And this is what that looks like. That's just -- this is a signed affidavit indicating the property owner's given permission for the agent to act on their behalf. The part that's changed is the PUD rezone application submittal requirements. And noted in red is what we're changing. Instead of requiring a PUD document, we're requiring the application to contain a list of permitted uses, development standards, a table, a list of proposed deviations from the LDC, if there are any, and the developer commitments. The other change to the application is to the checklist submittal. And basically we'll eliminate any reference to the PUD document unless there's an amendment to a PUD that has an old document, then that's included. But we're going to require that the application be converted to the new format, which would be the application containing the information. And then what's adopted from the PUD amendment is just the ordinance. And lastly, to help ensure that we get the proper information on the master plan, the application will require that they submit that as Exhibit A, the legal description, the list of deviations and the list of developer commitments. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have. Oh, that is loud. With regard to the listing -- it may still be a little too loud. With regard to the listing, I have heard from time to time that people come back when they've submitted their PUD and they've gone through a checklist only to find that there's a new checklist. If there are various checklists, perhaps the initial document needs to be attached to this to show that there are several checklists. Or if there is only one, then that's what you're referencing and you're attaching. I suppose what I really am asking you is are there several Page 3 September 7,2006 checklists, or is there only one checklist? MR. BELLOWS: There are checklists for the function being performed. The checklist that I showed you here is for the submittal of the application. It's a submittal checklist. And each reviewer -- reviewing staff, whether it's fire, landscaping, environmental, they have their own checklist, and that's contained in a program called CD Plus. It's a database where all the tracking is. And that's where the issues come with repeated comments that weren't previously addressed. The checklist is supposed to help keep -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Organization. MR. BELLOWS: -- organization on those things. And they are different for each review. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In your opinion, would it serve any benefit to have that included in the submission, any checklists to see any assertions, any arguments that things are progressing, not progressing, or would account for the non-progression? MR. BELLOWS: If I understand correctly, you're saying during the pre-application meeting when we discuss the parameters of the review with the petitioner that they be given the review checklists so they know what they have to provide? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I assume that's what you were going to do in the first instance. But what I was suggesting is -- or questioning, whether or not in your opinion it would serve a useful purpose to include in the submission when it's finally brought to the various boards, to have those checklists included in your package, which would disclose what all was covered so that there may be a benefit, or may not, and that's why I'm asking you the question, to reflect whether or not submissions were properly done. Because the assertion is that there are checklists, after they've met certain criteria there are new checklists. And I just wondered if that would serve a purpose to include such. MR. BELLOWS: I don't think they're new checklists, I think Page 4 September 7,2006 they're maybe new comments. I think that's typically the question -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Checklist never changes? MR. BELLOWS: The checklist never changes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay that's good. I wanted that on the record for that purpose. So then -- and you would then think that it would be superfluous to have that included; am I right? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you very much. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Does anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. And Ray, just to walk through, the intent is to simplify. Obviously your application also I review. So essentially what you've done in paragraph A-2 is -- what we're going to get is a development standards table which shows setback, building height, minimum area, stuff like that; developer commitments, which is anything new above and beyond, I guess; and the list of deviations from the LDC. So that's all we'll be reviewing, correct? MR. BELLOWS: You'll be receiving information like you do now, except it won't be in the form of a PUD document. It will be a separate tables and list. There will be a master plan. You'll still get your legal descriptions, you'll still get the location maps, the EIS, TIS, all that information. Just the other information that's already in the LDC, you will not get, because it's already in the LDC. The old model PUD documents contain those as a kind of clearinghouse or gathering point of -- when the model doc. was first created, we didn't have a unified Land Development Code, we had separate codes spread out throughout the county that each department referred to. And when we adopted the unified Land Development Code, the model PUD document became somewhat antiquated in that regard, because it started referencing Page 5 September 7, 2006 things that are already in the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When we discussed this originally, we called it a chassis. There would be a chassis code and then we would supplement this data to that. Will there be a chassis anymore, or it will just be the LDC with these deviations and this development standard? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. That's the intent. That's to avoid the conflicts that we've had where the PUD documents would contain some language that would -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, I know. Okay, thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Anyone else? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, then I'll entertain a motion for a vote. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion that we forward this to the commission with a vote of approval. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second it. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: All those in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: It was unanimous. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we have an alternate chair at this time? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yeah, I'm splitting it up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: All right, now we can go back Page 6 September 7, 2006 to the beginning. Thank you, Mr. Bellows, for your service. Let's go back to definitions, Section 1.08.02. This is to add a definition for lot width. Now, as we've done in the past -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to know what page we're on, please. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: We're on Page 5. Five through 5B, actually 5C, but that's a blank page. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Got it. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: And does anyone have any questions? I believe that this was brought back to us, and perhaps Mr. Schiffer may have some comments to make. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just in terms of history of this is when we recodified the code we left out the definition of lot width, which caused a problem with staff. So essentially we brought back the old definition of lot width, a little bit of an amendment and then some clarifying diagrams. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Does anybody have any questions? Is everybody comfortable with the new diagrams? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. ACTING ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: There were questions last time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Donna? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes, Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: This white sheet that you gave us, that was a substitute for the blue? MS. FABACHER: It's the same. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's the same. Because I didn't get a blue. MS. FABACHER: The white is the blue. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Page 7 September 7, 2006 All right, then I'll entertain a motion to forward this amendment to the BCC for approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Seconded by Mr. Midney, correct? All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. It is unanimous as well. Next is essential services. 2.01.03. Anyone here to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna, I think we told them we'd do that after lunch? Is that the EMS? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes. Oh, did we? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Did what? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Said that we would do essential services after lunch. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The chairman did. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Why? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because they requested it. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: They requested it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was a witness to it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You were a witness there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the EMS came up. Our chairman granted them the ability to hear this right after lunch. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Which, quite frankly, I had Page 8 September 7, 2006 forgotten. Then we can move along to Bayshore. MS. FABACHER: Correct, Madam Chair. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Now, I was handed by Mr. White a packet here that goes on ad nauseam, which none of us have had a chance to review. And Mr. White, I'm more than happy to have you and Mr. Fernandez go through this. MR. WHITE: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: But again, I am not sure that without having time to actually review this we will be able to take a vote on it today. (Mrs. Murray enters the boardroom.) ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Because there are considerable changes, at least from the two pages that I ended up getting via e-mail to what I think -- again, you must have handed us about 15 pages. MR. WHITE: And if I may, Commissioner Caron? Patrick White for the record, with Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, representing Arboretum Development, LLC. What you were provided today is a simple transition from what you saw previously, the full commission, to what, based on our discussions as recent as yesterday morning, were held with the county planning staff. And I'll be frank with you, that we're not in absolute alignment on all of the text. But I think that we've narrowed it down to one remaining issue, one particular provision that we're hoping we'll be able to move forward with your favorable recommendation, even if it's a, quote, conditional one, that we would somehow work with the staff to find commonly acceptable text. And to have of course the required finding of consistency with the GMP. Moving from that to the specifics of what you were provided Page 9 September 7,2006 today, most of the pages that you have are actually more in the nature of reference materials. It's the third of the three things you have. They are essentially a compilation of all of the LDC provisions that are referenced in the revised text. You have two versions of that text that are identical, except one is an underlined strikethrough with highlighting. That's the top copy you were given. And the other is a, quote, clean version. And as I said, they're a transition from what had been previously seen through probably two or three iterations. This has been obviously a moving target. You've tasked us with a pretty significant number of changes, asking us to bring you back something more obj ective and quantifiable. And additionally, in doing so, we also moved from the idea of needing changes throughout potentially the whole LDC to actually doing the data mining of pending applications to establish that there are really only five areas of the Land Development Code where changes are needed. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Excuse me, Mr. White, everybody here is well aware of the history. We've all been here. So you can get into the meat of it and we'll then proceed from there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ms. Chair, before that, I'd like to ask a question for clarification. Mr. White, you spoke of only one remaining item. And yet looking at the document I see strikeout red and I see highlight yellow in at least two locations. Which is the remaining open item, please? MR. WHITE: It would be the text that presently exists on Page 57(2)(B). And it has to do with the issues of linkage -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (2)? MR. WHITE: (B). COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (C). MR. WHITE: More so (B), sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm seeing (B), which is struck. Page 10 September 7, 2006 MR. WHITE: Yes. And it's the fact that they are struck, and we're having a discussion about text that you actually don't have in front of you that was part of our discussion yesterday. And in order to simplify this as much as possible and not give you something that at the time wasn't being proposed, it was felt that we'd go with what the prior text was. Our intention is to go back to the prior text that we worked with the staff on yesterday and find a way to accommodate both the needs that the existing projects have, where there have already been staff comments, so that we're not requiring interconnectivity with all adjacent parcels. We need to find a way to make that a more reasonable and practical relationship. And that's really the remaining Issue. And if I'm misstating anything, I'll ask the staff to -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Ms. Fabacher? MS. F ABACHER: Just to get away from the confusion, in the blue pages in the white packet I gave you today, if we work from 56 and 57 and just discuss it from that point, I think it would be less confusing and much more simplified. Yeah, just 56 and 57 and forget all those strike-throughs and highlights. MR. WHITE: Other than one difference in terms of the structure that you see on Page 57, your clean copy that I provided today is identical. We'd inadvertently sent a clean copy to staff yesterday that did not reflect an otherwise agreed-upon structural change that leaves (2) in and then just connects straight through to (C). All of that text somehow was subsumed under I(B). And all we've done is recognize that in (1) are threshold circumstances for being able to ask for a deviation. And what (2) reflects are the criteria, the additional criterion that must be met to gain approval of that deviation. The text is essentially the same. It's a structural difference, and I think one that the staff would agree we had Page 11 September 7, 2006 talked about I think yesterday and agreed it made more sense to have it separated between (1) is circumstances and (2) is a criteria. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, if I may, because I'm now on the border of being totally confused. If I understood you correctly, there may be a third iteration because you had a meeting with staff yesterday and there is a document someplace floating around that has something different than what we're seeing in either the document offered by Ms. Fabacher or by yourself this morning? MR. WHITE: That is essentially correct, Commissioner. But the nature of the text is some additional language that was proposed to be under 2(B). COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But is that information that you want us to review contained in either or both of these documents? MR. WHITE: No, it is not specifically. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How shall we then address the issue? MR. WHITE: It is not specifically there. But it is more generally stated, and it's the reason why you see under the version I provided you that's struck through, under 2(C). 2(C) is a more general statement of what was intended by 2(B). ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Mr. White-- MR. WHITE: If we can resolve (B) and (C), we'll be able to provide to the board, I believe, an agreed-upon version of text that not only the staff will be comfortable with, but will work for the projects that are already in review. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Yes, ma'am. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: We will be using the document that staff gave us. We will consider pages 56 and 57. MR. WHITE: That will be fine. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: The portion that you are still Page 12 September 7, 2006 in conversation with staff about, feel free to continue those discussions. MR. WHITE: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: But we will not vote on those potential discussions today. You haven't come to any agreement on it. MR. WHITE: I believe it's fair to say that -- and if I'm again going to say something that staff doesn't agree with, that there was a sufficient comfort level with the rest of the language but for this one Issue. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: All right, let's have staff weigh in on this. Please, Ms. Murray. MS. MURRAY: Sure. Susan Murray, zoning director. I think what I hear Patrick trying to say and what I will agree to I think in theory, we're agreeing with the language that's been proposed and that we discussed yesterday. After our meeting yesterday, we thought we had an agreement on the very specific language that was to be changed and that Catherine was to give to you. And as of 8 :00 this morning, we got a different document. So I can't necessarily agree that there's one issue, because I haven't looked at the changed document. I mean, I was in at 8: 00 and opened it at 8:00 and that's as far as I got. So I think that -- and I would agree that we do need to meet and discuss it a little bit further. It's up to you guys how comfortable you are -- I think what's Patrick's asking you to do is kind of endorse what's written now through a vote with the expectation that staff and him and Michael Fernandez will work together to what I would call kind of tweak or solidify the language that accomplishes the same objective. That's up to you as to whether you have a comfort level doing that or not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not me. MS. MURRAY: We haven't read the last -- I personally haven't Page 13 September 7, 2006 read the last iteration -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I would endorse your suggestion, that we contain our actions to 56 and 57 pages and only address those, since that's the only information presented to us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I would add to this, that if there was to be a tweaking of language, it would effectively nullify any vote we have, because we would have no knowledge of that language or awareness of whether that tweaking was truly a tweaking or not. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, we have language, but again we have not had any time -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have that -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: -- to look at it at all. MR. WHITE: Ms. Caron, and Commissioner Murray, you obviously know that it's critical that we move forward with this, if we can. And so what I'd suggest is that you allow us the opportunity to do that and that we will come back to you at your next meeting, recognizing that it will be at a point after perhaps the board itself may have had its first reading of these provisions. And the big threshold issue for us today is the text that you do have on 56 and 57 from the staff. The substantive changes that we've made from the prior version, based upon your comments at the last meeting are put forth there, and are truly I think the things that we're hoping to have you comment on and find favor with today. I believe that we've talked about the details and the mechanics of the process so sufficiently with staff that we will be able to cross the bridge with this last issue or two. So-- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's my understanding that we end this today. Now, I don't see how we could put this together when we say we can go at it, because today is the last day we have to do Page 14 September 7, 2006 this. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: If we do not take a vote on it today, then we'll hear it again. We hear this until we're satisfied that it is correct. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's not what I understood. I'd like -- MR. WHITE: I believe that if you check with your staff and the county attorney's office, that if you were to essentially carve out just this section and continue it to a point in time that would be agreeable to you as commissioners and would provide a quorum, that we will be able to come back to you with that. And that everything else that otherwise has to go in the packages to the board, including this text, as the staff has it today -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, Mr. White, that's fine. Mr. Klatzkow, did you want to weigh in on something? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, this is kind of a sloppy way to go about things, quite frankly. But having said that, I suppose -- let me take that back. We are here for you to either recommend approval or disapproval of specific amendments of the Land Development Code. If you don't feel comfortable with what's before you, you cannot make a recommendation. This is going to be going before the Board of County Commissioners. If it goes to the board without a recommendation, they may choose to send it back to you, or they may not. That's going to be up to them at that point in time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The second point, though, that we are not necessarily bound to find the answer today if other tweaking is necessary, is that not true that we cannot -- MR. KLATZKOW: If you're not comfortable with this, you need not make a decision. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- we're not obliged to. And I'm comfortable with that. If the staff thinks that it can reach a Page 15 September 7, 2006 conclusion? MS. MURRAY: Mr. Murray, thank you. I think we can, and please don't take this comment as trying to override your authority or anything like that, but we have an obligation to bring this before the board. We've set a schedule for them. It looks like we're going to be able to meet that schedule but for this one amendment. If you all are uncomfortable and don't want to make a recommendation or you want to recommend denial or approval, whatever you want to recommend, we're going to go ahead and carry it forward. If the board remands it back to you, we'll certainly take it back. But it's a little frustrating, after having set the schedule much in advance, to be at this point of not being prepared to go to the board. And I can say the parties have been working diligently, but, you know, we don't have enough time to -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Ms. Murray, it's a little frustrating for this board to have you have a meeting at 8: 30 yesterday morning and for us to get it handed to us. MS. MURRAY: I completely understand. And I guess I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place, because I could take a hard line with Mr. White and say forget it, you're too late. It's not fair to you guys and it's not fair to us. And I guess in the interest of trying to keep things moving forward, that's what we're trying to do. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: And I think that's a good thing. MR. SCHMITT: Can I make a proposal? I think we're going to debate this, but the real issue is we're going to the board on the 20th with the LDC amendments. This will be included. It will be noted at that time. I think the best thing for you all to do to be comfortable with this is to allow us to move forward, and we will then note it to the board. But between the board's first hearing and the second hearing, you will see this so we can at the second hearing with the board bring forward your recommendation. You will see a final version of this at Page 16 September 7, 2006 the next meeting -- at your next meeting. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: My guess is that the Board of County Commissioners is not going to zip through these LDC's in one meeting either. And so we will probably get to them before they even have a chance to hear this. MR. SCHMITT: I would expect so. So the -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Is my guess. MR. SCHMITT: -- the issue is certainly we're -- let me put it this way: We're probably at a 98 percent solution here. I think it's a matter of one or two words. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. MR. SCHMITT: And we're comfortable with this. The packet will be prepared to go to the board. So if you all -- I think the best thing to do is we're going to move forward with this. If you concur, we'll include it in the packet on the 20th. And between the board's final review, you will have had a chance to at least make your recommendation to the board. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Mr. Schiffer first, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Catherine, one thing you said, that there's a blue version of this. Is there? I have a green version that's a revision. And then there's a white version. MS. FABACHER: I know, I'm sorry. I e-mailed it out to the commissioners. And then just for some who might have broken printers or something, I had other packets delivered. So-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to make sure I got -- you know, I've been -- MS. FABACHER: If you downloaded it-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I'm okay. MS. FABACHER: -- you have it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I've been following it. I think the things that are changed here aren't that great, so -- Page 1 7 September 7, 2006 ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: No, on Page -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- what I had a week ago, what I had two weeks ago, it's not that much different. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: On Page 56 and 57, there's no reason why we cannot go through this. And so do you have any questions? Does anybody on this board have questions on Page 56? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me ask a question. The reason you're not going on past 56 is -- have you made changes to that? Which essentially would be the (C) under 5. MR. WHITE: I apologize, but I'm not sure I understand the question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other words, you're stopping us on 56 because the old -- the administrative deviation in 5(C) is not changed since the green paper; is that right? Today you gave us 56 and 57. MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm assuming everything past that doesn't change. We use the-- MR. WHITE: There is no text beyond Pages 56 and 57. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the original submission there was. MR. WHITE: There may have been in terms of page numbers, but in terms of sections and subsections, there is no, quote, new text. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so-- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Again -- wait just a minute, Mr. Schiffer. This is my point exactly. You have a raft of sheets there that are different from what Mr. Murray's sheets are, which are different from what my sheets are. And I believe at this point everyone needs to be on the same page. And if staff is still working with Mr. Fernandez and Mr. White and have some minor thing to work out, I think we can take it up at Page 18 September 7, 2006 our next meeting very simply and pass it along at that point to the BCC. MR. WHITE: What I'd ask, Commissioner Caron, is if you look at the top two pages that I gave you, the colored text in red and yellow, it is a simple step from what you saw before to what is, I would say, the closest version of agreement between the staff and work product we've created. And the provisions in yellow I highlighted for the specific purpose of getting some reaction from this panel as to whether we've met your obj ectives set before us at the last meeting of providing you with more quantitative and objective criteria and of bringing back to you a product that, although we want and are looking for your final recommendation, that you can at least give us some indication of whether we are getting closer to the target or not. As you know, we had a large task before us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask you that just to make sure. Let me go by numbers, not -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would like to have an opportunity to make a point. But I'm getting more frustrated with this. I just want to qualify something. Is this specifically to do with the 500 feet issue where there's property frontage and a requirement and then you have 500 feet back or whatever that number is where you're constrained? Is this directly associated with that? MR. WHITE: That is what (1) -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (1), right. MR. WHITE: -- (D) deals with. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. Now, I would just make this point before Mr. Schiffer would continue. I would say with 98 percent -- and I realize that's kind of a tight number -- is there any feasibility whatsoever, whatever points of contention remain, that there could be by this afternoon those two percent qualified and a proper document brought before this board so that we could make a Page 19 September 7, 2006 judgment on the single document? Is there any possibility whatsoever? MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. We've got a budget hearing tonight and a big meeting tomorrow that I planned to prepare for. There's no way -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I can't hear you. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, I can't do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I just wanted to qualify that. So I think Commissioner Caron in her suggestion is probably right on target. I have no objection to listening to commentary, but I'm not sure that I could honestly make a judgment based on working in the negative. MR. WHITE: We're comfortable. ACTING ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Excuse me -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Michael Fernandez, for the record. I believe there's just so much confusion. I have to agree with Donna Caron that we need to probably step back. Let's get everybody on the same page. One document. I think that's a great idea. I know we're going to have time between now and the BCC. Let's bring it to you clear, and then we won't have any problems. We are 98 -- I agree with Joe Schmitt, we're 98 percent of the way there. And I do believe we've made some huge improvements in having measurable standards. But I think we ought to leave it at that and we'll be back. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer, do you have any questions that will help you in reviewing this for our next meeting? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I've been reviewing this and keeping up to date. It's not as complicated as everybody's making it. But Patrick, let me ask you this: The administrative deviations before had a 5(C), (D) and (E). Have you vacated those, or are they Page 20 September 7, 2006 still-- and I'm looking at a prior version. This would be 8/7/06. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, I think you are looking at a much older version. And we basically scrapped that almost in its entirely because it had a lot of what I'd call weasel words that had a lot of play, a lot of interpretation. What we did is instead of having broad-basely said we can get a deviation from anything in the BMUD and LDC provisions that are related to it, we came back and we looked at 14 different parcels that we thought were unique parcels, some that we're personally involved with others that are just plain unique. We went through the gamut and came back and said there are five areas that need to be addressed by this deviation language. And then we further identified some parameters within those. And so we came up we believe with measurable standards, much more succinct, that staff is very comfortable with except for a couple of words that we need to work out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is just factfinding here. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this thing stops -- because you've been sending this out, staffs been sending them out, and I guess I've foolishly been reading it and making notes because I'd like to talk about it, but it stops at Roman numeral V; is that right? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the end of it? MR. WHITE: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I thought was the end of it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, it's a couple of pages. It's the same stuff we had a week or so ago. Why can't we just work it out? MR. WHITE: I want to let Commissioner Caron and Page 21 September 7, 2006 Commissioner Murray's point hold sway. But simply, if you'd have any comments, and particularly if they're precise ones, we would enjoy having the opportunity to add them into our discussion, so that we're actually being more efficient in the aggregate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. Can I do that, or do you -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. On the administration deviations, this would be 5(B), and I guess let's look at (A). What would be -- what's the physical restriction you're trying to -- well, give me an example of that. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'll give you a very succinct example and that is, for instance, on the east side of Bayshore, there's FP&L lines, there are distribution lines. They are just outside or on the property line. There are spatial requirements of separation between those lines and any physical building that would push any building beyond or further back than the five feet that's required as your front to build line setback. In fact, in most cases it will be an additional three to eight feet back. So that gives staff -- if they came with that, we could produce, for instance, on a project that we're working for, it's just a one-third acre to meet all the BMUD regulations, except for that one. And we would simply come back with staff and say we've got a letter from FP&L that says it's impractical to place below grade. And if we did, it would still require an easement of 10 feet, which would push your building again five feet further back than required. And we would also -- also, if we leave it standing would not allow us to meet that requirement. So we would have a physical or a legal constriction that they could measure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a utility easement you described above. What's the physical -- what is that exactly then? You've just added it to -- that's why I'm curious what you had in mind. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think -- Page 22 September 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You described the utility prior to that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah, I think staff was looking to have something that was more tangible that we could actually bring. And we were comfortable adding that language that staff suggested, because we can't get a letter, let's say, from FP&L or from other utilities. Keep in mind, it's not necessary an easement, because it's a separation distance that's required from distribution lines. There's no easement there but there is that separation requirement. So it's a physical constraint. MR. WHITE: What those words in red are intended to do is to modify and provide some basis by which the staff could make a reasonable determination. And the line above where it says cannot be reasonably relocated or vacated, it was intended to bring some meaning to the process of that reasonableness determination. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Now, explain -- this is the yellow, so I assume that's new from -- well, it is new. MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The pedestrian circulation, the 110 percent parcel frontage. Explain that and why that came up. And I understand it's the lots for development in the back. So what you're saying -- just give me your words what that means. MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe what we're trying to say is that if a project is going to come forward, the intent was to put the buildings along the frontage. If it's proposing to do either a combination of buildings along the frontage and ones that are behind, or in -- or a totally different alternative frontage within the project, that they have to actually provide 110 percent. In other words, they have to provide a better solution than would be normally required by the code. Again, it gives something that's measurable and provides an enhancement to the community. So we see that as also a step forward. Page 23 September 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that 110 is a mInImum amount that you have to provide, or -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 45 percent, the ratio acreage to frontage. Acreage is a square foot, frontage is a linear thing. How does that ratio work? MR. FERNANDEZ: Basically you apply it to the square footage of the acreage. F or instance, what it really boils down to is approximately for every 100 feet of frontage you end up with .45 acres. And we came up with that utilizing several different ways to calculate the amount of development that is anticipated by the code, and relative to the size of a parcel. So if you had a small parcel, it works, but if you have a parcel with a lot of depth -- for instance, let's say we had one with 200 feet of frontage, essentially if you came back and you added the square footage of the building, the parking and the open space requirements, you would actually only need .9 acres to accommodate that. So that if you had a parcel that was five acres, you would be -- you would be wasting 4.1 acres. So you have to meet the standard. And we looked at a lot of different size parcels to come up with that variable. Again, it provides a measurable means for staff to say it is eligible for consideration for the deviation. Doesn't grant one, it just says we're eligible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm still confused. Answer this in a pure math, you know, formula. The acreage is a square footage and then the frontage is a linear thing. So what you're saying is that 45 percent of the -- MR. FERNANDEZ: .45. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So .45 of your frontage or .45 of the -- Page 24 September 7, 2006 MR. FERNANDEZ: Of the acreage. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not 45 percent as expressed. It's decimal 45 with a percentage mark, which is decimal 0045, is it not? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not 45 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you multiply the small number by the acreage and that tells you what your minimum frontage is? MR. FERNANDEZ: It's a ratio of frontage to acreage. So if you had 100 feet of frontage, you're basically going to divide that by the acreage. And if that number is smaller than .4 -- or greater than .45, then you are eligible for consideration of a deviation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how did you come up with the -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Again, we looked at it a lot of different ways looking at this. For instance, we multiplied the depth of the building, which is 35-foot minimum times the entire frontage. We also looked at it as a ratio. We looked at it with commercial on the bottom. Two stories versus three stories. The square footage. The associated parking ratios. And also the open space requirement of 1.3. And we looked at a lot of different variables to come up with one. And we had -- we looked at it different ways and we ended up with .58 -- or .38, .44, .53 . We ended up coming to a conclusion that .45 was a reasonable one that they could meet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WHITE: If you'd like to see some of those, I'd be happy to share them --- MR. FERNANDEZ: I'd be happy to show you some graphics. MR. WHITE: You've given us direction to be more quantitative. And I can tell you that by data mining these various applications, I think we've met the objective. I'm just hoping we haven't done it in Page 25 September 7,2006 such a way that we're killing you with numbers. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, we can go on discussing this for a long time. The idea is we aren't going to be able to get it done today. I understand what you can do, and I certainly can believe the staff can deliver this to us at another time and still get it in. But talking about it through this dimension now isn't getting us anywhere, except the fact we're not going to be able to get through the ones we're supposed to be going through anyhow. MR. WHITE: I apologize. And it is of great benefit to us to be able to have a discussion that tells us whether we're closer than we were before. And I appreciate your indulgence. MR. FERNANDEZ: And I'll be happy to call Brad and talk about this in more depth later in the day. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would recommend that if you're going to educate Mr. Schiffer, you might want to offer an opportunity for education for the other parties as well. While he certainly has the full grasp of these things, others are probably interested too. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'd be more than happy to. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I believe that Mr. Fernandez has been very available to this planning commission through e-mails to us saying here it is, call us with any questions. He's been very good about that. So definitely take him up, if there's something that you don't understand for sure, once we get the final language that we're supposed to have in front of us. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right, very good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to the .45 percent -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- you said you've data mined Page 26 September 7, 2006 and you found that is a -- what is that, an average? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, it's a reasonable one where we think that there's a development constraint. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not very much in terms of actual limitation, so -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, basically the code that requires the buildings to be placed up front really only -- when they were creating the code, and we've talked to the individual who created the code, who wrote it for the company that was hired by the county, they were looking at lots of approximately 200 feet of depth. And this is another issue, that we get 200 feet of depth is what they looked at. They had numerous examples for us to look at in that regard. And if you come back and you say 100 feet of frontage, 200 feet of depth, that is 20,000 square feet, which is .45. Again -- and that's how they looked at it when they came back and said building, parking and open space combined. And so again, that was another item that we used in creating that .45. MR. WHITE: And you may be correct, Commissioner Murray, and Michael and I are going to talk about that percentage symbol. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think -- I'm fairly sure I'm correct -- MR. WHITE: I understand your point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Quite frankly, I know I'm correct. MR. WHITE: I understand your point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think you might be -- MR. WHITE: Those are the things -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- disenfranchising yourself. MR. WHITE: Those are the things we're hoping that you'll help us to see. Thank you. Were there any others? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, gentlemen. We're Page 27 September 7,2006 going to -- we'll take this up at our next -- as soon as you all have final document, we'll take this up at our next meeting. MR. WHITE: And we'll do everything we can to get it to the staff and have a meeting with them as quickly as possible. And we appreciate your indulgence and patience. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. I think you all have been working very hard on this. MS. FABACHER: Madam Chair? Catherine Fabacher. I'm going to ask now that we go ahead with the other -- we've already heard the other Bayshore and Gateway changes, and the map changes we looked at. I think we heard that on August 3rd. And so Mr. Jackson's here, and if we can act on those and just separate out what would be 2.03.07(1)(5), and 2.03.07(N)(5), those are the administrative deviations in both of those that we could go ahead and approve the changes to the overlay, exempting those. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could we have the page number, please? MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, that's the way you sent it out is page number. MS. FABACHER: Actually, this is in your -- that would be on Page 53 for the Bayshore. Now, this is going to be in your old book. Sorry. And Page 65 for Gateway. And Bayshore, if you'll just flip over to (1)(5), you'll see that's the administrative deviation section. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Catherine, which iteration are you going back to? What color? And what page? MS. FABACHER: You have yellow? I'm going back to yellow. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I only have it in white. MS. FABACHER: You only have the white? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I only have the white. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And green. Page 28 September 7, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Well, any version that you look at is going to have the same numbering. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. Does it have the same data? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then we're fine. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: We're looking at Page 53; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. JACKSON: Madam Chair, if I may? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes, Mr. Jackson. MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency. I'm here to answer the questions that was put before me about the data that was in the original text. And this is to answer the questions. There are no substantive changes or modifications, it's to answer the questions there was not an answer for at the last time that we went through administrative part of it where we did some changing of words and some data. And there was a couple of things in there that you flagged, or Commissioner Strain flagged, Commissioner Murray and Schiffer also flagged and wanted an answer to what they were. And I can give you those answers. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: And you can go through those. I was just trying to get everybody to have the correct thing in front of them. And that seems almost an impossibility these days. MR. JACKSON: Well, it would be page -- it starts -- as Catherine said, Page 53 would be the place. And if you could find Page 53 in the subsequent pages, I can step right through it. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Ms. Fabacher? MS. FABACHER: The confusion is is that some people had 53 in white, and the changes came later. But I think it should be in green. And that should be Page 56 that has the deviations, and Page 68. Page 29 September 7, 2006 Fifty-six in the Bayshore and 68 in the Gateway. And you'll see it's what I had read to the court reporter. I'm not going to repeat those numbers. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Fifty-six in green MS. FABACHER: In green, thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: -- gentlemen. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Since hearing is so limited here for me because of the nature of this setup, I just want to be sure. Fifty-six in green I do have. Now fifty -- MS. FABACHER: Sixty-eight. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- fifty-eight -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Sixty-eight. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, 68. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Would be the other one, in green. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's in white. That's what I have in white. Okay, we'll find out what that is. It may not be a substantive change, so we'll see. MS. FABACHER: Well, I'm just saying that's taking out the administrative deviations, and we'll hear everything else that we've talked about before with Mr. Jackson. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Jackson. MR. JACKSON: The questions that were not answered at the last meeting had to do with the original book, Page 59, which is a BUMD mixed use table. And in the table there was a line, boat dealers, SIC Code 5551 had a strikethrough in it. And the question was why was it struck through. In the original one that was passed back in February, that strike-through never was removed when it was put into the ordinance, and so all it is is just a scrivener's error cleanup taking that out, again, Page 30 September 7, 2006 when it was left in before. And it was just a typographical type of an error is all it was. And the next question that came up would have been, and I'm looking at is Page 59(D). The word in paragraph 2(D), it says all buildings immediately adjacent to Bayshore Drive, and that was going to be changed from adjacent to abutting. The next question that came up was from Mr. Strain. His question was is there -- stem wall, is it defined, you know, the height of a stem wall? And yes, it is. In the original document, on Page 34 of the approved document, it talked -- you know, this is in the original. He wanted to know was it defined. And yes, it is defined. And it's defined by height above the crown of the road, how much fill you can put in. And then it's not more than three feet over -- the first habitable floor cannot be more than three feet above NFIP. So the height of the stem wall is defined in another place in the original document. So his question was, is it defined; answer is yes. Are you comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No more than three feet above? MR. JACKSON: NFIP. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: NFIP. Thank you. MR. JACKSON: Right, the stem wall can be no taller than that. So it is defined. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. JACKSON: So that was the questions that we had on the Bayshore. Now, if you would go to -- and it goes now to the Gateway portion, which is a -- was a totally new document passed on February 28th of this year. And these are the questions. The question was in a table, in the GTMUD table, and it was from Mr. Fisher, asking about child day care services, SIC -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Struck. MR. JACKSON: 8351. It was why was it struck as a Page 31 September 7, 2006 permitted use? And the reason it's being struck from the permitted use is because it is allowed as a conditional use in the original document. So it was permitted and conditional in the same document. It was duplicated in two places. So what we're doing is we're striking out the permitted and leaving it as a conditional use. Which is consistent with the granddaddy document of Bayshore that started several years ago, is that day care centers are conditional use. They wanted to really think about it before they went in. Not that it's not permitted, it's just is a conditional use and you need to go to another process. And it's to keep the documents consistent with each other. And that was the last question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, abutting also was applicable on Page 73, as opposed to -- where it says abutting -- well, wait a minute, E(2) on 73, buffers. I have a note here you have to come back, a problem. Buffers are required between BTMUD mixed subdistricts and abutting residential property. That was the question that was posed I suspect by Mark. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I have the same note. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, I have-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it may have had to do with that wall, with the wall associated with it. I'm trying to remember the detail. MR. JACKSON: Same here, I'm trying to remember. I don't know if it was a rhetorical question or -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer may have -- MR. JACKSON: -- a numerical question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what we decided to do is that it's an abutting mixed use, or was it -- because essentially these are going to be -- we're going to be bringing residential into this, so I guess you want to exclude mixed use. Page 32 September 7, 2006 MR. JACKSON: The reason that there was a change here when we took out the words contiguous GTMUD- R residential subdistricts is because the Gateway area has a common border with the Bayshore area, and in the Bayshore area there are some residential districts that are on that property line. And so by strict definition here, they would not have to provide a buffer between the residential district to the south of them. So we're saying all residential to provide a buffer between them. And it was basically trying to be less restrictive in defining residential. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember now. The issue was that he was concerned for you, if you wanted to, you were going to lose some property, some loss of use of property, and he didn't care, but that was a question he posed to you, and you've now affirmed that you want to have that. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. That's my recollection of it. MR. JACKSON: Correct. The whole intent here is to leave it as it is, but just to make sure that we capsulate all residential instead of a specific residential code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did we change on Page 68, under Roman IV from a director's opinion to professional judgment? I assume that was changed on all of them as was appropriate. MR. JACKSON: On Page 68, that's under the administrative deviations, which is a thing that you have had a conversation about that's coming to you later. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where the issue was raised was the term director's opinion, which I offered professional judgment in its place, and that was agreed to by everybody on this board and I think agreed to by others. I know we did it in a couple of other places as well. Page 33 September 7,2006 ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer was not through with his questions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, on that same point, is the intent of that that every -- I mean, we're going to have mixed use projects. You want that buffer between mixed use projects? In other words, buffers are required between the subdistricts within the Gateway, correct? MR. JACKSON: The buffers is for a residential property, not a mixed use property. Remember, when you talk about buffers between mixed use, they have to change their -- they have to opt into the overlay and become mixed use. If it's an R-l or any of the other -- if it's a residential single- family home neighborhood, you want the buffers between that and your mixed use development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that was my concern in my notes here, that for example a high-rise condo is a residential, but you maybe wouldn't want -- or another mixed use. I think -- weren't we going to do something that would limit it to single-family, townhouse or duplex abutting districts? And the staff I guess can answer me to see if it's clear. If two mixed use proj ects were side by side, they have residential in them, would they be required to have a buffer? MR. JACKSON: There probably would be a buffer between them, because -- unless they were developed at the same time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that buffer would come out of the buffer requirements of the LDC? MR. JACKSON: Correct. And the buffer requirements that are in the overlay. So the only time that I would see that two mixed use developments would not have a buffer in them is if they were designed and built at the same time. If tomorrow a mixed use Page 34 September 7, 2006 development is built, it will have to put in its buffers according to code, and then two years from now if next door to it on a common property line you put another mixed use development in there, you'll end up with a double buffer, unless you look at it and make some kind of agreement to it. But I think this is not really a significant problem. I don't see that happening, knowing the nature of the design of the overlay district and the properties in it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is, in other words, if it goes straight to the LDC -- and this is the landscaping buffer section of the district, correct? So if we go to the LDC, you're going to have large -- the suburban buffer systems. That's not going to give you your downtown, that's the -- MR. JACKSON: We have buffer requirements in the overlay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are they -- do they follow too on this? The reference of 4.6 is to the buffer requirements of the landscape code or -- is that right? MS. FABACHER: 4.06? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, here's my concern. If you're doing this urban village with mixed use projects and you're using the suburban buffer system -- MS. FABACHER: But you will remember -- excuse me, Catherine Fabacher. You'll remember that Mike worked on some alternatives for when these situations came up. You worked on those with him. The alternative A, Band C buffers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they would be within this section E, wouldn't they? I'll research a little more too, Dave. Never -- we can move on. But I think the point was last time we wanted to make clear that this was if you were abutting single-family, duplex or townhouse zoning. Page 35 September 7,2006 MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. Mr. Schiffer, we're pretty comfortable with what we've got. Staff is comfortable with what we've got. I would recommend to this commission to approve what we have recommended here and to go back and do a thorough analysis and address these buffering issues in the next LDC cycle. There aren't any -- the mixed use developments that are coming in right now, they're pretty confined. And this issue is not going to happen. Specifically in the Gateway area, there aren't any mixed use proj ects that are being proposed yet or been presented to staff. So we have time to go back and look at it. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Do you have -- does anybody else have any other questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have a comment. Not to carry out unnecessarily dialogue, but envisioning, which I suspect I think I'm right, and Mr. Schiffer will indicate to me whether I'm right or not. In these matters, if you aren't trying to get mixed use and you have a lot of buffers between, you're going back to the code that you're trying to get away from, I thought. MR. JACKSON: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you're willing to do that now because you feel that you don't have enough to go forward with. You don't have enough sense that there are people who want to do this? I want to support you. I want to understand how firm you are in that, or you just want to get this thing through or what. MR. JACKSON: Well, no, sir, when we looked at the buffering, is within mixed use developments. There isn't any buffering requirement between a residential building and a commercial or a mixed use building in itself. And there's very little and a small amount of buffers that it's usually determined by the parking lot structure when you have a mixed use project next to a commercial Page 36 September 7, 2006 project. The rub usually happens is when you end up with a single-family home series of lots and a larger project goes in and the residents are very concerned about what's on the other side of their property. It's outside their back yard. For instance, we have an example of it right now, and if I may give you, is there's a mobile home zoned area, there's some preexisting mobile home lots in there, they're 50-foot lots, and a development came in as a PUD and it was for 218 four-story condos. And right behind their fence line they see this proj ect going on and they want to be buffered from it, because they're saying even though that's residential, it's different than what we are. And so in the mixed use we're trying to protect the single-family or duplex residential from that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you for that clarification. MR. JACKSON: Thank you, sir. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just stay with that same example. When they sell out the mobile home park and a mixed use comes in to replace it, would they have to provide that buffer from the other mixed use? MR. JACKSON: That's not going to happen, because residential property cannot become mixed use. It has to have the commercial component to start with before it can become a mixed use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again -- MR. JACKSON: And this is to protect the residential neighborhood fabric. We don't want everything to become mixed use. So if it's a residential, that fabric of residential designation stays there for the community. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Do I hear a motion to forward this with a recommendation to the BCC? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. Page 37 September 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, with the exception of the deviation. Let's make that accurate. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: With the exception of deviations, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. But I think we should word it -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: It should be on the record, you're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'll second it. But let me make a suggestion for the motion, that it be motion with a recommendation of approval with the exception of 2.03.07(5). And I think we should have two. There are two proposals here, one is for Gateway, one is for Bayshore, so -- MR. JACKSON: Yeah, it would be five for the Bayshore and for Gateway it would be -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: We'll do separate motion, so it's okay. Ms. Fabacher? MS. FABACHER: I was just going to say, it's 1(5) in Bayshore and N(5) in Gateway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Is that good, Lindy? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: All in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Unanimous. And let's take the same motion for the Gateway Triangle, since we've through all the issues there. There were none additional that you Page 38 September 7, 2006 needed to go through? MR. JACKSON: That was the last discussion we had there had to do with buffering. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Do I hear a motion -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: -- to forward that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So seconded. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: All in favor, with the same stipulations? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Ms. Fabacher? MS. FABACHER: Sorry. I just wanted to say that perhaps -- I don't see the staff here for stormwater yet. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: No, we'll be putting that off, Ms. Fabacher, because there is no staff here. MS. FABACHER: Great. That's -- I was going to say-- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: We will be going to LDC 4.03.05, subdivision design requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page, please? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Page 97. MS. FABACHER: No, no, no. I'm sorry, okay, you're right. That's -- I could explain. You'll recall that -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I believe this is coming back to us just for a definition. MS. FABACHER: Exactly. Thank you, ma'am. Page 39 September 7, 2006 ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: So at the bottom of Page 97 is a definition for house pad. Does anyone have any problem with the definition of house pad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the concern was is we're giving requirements as a measurement to the house pad, but we didn't determine where that measurement was to. That was the question I had last time. I don't see anywhere where that's being solved. That's MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, the measurement to where? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Requiring the house pad, certain dimension, where we're measuring to on a house pad. I assume we could say top of the house pad, but -- the highest elevation of the house pad. MS. FABACHER: Let me see. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The average grade of the house pad around the building. We could use the building code. MS. FABACHER: It says a maximum elevation of 18 inches above the elevation of the crown of the road of the paved street or 24 inches above the elevation of the crown of the unpaved street at the driveway entrance to the home. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, the house pad, essentially by my knowledge of it, it would be at the building, it would slope away from the building, and then it would have a greater slope about five feet away. MS. FABACHER: It says here, next sentence, side slopes to the fill pad can be no steeper than one vertical unit to full horizontal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So where are we measuring? Can we measure -- are we measuring to the top of the pad to the -- MS. FABACHER: The top of the fill. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To the highest point of the pad? Page 40 September 7, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Well, I'm assuming that we can average it. Because let's face it, it's -- well, yeah, to the top of the pad. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a fixed position. MS. FABACHER: It's fixed. I was thinking about the depth. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, it won't be uniform all the way around the buildings. Could be, but not necessarily. MS. F ABACHER: Well, it will be level. MR. KLATZKOW: We hope. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It has to slope some. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: It's level on all homes except the ones that Mr. Schiffer builds. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I build by code, and the code says the property -- it has to drain away from the home, so -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Seriously, yeah, let's talk about this. I mean, that's -- MS. F ABACHER: No, I think it's pretty clear with what Stan wrote. I mean, your fill pad has got to be 18 inches measured from the crown of the road or the unpaved road, yada, yada. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. MS. FABACHER: That's fine. And that's underneath the slab, the footprint of the building. And then you have to come, slope down, and you've got four feet of slope. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But see, what you defined as the low part of the measurement, it's the high part I'm worried about. We can add in here -- I think we should add in that the average -- I don't know, there's a grade definition in the building code which theoretically the builder would be -- or the designers would be using. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Perhaps it's not even ours to deal with then as an issue. Page 41 September 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, here's what you're going to have. We're trying to get rid of the height of the pad. So some guy's going to say, well, I'm measuring it from the crown, I'm measuring it from the average height of the pad, I'm measuring it from all over the place. Joe, do you think that's a problem, or am I just paying too much MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt. I'm puzzled, Brad, in what you're asking, because this is referring to nothing more than the fill pad. We still have to maintain the highest and lowest adjacent grade according to the FEMA requirements. You still have to have your drainage -- slope away from the house pad. We still have to maintain adequate drainage between property lines. This was only specifically related to bringing in fill for the house pad in general. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So where's the top of that -- I mean, when you're measuring it 18 inches off of the crown of the road to -- where's the other measurement go to? If it's obvious, then -- MS. FABACHER: The top of the pad. MR. SCHMITT: I see -- yes. And it's basically the elevation that your pad is placed, that's physically where your slab is going to be placed once you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you'll review that as the highest point that that -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the grade is alongside that building on a pad-- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is going to be the highest that it can be. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. It will be at the final slab elevation. And that's determined by the BFE. Or in this case it will be through this Page 42 September 7, 2006 measurement here, through the 18 inches above the crown of the road, or paved street 24 inches. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it will be approximately eight inches below the -- here's the other problem is what if someone goes out and measures the pad? Because the pad's going to be higher than that grade. Because the slab's going to four inches thick, the grade's going to be at least eight inches below that. MR. SCHMITT: In reality, many times the pads are even higher, because the limiting factor in many of the places where we encounter this in the Estates, the pad height is a function of the height of the septic system. So you have -- you can have the proper fall between your house pad and your septic, and the septic has to be so many feet above the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But remember, this is limiting the height. I mean -- MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- this is -- these are where people want six feet and we're going to give them 18 inches, so -- I mean, if everybody on -- we can let it float and if it becomes an issue we'll -- MR. SCHMITT: Now, frankly, if this was to preclude especially on some of these 75-foot lots where you have -- you're bring in fill and then you have a series of homes, you in essence create a dam. We're trying to require, as you saw in the other definition, stem wall construction, and we're trying to limit the amount of fill that can be brought in. So that it forces a developer to bring in only a minimum amount of fill and then go to stem wall, which is -- the reason we're trying to do it is to not create this huge amount of fill coming in and creating these almost artificial dams. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we support it. My only concern is just to make sure that -- you know, what you're measuring to. People want higher pads than this is going to allow. So they're Page 43 September 7, 2006 going to be pushing that definition. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, could you explain that to this guy? Because I'm confused. I thought I understood -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The crown of the road is a definite. I know what that is. And it -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So do I. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- should actually be the average crown of the road, but we don't need to do that. So I know where that is. I can put my measuring tape on that. Where do you put the other end of the measuring tape? The pad is not like a level square or something. This is the thing with slopes on the side, sloping up to the building. Actually under the building the pad's higher because it's supporting a slab that's less dimension than the required grade elevation from a floor level. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Help me along on this. The way I envision this, I start at the crown of the road and I shoot a side line across, equal to so that I get 18 inches, okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And now I build from that. Sloping occurs as I build from that. And then I put my pad on top of it. Where am I wrong? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, if you want that to be the definition, which would be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought was the definition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be the elevation underneath the slab. MR. SCHMITT: Exactly what -- the way we would apply this. It's the final elevation that we would allow the fill to come to. Anything that required above that would be stem wall construction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So once they come in, they put the fill in, they compact it down, that pad can't be higher than 18 Page 44 September 7, 2006 inches. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How would we know that? Because we're going to cover that with a house. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, wouldn't it be subject to inspection? MR. SCHMITT: That would be subject to when they submit the plans, they would be subject to review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I think you're in the building code in that area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean here's what's going to happen. So the guy compacts it down nice and neat. You know, what you're saying is if you check it at that point, no problem, you'll know what the top of the pad is. If you don't, the guy's going to pour concrete, probably a monolithic footing on top of that and you won't know -- the grade will actually be lower dimension than that. The way I was doing it was actually going to give him probably six inches. But that's fine. I mean, and maybe it's a minutia thing that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I interpreted this as a encouragement to reduce fill and to begin to employ more stem wall. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I interpreted that -- I thought it covered that. But if you're creating questions for me, I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I just wondered where the top of the -- MR. SCHMITT: I think this definition gives us exactly what we need in order to do exactly what you just said, Mr. Murray -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that. MR. SCHMITT: -- is that it gives us -- it limits the amount of fill which will help solve some of the problems we're having with Page 45 September 7, 2006 excessive fill and creating, for all intent and purposes, artificial dams out in the middle of some of these lots that do nothing more than exacerbate the problems in regards to the site drainage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if you interpreted that during the construction process no part of that pad can exceed this height, then maybe we're covered. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, that's basically my interpretation of this. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Do we have any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move to -- for approval of the LD change for Section 4.03.05, subdivision design requirements, adding the definition of house pad. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I think Mr. Murray already seconded it. Yes, he did. All in favor? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: It passes unanimously. We are-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: By the way, that was a really good one for the county. We earned our good deed award today for that one. MS. FABACHER: I think we might have skipped 4.02.23. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: No, that's next. Page 46 September 7, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Okay, thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Section 4.02.23, same development standards in the activity center, number nine zoning district. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What page? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: And this is Page 119 through 120. And the change we made is reflected on 3(C) and (E). And they have done what we had asked, which was to make sure that the clock tower had no more than one clock face per side and no digital clocks would be allowed. And (E), that only one clock tower per business park or PUD would be permitted. So do I -- if there are no questions -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, there is one item, too. Under (D), that the word abutting and adjacent were in question. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: And they were corrected. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'm looking at the brown sheet here. Okay, sorry about that. You're right. I should look at that one. Thank you. No questions. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER TUFF: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Do I have a second? Mr. Tuff will second. THE COURT REPORTER: It is recorded as Mr. Tuff making the motion. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Then we'll do what you want to have done this time. Mr. Tuff is the motion maker and Mr. Adelstein will be the second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Absolutely. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: All in favor? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 47 September 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: It's unanimous. Okay, now, we are on to Page 197, which is LDC Section 9.04.04(D). Add language omitted during the recodification process. Supposedly. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, remove language. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: No, to add language. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry, you're right. MS. F ABACHER: Madam Chair? Catherine Fabacher. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes, Ms. Fabacher. MS. FABACHER: Okay, initially what we did with this amendment is the county attorney's office -- this is the process whereby we can administratively after the fact vary a small encroachment, minimal size encroachment, to make a house -- to clear up the title so it's not nonconforming. And it's pretty strict on that. The zoning director had made a -- after-the-fact had issued it on an accessory building but got an opinion from the county attorney's office that these requirements only apply to primary structures, principal buildings and not accessory. So what we've kind of done here mainly is to put in -- you can see the first sentence on 197, for structures including principal and accessory structures. Okay? And then the rest of it -- and I'm hoping that Commissioner Schiffer can help me, because he worked on it and he did an excellent job. Staff had reviewed it and he just kind of rearranged it and rewrote it to make it -- to clarify it a little bit more. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, before you go further, Page 48 September 7, 2006 Mr. Schiffer, if the county attorney's opInIon was that accessory structures should not be included in this, why are they included in this? That's what you just said. MS. FABACHER: No, I said that the language did not include it. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: It was not included in the original language? MS. FABACHER: Right. And what we're doing to clear up our intent is we're putting accessory in, because that's the intent of staff, to allow it for principal and accessory uses. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, there's no change I made. I just scrambled the words around, combined a lot of things. There was a lot of repetitive language in the old one, so it was just cleaning up code. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, I have a problem with B on the blue sheets. I'm not sure -- MS. FABACHER: Blue is good. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: B on the blue sheets. It says property -- on Page 198, sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: B on the blue sheet. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, Page 198 under B. For properties supporting a single-family home to family home duplex, a mobile home or modular home, the county manager or designee may administratively approve encroachments up to 25 percent of the required yard in effect as of the date of the final development order. And I will go on record once again as saying that being that a quarter of this project is not a minor variance, it should be handled after the fact. Twenty-five percent is much too much for an after-the- fact administrative variance. I don't think that this serves the public well at all. Up above, if you will note in A, we are at five percent or six Page 49 September 7, 2006 inches. And I don't know where we leaped to 25 percent other than it was that way before. But we're making changes. MS. FABACHER: Madam Chair, no, if you will look up on top of 198 where it's struck through, that's just the language that's currently in the code. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Right, I understand. But this is an LDC amendment. MS. FABACHER: I understand. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Now is the time -- MS. FABACHER: And if you would-- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: -- to make changes. MS. FABACHER: Well, we -- here comes the team. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 16-millimeter guns are coming forward. MR. SCHMITT: It's always been 25 percent. And I understand your position on this. And certainly if the planning commission wants to opine on this, I would ask only that you consider in a counter argument the costs associated with a variance. We had a situation here recently where you questioned gee, this seems to be rather oppressive financially for someone to pay for the -- go through the public hearing process for a variance. So there's those two compelling arguments. The-- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, Mr. Schmitt, you can always change your fee structure. That's an easy thing. MR. SCHMITT: I can change my fee struct -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: But changing 25 percent is allowing you to change a quarter of a project after the fact. And considering it a minor variance I think is -- I think that's excessive. MR. SCHMITT: Fees are related directly to the costs associated with going through that public hearing process. That's two public hearings -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I understand. Page 50 September 7, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: -- a staff study, the Board of County Commissioners, the staff time involved. I am not in the profit-making business. I basically account for the time and then charge appropriately. So in fact probably across the board most variances cost me more than what I am charging when -- if you looked at the total staff time involved. So -- but from that perspective, it's just a matter of where the board feels comfortable in applying giving staff authority to do certain things versus the board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna? Question? Yeah. And Donna, this is not a simple hoop to jump through. I mean, if you read the requirements, number one, it has to be -- the owner can't be the one who did it. That's always fun to define. MR. SCHMITT: The issue here, though, is the board made an opinion based on a recent application of the 25 percent rule. Based on that policy decision by the board, that's what mandated this change now to the five percent. I'll turn to Susan, because that's when we got into the discussion of the application of the administrative process. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record. And first I want to apologize, the change as I understand it, it says to add language omitted during the recodification process. That's not correct. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Right. MS. MURRAY: This came about when -- actually when the county attorney rendered an opinion about the application of this provision of the code in a very specific circumstance. And so we asked -- and that's why this change is being -- because the opinion was different from the way we as planners were applying it. So that's what ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: So I agree with you, Ms. Page 51 September 7, 2006 Murray, that it is not just recodification language when entire paragraphs have been struck and new language is inserted. Let me ask you this: If you go up to A and there for residential you're allowed to -- up to five percent or a maximum of six inches, correct? MS. MURRAY: Right. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Then you skip down to B and suddenly you've gone from being able to administratively grant five percent to 25 percent. How does that -- how did that leap happen is what I'm asking. MS. MURRAY: Well, I probably have to go into a lot of detail that mayor may not be relevant. But the way -- I could probably explain it this way: The way it was set up was to address certain circumstances as they occurred either during the development process or after. And so if you read A, there's certain criteria that are established, and then the ordinance or the variance allowance was then rendered appropriately. I will tell you, when this was first drafted, many years ago now, I guess, but we had been evaluating encroachment issues as they kind of came to us, either before or after the fact. Before a C.O. was issued or after a building permit was issued or kind of anywhere in the development phase, normally of residential I think was the majority. And that's how the criteria was essentially established, just kind of by looking at historical data. That mayor may not be the best way, but it was kind of a way to address the situation administratively, rather than bringing all what the board looked at as very minor variances in front of them continuously. And I think that was kind of the gist of the amendment was was the board was also seeing a lot of what I'd call real minor variances and they wanted to give staff a little bit more administrative leeway, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, one second. Mr. Page 52 September 7, 2006 Schiffer was first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's still my question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, a thing for comfort, a really, you know, cleans up little -- for example surveying areas, little glitches during construction. Six inches doesn't mean anything. It is in a conforming setback but it's a way to wipe that clean pretty quick. B is a situation -- and I think the power of B is in three where somebody has a property that has an addition or something that they didn't get a permit on. This is a way in which to handle that. Especially if it requires a variance to go with it. It does require, as you see, 3-A, that they actually get an after-the- fact building permit, which means that it's past the building code. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, they have to go A through E. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A through E. These are not simple hoops to go through. MS . MURRAY: They're not. And they are -- I'll be real honest with you, there -- B especially is intentionally written to be fairly open-ended. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, I think like for example if a guy built a house and he moved his setback six inches all the way around the house to take advantage of this, you would notice that. And that would be something that he did that you wouldn't allow, would you? Or -- if the house is -- from the approved plans has slid six inches one way, that's what this is for. MS. MURRAY: Exactly. You stated it correctly. A minor surveying error or kind of after the building permit is then issued and they did a spot survey and they came up that the originals -- an original surveyor follow-up survey showed a discrepancy. And that's Page 53 September 7, 2006 what it was intended for. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just so I can understand it a little bit more clearly, it expresses a percentage because just as the illustration I was just given relates to where it could be, all around the house type of thing. But in terms of maximum footage, what's the maximum that you would ever be able to grant? MR. SCHMITT: Under A, six inches. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, how about under B? Two and a half feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, depends on the setback. MS. MURRAY: Depends what the required yard is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I realize, because it's in a percentage. And I appreciate that, the barrier. But are we talking about a significant thing or are we talking about something that -- if we balance it with the cost of variance and all of the mechanics associated with it and the money with that there, are we talking about something that's significant enough that it should come to this board? Now, you've made a judgment, and I appreciate that, that it should be administratively done. And we have to have confidence that it will be done professionally and carried out correctly. What I think would help me along is if you could give me at least a minimal guidance -- I know you can't be exact -- as to what a maximum number could be that your folks would ever get involved in. Just a guess. Educated guess. MS. MURRAY: Sure, to answer your first question, it's -- in my opinion, it's minimal. In my opinion, I don't think that it's reasonable to bring these types of variances before a full-blown board hearing. A lot of them are -- fall under the A category; the majority of them do that we process. If you take -- in the case of let me just use a single-family home Page 54 September 7, 2006 as an example. Twenty-five percent of seven and a half feet would -- might be typical. So that would be your number. And I'm not going to do math in public without a calculator. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not trying to put you into that. MS. MURRAY: Sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I was trying to do, see, what I recognize is there's a question of confidence in whether or not there will be consistency in determination and whether or not there will be perhaps anybody getting an opportunity that somebody else might not get. But I think that at some point we have to agree that your folks are professional and you do your job as best you can and that you're competent to do that. So what I was looking for is that one parameter that might make a difference in terms of our judgment. And if you're telling me seven and a half feet on a -- MS. MURRAY: Yeah, I think that's because it's limited to single- family, two-family, duplex, mobile home. So if you're in a PUD, you're talking -- you guys have been pretty consistent in approving six feet as a minimum. You know, so you're talking 12 foot separation, six foot for each structure. So 25 percent of that. And then you've got a lot of our districts are seven and a half feet -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if we use seven and a half, that would be our basis for discussion. And I think that's a fair basis -- well, Mr. Schiffer is disagreeing with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you had a 50-foot front setback in the Estates, that's 12 and a half feet. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. And I keep -- you know what? Sorry I didn't bring that up. I keep thinking sides. Because a lot of times it happens in the sides. It rarely happens up in the front. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: But the way it is worded, that can happen. Page 55 September 7, 2006 MS. MURRAY: Yes, absolutely. So yeah, you're right, you could -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when this is going to be an issue, someone's building -- they get a permit. If you notice, they have to get building permits. This is not a way to get around building permits, or this is not a forgiveness kind of thing. And then during the construction of it, there could be a mistake made. It would be probably caught at the spot survey. And that's when you'd probably be dealing with this, don't you think, Susan? In other words, you know, they put the garage, it's two feet into the setback on the front. Rather than tear it down and move it back, they'd be going for administrative variance to -- MS. MURRAY: Yeah, like I said, it's mostly they're caught during the construction after the building -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would you do if the builder did a project and he -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, you both are talking at the same time. Ms. Murray, would you please repeat your comment? MS. MURRAY: Sure. Most of the time it's caught during construction after the building permits are issued but before the C.O. is. Most of ours. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would you do if a guy had a history of this? In other words, if a builder decides to make a model that he pushes 12 feet forward in the Estates every time? I mean, is there a way for you to rein him in? MS. MURRAY: By code-- MR. SCHMITT: It would be referred to the Contractor Licensing Board and brought before the Contractor Licensing Board. If we found the B list to be a habitual violator, the only recourse I have, either for the zoning staff to -- basically would advise me or the building director, and we would remand that person to appear before Page 56 September 7, 2006 the Contractor Licensing Board and let the board deal with that. MR. KLATZKOW: I'd also note that the language grants some discretion on the county manager as designee, so that if you had somebody who was habitually breaking this rule, I think you have the discretion to say no. MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it is the property owner, so you'd have to have a -- it would be an odd situation. But as long as it can't be abused, I think it's a fair way to deal with these problems. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I just said if I was going to error on this one, I'd rather error on the forgiveness part for a landowner. But rather than making it up on the fly like we're doing right here, I guess I'm comfortable with the 25 percent and letting it go just as it is and not try and -- we're trying to make something up that we don't have enough information to do right here on the fly. And I'd recommend we approve it as it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I second that. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I'm opposed. Now we are on to probably lunch for Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's do that. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: And we'll come back to do the -- hopefully we'll have the staff that we need when we get back and we will have the essential services people here when we return. Page 57 September 7, 2006 MR. KLA TZKOW: Do you want to set a time for that? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: So we'll be back in an hour. MR. SCHMITT: What did we do with the emergency services? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: It's after lunch. (Lunch recess.) MR. SCHMITT: You have a live mic. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Okay, just for-- MR. SCHMITT: Feedback here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's try that. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Just so that everyone in the audience and everyone here is aware, there are three items that we'll talk about this afternoon. The first one will be essential services. Then we'll get a report from -- then -- I'm sorry, then we will hear -- what is the name of this -- LDC Sections 10.02.02(A)(2), (A)( 4)(H) and (A)(7) from environmental services. And then we'll get an update also from environmental services on the EAC meeting of yesterday. So those are the three things that we have left on our agenda. And so let's get started so we don't have to hold the chief up. This is LDC Section 2.01.03, essential services. CHIEF PAGE: Good afternoon. For the record, Jeff Page with emergency medical services. We had made another revision, and I'm not sure which revision you have, but we had worked with Mr. Schiffer to change some of the language to address some of the issues that your panel had with the last review. If it's all right, I'd like to pass it out now. And it's highlighted so you can see the actual changes. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Let's just see. We may have that already in front of us. Catherine, do we on the blue sheets have the correct information? MS. FABACHER: On the blue sheets you have the revision that Page 58 September 7, 2006 staff passed along with the provisions that they could recommend. The Chief had some other provisions that -- well -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, no, no, no, that's-- MS. FABACHER: -- that staff doesn't support, and he may provide those for you today. But they have the version, Chief, that -- I told you, the second version that we sent. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, I have that one also. MS. FABACHER: Okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, you may pass out your changes as well. Once again, we're put in a position where there are significant changes here from what we have had to review. And while -- as with the earlier deviations, I'm more than willing to listen to the changes you'd like to make, but I'm not sure that we should be making this decision without thoroughly reviewing this. It's nice that Mr. Schiffer has reviewed it, but no one else has had a chance to review these changes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I explain? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: And it's not just a matter of a word or two. CHIEF PAGE: Madam Chair, if I could, the intent on my part was really to work off both sheets of music and maybe reach some common ground today, to address both staffs issue and the issue with the fire commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, the changes really aren't that different. If you look at Page 50 and 9, those are the two different opinions. One is as submitted by emergency services. The second one is the staff reviewing emergency services and making their own recommendations. So that is the only difference. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : We're on Page 51 ? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: E. What 51(E) is, that the original intent was to make it blanket permitted everywhere. They Page 59 September 7, 2006 struck through the conditional use ability, and that's just putting it back in. The reason it's red is it was unstruck. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How about 52? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exact same thing. Unless there's an underlined. In other words, anything red that does not have a strike- through or anything was something that was removed because they were trying to get everything permitted. So what that meant is it's still allowed as a conditional use. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: All right. Well, let's let the Chief go forward and if we have any issues, we'll deal with them. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Donna? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I'm sorry, Tor. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: My sheet has black type, red type and green type and lines through it underlined. Can somebody indicate to me what each of those represent? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I think we'll let the Chief do that. CHIEF PAGE: They were actually from -- one involved I believe an attorney making some recommendation. Her comments are in green. Mr. Schiffer's comments are in red. And this is what was taken to the fire chiefs' steering committee where the fire commissioners, the fire chiefs all reviewed it. And they found this to be acceptable to them. So what we're coming today to propose is that if we can take staffs recommendation, the Jeff/Brad draft of -- noted for 8-24-06 and try to reach some common ground and to address any additional issues you might have with the amendment. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Again, if you want to go forward and talk about the changes you are asking for, that's fine. Staff obviously has issues, and I'm not sure that we'll resolve this here today, because we're just getting them, and no one else other than Mr. Schiffer has had a chance to look at this.t Page 60 September 7, 2006 So proceed and let's see where it goes. CHIEF PAGE: On Page 50, number nine -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, you'd better start on Page 49, because that's where the changes begin. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Jeff, I think I can help with that. CHIEF PAGE: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This was -- throughout this essential service in the existing code, we used the phrase safety services. And this was a recommendation to actually include what safety services meant. That's all on Page 59 is. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Forty-nine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Forty-nine, I'm sorry. CHIEF PAGE: I think there was initially some concern if private providers would be able to come in, things of that nature. And that certainly was not our intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this wording in red was only to -- now, I think staff took that out. But it was an explanation of existing code. Susan wanted-- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Oh, I'm sorry, Susan. I was looking -- MS. MURRAY: That's all right. Susan Murray, zoning director. The difficulty we would have with this, and it's a little bit difficult to explain, but we've -- throughout the years we have tried to segregate the various safety service types of uses. And we ran into a conflict with the GMP, because it's -- I believe it's also mentioned in the GMP. And that is essentially the last place we left it. We did a comprehensive rewrite of the various zoning districts and tried to clearly identify fire, EMS, training facilities, that sort of thing. I'm not sure how successful we were, because in the end we still had a lot of staff questioning the differences between the two. Page 61 September 7, 2006 So I'm really hesitant to try to define it here without us having the opportunity to go back through and make sure that this is not in conflict with either the GMP or any other provision of the code. And I can't say that it -- there's a high likelihood that it probably is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just occurs to me when I read this, including those that provide, blah, blah blah, blah. Well, wouldn't code enforcement be considered an essential service then? Just as a thought. I mean, that's why you need to go and look at that a lot more carefully. MS. MURRAY: Possibly, yeah, that's a good point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. So I would say to you that this, while well intended maybe have created an unnecessary stricture. MS. MURRAY: I would describe it as -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I would aver that we pass this one. We can listen and certainly perhaps comment, but I would think the same as we did this morning. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I have is I -- you can take it out, I have no problem with that. The problem is you use the word safety services and don't define it. This just provides a definition for it that the code should have. It's not -- I'll tell you what, we'll make a deal, take out the definition if you take out the word everywhere. MS. MURRAY: Well, and that might be the solution to the problem, and I don't disagree with you. It is used everywhere and it's not clearly defined. Including government facilities as well. I mean, that's another issue, too. We started trying to clearly define it and then I kind of lost some resources and it kind of went by the wayside. And I'd certainly be Page 62 September 7, 2006 willing to look at it next cycle. And in fact I need to involve the compo plan folks too, because we had initially involved them when we were debating it and trying to dissect it, and again it just didn't get followed through. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, did I misunderstand, this sheet was distributed, the staff has reviewed it or has not reviewed it? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I'm being told here by Ms. Murray that they have not reviewed it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's not fair. The staff has reviewed it and decided to take out the wording. MS. MURRAY: Catherine's reviewed it. I haven't, but she can comment to that. MS. FABACHER: I've reviewed it. And I'm happy to explain why things were taken out. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: But compo has not reviewed it. MS. MURRAY: Correct. CHIEF PAGE: Perhaps it would be easier if we just work off the copy that you have and make some concessions at that point. That is the copy you have reviewed, correct? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: We have a copy that, yes, does not include this new language. CHIEF PAGE: Okay. And that's acceptable to certainly us, if that's the preference of staff and the panel. So really there's no changes to 49, working off the copy that you've been provided. On Page 50 -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question on Page 50. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Under 9(A)(I), the site may be located on a road leading to an arterial or collector road only if the center line of no driveway is no more than 1,000 feet from the Page 63 September 7, 2006 intersection. Should that be more or less? I'm a little confused by that. No more or no less than. Sorry for my confusion, but I'm kind of locked up in it. The site may be located on a road leading to an arterial or collector road only if the center line of no driveway is no more than 1,000 feet from the intersection. CHIEF PAGE: So that wouldn't -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No more -- CHIEF PAGE: -- be less. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What? CHIEF PAGE: Nine hundred feet would be permissible. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, in the context. There was a few nos in there. That threw me into the negative and it was a little CHIEF PAGE: Double negative. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- confusing for me. So you're saying that if it's 999 feet, it's okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Are there any other questions on Page 50? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I mean, I think if you want, we could explain some of the differences in the two versions. A was not. A was just a way of wording the same thing another way. B, the intent that came from -- and Chief Page's review is that the setbacks in -- the most restrictive setbacks of an adjoining district should apply to this. Essentially that if it's -- a site is next to a district that has a restrictive setback, that the building will be built to match the districts it's within. I think they handled that, staff, by making sure that the building's no closer than 300 feet. Kind of a long -- 300 feet's a football field. So I'm -- you know, that's a pretty strong distance. And I'm not a big fan of that clause. Page 64 September 7, 2006 I would rather -- the other things that we tried to do is come up with a process through the SDP process where neighbors could actually have input as to how the thing's designed. Staff wasn't interested in that. And the other thing is staffs that are totally within commercial zoning districts. Would just really have to apply with A. The buffer requirement they have in D, that's no problem. The noise requirement in C would go without saying, but that's no problem. It would be -- so I guess the only argument we could discuss is B. I mean, do we want to have it designed to the most restrictive setback and heights of the buildings in the neighborhood, or should it be just the building's no closer than 300 feet to a residence? Right? MS. FABACHER: You want me to comment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes. MS. FABACHER: I have to say this. You know, when you say the most restrictive. Well, if they're in a residential zoning district and there's a seven and a half foot setback, would you like to wake up one morning with no notice and see that they're constructing a fire station 15 feet from your bedroom window? The way that we had interpreted this one of 300 feet, it says of any existing structure. And the way that it worked was there could be vacant lots not owned by the department between you that may be bought one day. But when they're bought, the people will see that there's a fire station there. That's -- and I have to say that in general -- well, I try not to take a position, because I'm the ring master. And generally staff is opposed to the whole concept. But they asked us to help and try and write some conditions. But, you know, it's very site specific to try and write general conditions that would protect people. It's just -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Adelstein? Page 65 September 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: First of all, I'd like some time to look this thing over. I also realize the importance of it and how soon it has to be done. And if possible I would like to make a motion, if we could do it that way, that they could come in for our next meeting of the CCPC before it starts and then go through it, get it finished with and then get on with whatever we're going to do that day. I can't go through something like this and make all the answers, and certainly can't do it with this type of quick space. I feel they have a right to go through this thing and to analyze it, but give us a time to do that. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Does anybody else have any comments? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On what he just said or -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Comments of your own. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to -- you know, if you're interested in some dimension, maybe we could work on something other than 300 feet. Three hundred feet's a long -- first of all, I personally wouldn't mind waking up one morning and seeing a fire station 15 feet out from my bedroom. I'd get a safe feeling from that. But maybe -- I mean, I don't know where 300 feet comes from. I mean, maybe it's 50 feet, maybe it's -- I mean, why is 300 feet chosen? That's a football field. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is a conditional use issue, correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MS. FABACHER: No, they're trying to make it a permitted use by right with no public hearing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, I'm in the wrong section. I apologize. Question withdrawn. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, I'm just going to make a Page 66 September 7, 2006 comment. I'm going to read a letter into the record from Commissioner Strain. I'd just like to say from my own standpoint before I read this, we already have a conditional use process to make this happen. And I don't think it's broke. So I'm not sure what the fix is for. But at any rate, I received this letter from Commissioner Strain, and I will read it into the record, for whatever it is worth. It says, I apologize for not being able to attend today's meeting, but for the first time this year I have had a conflict that would not allow me to be with you. I had attempted to connect via phone but logistics again did not work out. So I ask that you please accept my comments as contained herein as a means to express my frustration with the recommended changes to the essential services section of our code. I have read two different version of this section since our last meeting, so I'm not sure which one you are voting on today. However, my comments are general enough that they would be applicable to either one, with one exception. One version contained a modified process for the public to participate at SDP level at the preap. meeting. Public participation at this juncture in a project's development is impractical. By the time anyone gets to the SDP level, they've already spent considerable amounts of money on either land, the engineering or the architecture to a point, they would simply argue, that they are so far into the project that changes to accommodate the public would waste the taxpayers' money, along with the time and a myriad of other such excuses. The SDP process is not the forum of public process where citizens can be as they should be, effective. As far as the other issues involving placement of stations, this becomes another issue like using drugs: Simply say no. Our current LDC rule for such conditional uses is not broken and does not need to Page 67 September 7, 2006 change. What needs to change is the planning techniques of those agencies who claim they cannot work around the time frames for processing a conditional use, which by the way is only four to five months, not the nine months or more claimed at our prior meeting. Yes, some CU's have taken longer, but upon close examination it was the applicants who delayed responding that wasted time, not county reVIewers. If anyone should be planning better, it should be our emergency services, and they should not be rewarded for their lack of planning by granting them this LDC amendment at a detriment to our neighborhoods. Now, there is a motion by Mr. Adelstein -- CHIEF PAGE: I'm sorry, could I respond to that, though? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Sure. CHIEF PAGE: Facilities uses a nine to 12 months in their time line because you can't even apply for an SDP permitting until after the first round of rejections from the conditional use permit. In talking to zoning, ideally it's supposed to be a five-month process, but we pulled the listed applications from 2004 and 2005 and found that five out of 24 were processed in five months. The time frame for ADA applications was about almost nine months. And the application process for others had been over two years. I've got copies of those for you that I can provide. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Sure. Would staff like to respond? MS. MURRAY: Yeah, I'd like to. Well, I mean, that's probably part of the story, and I'm curious as to what that information contains. But I will tell you that the stated time frame for my staff to complete a conditional use is approximately four months. When the applicant comes in the door, they are assigned a Page 68 September 7, 2006 hearing date. When their application is deemed sufficient, and that is within four months of when they applied and when it was deemed sufficient. During that time frame, the applicant has to meet certain commitments and responses back to us, as do we. And if there are delays in responding by either party, then obviously that extends the time frame. Our last evaluation of all of our land use petition types showed that 96 percent of the time the delays were caused by the applicants not responding in the time frame that we needed them to in order to make the dates that we had already assigned them. This was something that was implemented, and I lose track of time because it goes by so fast, but this was part of the initiative that Joe was working on for project review times. Not only site plans, but land use petitions. And gosh, I don't think we implemented that until probably late 2004 or early 2005; I could be slightly off. But prior to that time there were no set hearing dates. So practically speaking, depending on how the applicant responded and staff responded, it could have dragged out nine months. I'm sure we have petitions that are two years old. A lot of issues come up sometimes with some of the petitions, and the petitioners stop processing them while they obtain other information, environmental stuff, that sort of thing. So certainly there's outliers there, but right now it's at that time frame and has been for probably about the last year and a half or so. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Donna? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Have you had an opportunity to review this tabulation or these two tabulations that were just distributed? MS. MURRAY: No, I didn't. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So we have really no way of knowing whether these delays that are cited were the result of the Page 69 September 7,2006 petitioner or the staff. MS. MURRAY: Yeah, and I'm not sure it's really -- I mean, I don't want to get into he said/she said, because like you said, Mr. Kolflat, I haven't had time to read -- I didn't even know we had the information. I can only tell you what information I have, and as of last week our data suggested that 90 -- we're running about four percent of our projects delay due to staff. And again, the important thing to note here is that prior to about a year and a half ago, we didn't have these very rigid time frames. We actually send letters to applicants if they aren't responding to us and they're going to break their time frame commitment and tell them you're off track, you're off schedule now, so that they're aware. So a lot of this is if you're pulling old information, yeah, you're probably going to get longer time frames, but not recently. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So a lot of these cited delays might have been at the petitioner's fault, not the staffs fault. MS. MURRAY: Again, yeah, you have to really pick apart each and every one. A lot of it's stuff that's outside of both our control and the applicant's control sometimes. Especially if they're swapping land or trying to write contracts or, you know, things like that. It gets -- they could have applied and not had that stuff solidified and then that affects their time frame. I mean, there's so many variables. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I wanted to bring it up because it was introduced as evidence for us to consider. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: All right, it seems like there is a number -- we have a number of speakers out here, or potentially a number of speakers. Do you have any slips? MS. FABACHER: Yes, I do. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Do you have questions before we go to speakers, or -- CHIEF PAGE: I just had one more provision that we might offer up. Page 70 September 7, 2006 If we had a provision in there to address staffs concern and both the boards' concern as far as the SDP process, where the local agency would provide notice to the residents within 500 feet of the property and hold a public meeting within 45 days of the hiring of an architect to design a facility for the site, that would ensure the public would have an opportunity to address that. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the intent of that was is that, you know, even though this is a permitted use, we did want the public to have a say as to how the thing would look. It's the intent. And I know that staff doesn't want to do the SDP process. I like what the Chief just read. Somewhere along the line the people have to know, and I think everybody's with good intent, is there are things they can do to make the neighborhood better. MS. MURRAY: May I comment on that, Madam Chair? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. MS. MURRAY: I appreciate that. That's probably kind of food for thought at this point. But the way it was just read into the record and the way it's drafted here, it's totally insufficient to -- I mean, you literally would have to create a whole process, a whole set of criteria. If the public came in and reviewed their site plan and they decided that they didn't like something they saw but it wasn't -- and the fire group decided to change it but it wasn't allowed by code, how do you address that? I mean, there's so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They couldn't -- MS. MURRAY: -- it's really broad. This is very insufficient to address that type of process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have to assume the building they're going to build is going to be to code. And I think another thing, this is in response to Mark's letter. The intent here is that the fire department, unlike private industry, private developers, they have no land that they're welcomed on. And Page 71 September 7, 2006 they really need a piece -- the ability like everybody else to have permitted sites that they could plan. I mean, yes, they can't plan unless they know what sites are available. MS. FABACHER: They're permitted-- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Are you done, Mr. Schiffer? MS. FABACHER: -- Unrestricted in commercial and industrial. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Ms. Fabacher, wait a minute. Are you done, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, her answer is good. Go ahead. MS. FABACHER: I was just saying that they are not restricted in commerciallindustrial. They can buy a piece of commercial/industrial without any restrictions and put up a station. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, I want to get to the public who is here, and let's do that now. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: May I make a statement, Madam Chairman? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes, you may. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If we're going to have a motion on this at our next meeting, a lot of changes will have come to us, because we'll have done our homework and found out what it is. I would hope that those people who want to make their statements here would like it when we know what we're talking about. And I feel that if we possibly can, to have them come to our next meeting in order to do this. Otherwise, we're going to be talking about something that -- they're going to be talking about something that we do not have the information on, that we have not had the opportunity to even read. And then you're going to come back and try to remember who said what to whom. I honestly believe this is extremely important to them and to us, and I would hope that most of you who wanted to be speaking in this situation would give us the opportunity to do so after we know what Page 72 September 7, 2006 the heck we're doing. Any other way is I'll listen to what you said and then yes, and then I go back into this, and by the time I get done, I'm not sure what you said or what I said or what they said. I want this to be done because it's very important. It's very important to two different groups. And I honestly believe the only way we can do this properly is for us to state we would like to put this on an agenda on such and such a date, that we will do it before that meeting starts or the end of it, whichever one is more convenient. At which time we will have the information, we'll have the speakers here in order to give us the information that we really need, and do it in the proper way. Going this way and doing it now and coming back is not the answer. I don't believe it is. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Adelstein, I am going to give the public the opportunity to speak. If they decide they would like to come back, that's their option, but they've come out today -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I agree. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: -- and they have the right to speak and should have that right to speak. And we'll listen to them. And if they want to come back and speak the next time -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Please do. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: -- they're obviously welcome to do that as well. So if you can call the -- I'm sorry, Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: I would just like to note that there's no guarantee this is coming back. This is moving forward to the Board of County Commissioners. And after that, it may continue moving that process and never come back here. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: So Ms. Fabacher, call the public. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. Okay, first speaker would be Karl Reynolds. CHIEF REYNOLDS: Good morning -- or afternoon, I should Page 73 September 7, 2006 say. Just a couple items for you just to keep in mind. And I won't go too deep into this in some of the respects. But for you to understand about the operations in the fire service. The one comment about we're able to place a fire station in commercial and industrial. And some of the areas of fire districts, that's wonderful. However, it may not be in the areas where we need those stations. Fire stations are not just picked by a piece of property that we can be able to purchase and then put a station because we're able to afford that piece of property. We're trying to also meet the standards of the insurance agencies and the insurance standards of five linear miles -- by linear road miles to be able to have a time frame that we're able to respond and get there in that three to four minutes that we need to be there for that emergency. So just because we can pick an area that we can meet a zoning criteria off the bat already doesn't always work for us. I'm not so much inclined for the SDP thing myself, to have them at that particular time. In my own view. This is my personal view. This is in the respect that that is not the time to do it. But there is a way to include the public, whether it's done by giving them the notices and then allowing them to have the public meeting to discuss those. And I am also under the assumption that we should be building stations to be able to fit in the locations to be able to blend with those areas. And that's part of my criteria that I would see us being able to do. But being able to just do commercial and industrial, if you really look at Collier County, there's not that much industrial, unless you're in Immokalee and certain areas and a couple areas. One in North Naples -- or two in North Naples and the east. But they're consolidated to small areas. So it really doesn't help us do what we need to do for our job. And as far as the distances go, whether we have to do this Page 74 September 7, 2006 through the conditional use, the distances of the 300 feet, that wouldn't work. She gave the definition that it was from an existing building. However, there could be another lot in between. But if you put it in there as a statement like that, then it's not taking into consideration land that we may already own that there's a building on the land next door to it. So that if you do the 300 feet, there may already be properties that the fire districts and emergency services -- EMS has already purchased that would already not meet that criteria. So that's what I'm saying, whether it's done through conditional use or not. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Chief, may I engage you just a moment? CHIEF REYNOLDS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the course of preparing for the future, you and/or a number of people evaluate, project where the population's going to go, you look at the arterials, you look at the collectors and you see where you should have places. Then you figure out what a budget might be for it, you figure out the size, the location, all the rest of the stuff. And that's a process, if I'm not mistaken, that begins perhaps well before there's the first development on any property; am I wrong? CHIEF REYNOLDS: I agree. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that what I'm trying to find out is while it may be a desirable thing in perception to have a permitted by right, I'm trying to figure out what it is you lose by going through a conditional use process, albeit the fact that you might have some hiccups, you might have some time when you're pushed back, as it were, perceived push back. But if the process goes forward early enough, even with some hiccups, you're not necessarily going to lose your opportunities. Page 75 September 7, 2006 Now, when you select the site based on conditional use, you're not going to select a single site, because as a permitted use you would be able to do that. So you're going to have several sites and you're going to pick the best of which, you're going to consult with the neighborhood to determine whether or not there's a real human cry or whether or not in fact in many cases you'll be there first. So what I'm trying to understand, and I respect what you just said earlier, I'm trying to understand what the real problem is that we need that we have this sense of need to move to a permitted use and to deny the public an opportunity in residential areas a chance to evaluate whether or not that's a good thing for them. We recognize you have to subscribe to the law and the requirements in an FP A. So would you like to comment on that, sir? CHIEF REYNOLDS: Yes, sir. In understanding that when you're in a residential area, I fully understand that you need to be able to give the residents -- and there needs to be a process where those residents can voice their opinions on it. However, what we're looking at, one of the things I'm looking at, is the fact that the LDC will state essential services or for governmental needs and allow stuff that we need for emergencies and for essential services as permitted for sewage, which we would understand, a communications tower, which we would understand, and a telephone switching gear and electrical, which we'd understand. But for emergency and life safety for sheriffs, for the fire department and for EMS that are protecting lives, you don't have anything in the LDC that gives us any help in order to pick areas that meets our standards that we need to be able to provide those taxpayers with that service. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I understand you in that. But just as I thought, towers is probably not a good example, because that does require a conditional use, if I'm not mistaken. But -- I don't want to belabor this, but the balance that we attempt Page 76 September 7, 2006 and you attempt -- I know you're sincere in this, so -- we attempt to find out what's good for the public in the future as well as today and what we can do good planning. And if the process is really broken, we need to know that. Now, we don't have the sense that it is. We have a sense that there's a perception that it is. So I guess -- I don't think you need to be legitimized. Essential services in my mind does include the fire districts and the rest of it. So if that's the change we need to make in that context, I have no problem with that. But in that sense, that's the only thing I'm -- I'm trying to understand the gravity of the need to go to permitted, and that's where I'm at. So thank you. CHIEF REYNOLDS: Yes, sir. Anything else? (N 0 response.) CHIEF REYNOLDS: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Next speaker, please? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. John German. MR. GERMAN: Good afternoon. I'm John German, I'm the assistant fire chief in North Naples. And I would like to add to some of Chief Reynolds' comments that we certainly in the fire service understand the duties of the commission here to ensure that the residents of Collier County's property values are not going to be damaged by any other kind of use that may come into their neighborhoods. But we in the fire service have an obligation to protect those people, their lives, their safety, their welfare. And that's really what we're here for. We're trying to find some middle ground where we can both do what we're charged with, our responsibilities. I really respect what you do in that regard, because you keep Collier County what it's always been, and hopefully it will continue on that way. Page 77 September 7, 2006 Our real challenge is, as it is for you, the growth that's occurring in Collier County. Where 25 years ago when I started in the fire department, we had two fire stations in North Naples. And North Naples is one of the smaller of the fire districts in Collier County. And now we have seven. And we're looking to build four more, just to be where the insurance service office says we need to be today. So we're years behind. And that's not poor planning, that's a little bit of us, as you, trying to keep up with the growth that's occurring. We have an obligation to distribute service. We have to be everywhere that someone needs us in four minutes or less. So if you think of us, you know, we're like Federal Express, we're like the postal service, only we have to be there in four minutes or it could be life- threatening. And that's what we're trying to accomplish is to ensure that in the future we're going to be able to plan for the future under a certain set of guidelines that we define what safety services is in the code and that we set a process by which we can do much more strategic long-range planning than we've done before. So I really hope that you'll take some time and consider what we've drafted up here. And somewhere in between what's been put forward and what we may come up with we'll find some middle ground so that each of our missions will be accomplished. I'm available if you have any questions. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Anybody have questions? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. MR. GERMAN: All right, thanks very much. MS. FABACHER: Commissioner Rautio? MS. RAUTIO: I'm going to defer to Chief Greenberg. MS. FABACHER: All right. Chief Greenberg, you were next anyway. CHIEF GREENBERG: For the record, I'm Chief Rita Greenberg Page 78 September 7, 2006 with Big Corkscrew Fire Control and Rescue District. I know we've talked about the commercial and industrial. And having 192 square miles with little to no commercial available, whether it be occupied, zoned commercial or vacant, or the owner's willing to sell, that in itself proves to be a very large challenge for our district and our strategic planning and growth. The other end of that is there is no industrial at all in that community. Again, presenting the challenge. The majority of our community is Estates residential and agricultural. We have been trying for the last 15 years to work our strategic plan. We've located sites for nine or 10 different stations. We've contacted landowners, developers, and no one is willing to commit to anything for future use. Our latest struggle has been our next station, which we've purchased property for. It is in an Estates residential area. We understood the conditional use process would take place. This to us would be a benefit, because it would reduce the amount of time. And I think that answers your question in regards to what is it we're looking for. It's the time process and the possible and potential delays in the conditional use process, along with the wetland mitigation permitting concerns, the SDP planning approval, and it just adds another six to 12 months potentially to that process, which the industry is increasing in cost and demand for construction. And so with the increased time, it increases the cost. We have recently had two facilities, one opened last year, one opened in 2004, and I understand the older processes might have taken longer. But both of those were delayed through various elements, not strictly just the conditional use. One was not conditional use permitted at all, it was just a -- it was a permitted use. But the delays for the SDP being approved, the delays for wetland mitigations and everything else, we wound up over-budget by almost $200,000 on those two projects. And the $90,000 over-budget Page 79 September 7,2006 increase on the first one, part of that was contributed to the conditional use process. On that particular facility, it took over a year to complete. So I think that answers your question, Commissioner Murray. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Well, I certainly appreciate your response. And look, anything I'm going to say is not intended to be in any way derogatory. But in a planning process, you know, there are envelopes that we all have that we can slip some things into that we're not really clear where they should be attributable to. I'm not here to defend the county. The county does its own thing. But I'm asking, if you did get -- and I want to digress a second. You spoke about not being able to secure property because no one would commit to it. Would by right permission change that? I don't think so. The only way you would get change would be by eminent domain. And so just simply having by right permit -- or permit by right, rather, that wouldn't decrease your time frame -- CHIEF GREENBERG: No, that wouldn't -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- necessarily. Well, you may respond of course. So that's one thing that is a question. And I don't mean to harp, because I recognize you folks all do a very good job, and I am certainly not critical of you. We want to get the right answer; not our answer or your answer, get the right answer. And I think that the planning issue is the biggest part of it. None of what you do pertinent to these stations is something that you dream up and then do tomorrow. And so the key question is, you know, we can attribute anything to a particular set of conditions, and we call it that. So I don't know, is it real? Now, will you have achieved your purpose if you have a permit by right? Will you get any speedier development? You'll avoid a public process. Will you have your SDP done any quicker? Page 80 September 7, 2006 CHIEF GREENBERG: I don't believe so. But the time frame utilized for the conditional use in the past has been anywhere from, six, 12 to 18 months. I understand it is improving. And that's the time frame delay that I think most of us have been working with is that longer time frame. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand. And I'm going to stop here in a second. But I just wanted to make this last comment to you. You folks do fire work, firematic (sic) work. You're not planners. And so you get down and you get the idea and so forth, but unless you get a planner who knows their skills and get that person in with the county, you're likely to run into, whoops, we forgot that, whoops, we lost sight of that, whoops, we didn't know about that. And there's your time frames. And that's what I would say, this is not to impugne what you're saying. I understand what you're looking for. Thank you so much. CHIEF GREENBERG: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Next speaker would be Chuck McMahon. MR. McMAHON: How are you all doing today? I think most of you guys and girls know me. Some ofyou's do, some you don't. I put it to the point; I'm not as nice as everybody over here, okay? As board members and stewards of the community which you guys are, and girls, you need to look at things a little bit different than, okay, this is how it should look in our community today and this is how it's going to look in our community tomorrow. But oh, how are we going to serve our residents with the fire department? How are we going to get them everything that they need in a timely manner? You guys, you haven't looked at that yet, okay . You want to look at how pretty the building's going to look, you want to look at how tall the building's going to look. You know, you're not looking at the life safety issues. You're not looking at the three -- the four minutes that we have to get to a home, okay? Page 81 September 7, 2006 And oh, wait a minute, don't you guys also approve speed bumps and calming devices in roads that slow us down even more? What kind of obstacles do you want to keep throwing at us? You know, you guys need to start doing your job and getting out here and seeing where you're at and looking at the public. And last time I understood, I was elected, okay? I was elected by the residents of Golden Gate to make decisions on where and when and how to build fire departments and stations and things, life safety things for them, okay? They elected us for that. That's our job. It's not your job. And yet you take it upon yourselves to -- take it upon yourselves to shut us down every time you get a chance. All we're asking for is something here to give us a little bit of leeway to save the taxpayers some dollars, okay? Because we can't afford to pay fire stations at this rate right now. It's unreal. And every time we go in and we want to put in something for a plan, it's 18 months off. I'm building a fire station now we started five, six years ago, you know? That's sad. And you know what? Some of the big delay, a lot of it was staff. Some of it was on our end. A lot of it was right here in this room, you know? You guys are the ones that I'm going to hold accountable when people die because we can't get there on time. You all start needing to look at what's going on out there and you need to jump up here and start supporting the fire districts and letting us build our fire stations where they need to be built, not in an industrial area when we live in a residential area. I never heard nothing so silly in my life. Unreal. Please, look at what's around you and look where you guys at (sic). You know, I heard that some of the stuff is broken, that maybe the fire districts need to fix things. The fire districts do, and we hire planners there, Mr. Murray, we do. We hire planners. They bring it back to staff and staff drags their feet. Four months? I got a question for staff. You say I got four months -- you got Page 82 September 7, 2006 four months to review our plans, okay? How long do I have to review it once you send it back? 24 hours? Two days? Three days? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. McMahon? MR. McMAHON: Yes, ma'am. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Everything has to be to the Chair. MR. McMAHON: Oh, I'm sorry. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. MR. McMAHON: All right, I'm talking to the Chair. How long do I have? You say you got four months? How long do I have? And what's my time frame? Do I have the same, you know, rights? No, I don't. We're subject to what staff is telling you and what you have to do. You said something earlier about well, you know, we need to go to staff and find out which way to go here. You made a comment about that, going to staff, we need to know where to go, how to get directions so we can make a decision. Well, you need to also hear what we have to say. So I'm glad we are allowed to speak today. Because you need to hear that. Because if you listen to staff, you're only getting one side of it, okay? As I say, we're out there. We need to build fire stations wherever we need to build them. I don't have the privilege of saying okay, let's build it over here because there's a rock quarry. I don't have that privilege. You know the last time we were in front of you we wanted to build a tower at the Golden Gate station. I tried to find a place to build a tower in my district. There is nowheres allowed. We cannot build a tower in Golden Gate fire district. I'm sorry. According to the plans and the way that you all have said that this is what we're required to do and where you can build it. So I guess we just don't train our guys to handle it. And there again, life safety, there's lives at stake because we don't get the proper training because we don't have a tower to train from because the Page 83 September 7, 2006 planning commission took it upon themselves to say oh, it's too high to be in this community. Where we wanted to build that fire training station before, excuse me, we were building that long before that Summit Place went in. And we built it with the Summit Place developer knowing exactly what we were building, and we followed everything to the tee, okay? We got shut down for a fire tower because someone didn't really look at the big picture, life safety. And here you're doing it again. I hope that you guys look at this, because it's crazy. To turn something down -- all we want is a simple wording that says that we're essential. Because right now we're not. No, we are. More essential than a treatment plant, if you ask me. More essential than a water plant. But yet in your eyes and whoever's else's eyes we're not? Come on. I've got to ask questions of the capability of everybody that's sitting on this board if we're not essential. Because in my eyes we're very essential. I hope I didn't rattle too many cages, but I'm telling you, I don't hold any punches, I tell you how it is, so -- for what it's worth. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would have remained silent, but I would be concerned that silence might be construed as an agreement with your views. And I appreciate your indignance. But while you're welcome to your opinions, I think that without intending, you've insulted a bunch of people here who have the best interest of the entire community and all of its facets. And you can't fight fires without water. So I would say that's an essential item, as is firematics and all that you represent. I personally respect all of you who do your job and would do everything in my power to make it easier for you to do your job. Page 84 September 7, 2006 One final comment. I want to thank you for your belief that this board is so fantastically competent that we caused you to lose that tower in Golden Gate. I thought the Board of County Commissioners also said no. So I'll leave it with that. MR. McMANN: Thank you, Mr. Murray. You all have a great day. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Next speaker would be Assistant Chief Rob Pettinger (sic). Excuse me if I murdered it. MR. POTTEIGER: They all do. Rob Potteiger, East Naples Fire Department. I don't know if I can top that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please don't. MR. POTTEIGER: Basically with East Naples, as everybody well recognizes, our board is very, what's the word, thrifty. We started Bayshore Drive station and it was two years before we got our permit. Okay. But it went up about $280,000 just to build it. Well, I mean, that sounds great, but in East Naples that's a lot of money. And we have always, through my 25 and a half years, have always considered the taxpayer first. We're looking out east for stations because yes, that's where the growth's going, but I can't put up a station there with nothing there yet. I mean, that to me would be wasting the taxpayers' money. I'd put up a station, get it through everything, and now I've got to hire $400,000 worth of people to sit out there and do -- I mean, they're not going to go out on any calls because there's no people out there yet. But I appreciate what you guys do. You've always been fair to us. I don't agree with staffs comments that they're trying to work with us. But staff doesn't really like what's going on. You know, we've got to work together, that's what we've always done. You can ask anybody in Collier County, we've always -- East Naples has Page 85 September 7, 2006 always worked together with everybody. But you've got to feel a little sorry for our board because again, they are thrifty, so they're not going to spend a lot of money on -- we have an admin. building we're trying to build. We've been trying to build it three years. And it goes up about a million dollars a year. And that's not fair. I mean, we're all in the situation with the way the building is. So thank you. Any questions? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. MR. POTTEIGER: Thanks. MS. FABACHER: Unless Commissioner Rautio wants to speak, I don't have anymore speakers. MS. RAUTIO: For the record, Joyceanna J.A. Rautio, North Naples Fire District Commissioner, seat two. I'm here today to sort of explain to you that we're not sure that the process isn't broken, as Commissioner Murray had said. And I don't think we've done a good job as fire districts or even EMS people, and maybe even the Sheriffs Department of explaining to you the cost and what it takes to try to permit the location of a fire station. It's not like we're putting 50 fire stations up a year. We're putting a number of fire stations. I didn't have a chance to determine exactly how many we're going to need to do, say, in the next 10 years for all of the districts and with EMS, but we do have to have, I believe, a better process. We have too many stories of how long it's taken. And I'm not sure that the conditional use process is really the way to go. We have a couple of just basic issues. We have urban districts and we have rural districts. I really sympathize with Chief Rita Greenberg, where does she put something if she doesn't have commercial, if she doesn't have industrial, she doesn't have PUD's, for heaven's sakes, and she's mostly got the Estates residential zoning. She does have agricultural, which used to be, and here's the way I understand it, you haven't changed anything, so we can still site in an agricultural area, I hope, with all the changes I've seen. Page 86 September 7, 2006 So when you're looking at an urban area like North Naples Fire, we have areas that we have to fill in. Because the five-mile limit that the insurance companies are starting to really pay attention to is extremely difficult to figure out how you're going to get there. We have gaps in the service in North Naples, even though we have seven stations, and we're planning and have planned -- as Chief German mentioned, we've got four stations that we've identified that have to go in. Some of them are in the process now. Thank goodness one of them was an agriculture, so it won't be here for a conditional use with you all, the one that we expect to go up real soon. When you think about strategic locations, the fire stations and EMS in particular, we've cooperated. But there will be other times that Chief Page will need to place an EMS station somewhere where there won't be a North Naples Fire District station that they can do a joint project with. Or say Golden Gate. Even in East Naples. So as a group, emergency services needs an opportunity to be able to identify locations, to be able to get through a permitting process, in my opinion with public participation, and be able to know that we are not going to waste the taxpayers' money. Because you all understand just how significant it is to hire all the planners and all the costs involved just in understanding how the process works. I've sat up there with you all, and I really sympathize with what it is that you and the Board of County Commissioners are being asked to do. I think we as a group need to try to come up with a better way to tell you how the process is broken. And I can say delays are one thing and time is money, and of course whose money is it? It's my money, it's your money, it's the taxpayers' money. And I don't want anybody to think that I'm not for public participation in the location of fire stations. That's why we were looking at an SDP approach. And I've listened to the pros and cons on that. I hope that Commissioner Schiffer has some additional ideas on how we can involve the public. Page 87 September 7, 2006 But in general, just look at Estates residential. Look how much Estates residential zoning is in this county. How do you put a fire station there? I mean, I would be willing as an elected official, for a while longer, to worry about some sort of design and location and make it fit the neighborhood. You know, your big cities your fire stations blend in the neighborhoods. I'm not sure why it's so difficult here. And I do want to stress that we are an essential service. I think there should be a safety service, however you're going to define the definition, should be in the code. We are essential, as is EMS. And you have to give us some opportunity to make this process better. And of course I suggest to you that we probably should give you some more information on how definitely it is broken. But we have story after story. So I'm asking you today to try to work through something that will give us an opportunity to have a chance to talk to the Board of County Commissioners and have some changes with reference to the language we have in front of us right now and maybe come up with some decent criteria. I want to make it clear, I don't want to lose industrial, I don't want to lose the commercial opportunity or the general agricultural zoning. Those need to stay, if we can't work out the changes for by right, as it was originally presented. Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You were mentioning that it would be nice to know how the problem is broken. And this list is interesting to see all these projects. And looking at it, I can find many reasons that have nothing to do with delays in county staff with some of these. But it would be nice if you could make a list perhaps of some of the projects that you've tried to get through and how long it's Page 88 September 7, 2006 taken, exclusively for that. MS. RAUTIO: And I appreciate that, Commissioner Midney. Because I didn't have a change to catch up with Chief Page to get that before I came here today. Somehow we -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's a good idea. MS. RAUTIO: -- just crossed -- that's a good idea. And I think that we could present you some more information. But I can assure you that the adventure that East Naples went through -- I never seem to get the station right, if it's -- it's the one on Jeepers. The conditional use, it was a C-4, for heaven's sakes, a C-4 zoning that they purchased and they thought they could go ahead and place a fire station? And it took forever. And the additional cost made no sense whatsoever. So we know there are problems. And we'd like to be able, as I said, to have something go forward to the Board of County Commissioners and maybe we could get a little more information to help them. And I think that's all, unless you have another question. I think-- do you have a question, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I don't. MS. RAUTIO: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question for staff, if I may. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Absolutely. Let me just make one comment here, and that is that all of this will be going forward. We just will not be making our recommendation until after we've had a chance to review it thoroughly at our next meeting and after everybody's had a chance to go over what's been presented, and/or any other additional information that comes our way between now and that next meeting. So it's not going to prevent anything from going forward to the Board of County Commissioners. Page 89 September 7, 2006 Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question for staff. It's been said that you folks take too long. That's problematic for everybody. I'm certain as I sit here that that's not your desire. But I guess for me, what is it -- the other essential services, you have the water and sewer and you have all the others. Are they absolved from having to go through the public process? MS. MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So they -- even though they're essential services, they have to plan, they have to -- and they have go through the whole process. MS. MURRAY: Correct, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what we're looking for in this particular thing is to exceed, if you will, if we look at it a level and height, we're looking to exceed a standard that already exists that considers the entire proposition; am I right? I'm not trying to trap you. MS . MURRAY: Yeah, I'm not sure how to answer that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Well, maybe I can qualify -- MS. MURRAY: Because I guess I probably -- what I'm hearing is they want the process to be expedited, it takes too long. Staff doesn't like what's going on, I didn't quite understand that comment. I think it's important to try to identify where the time delays are. And we can point fingers at each other. That's not our intent. In fact, it's not my intent at all. I'm really not interested in the data in a public hearing setting, but I certainly would be interested in the data and something to analyze and bring back and figure out where things might not be working. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And learn from it. MS. MURRAY: And learn from it. If I might, and maybe this will help you, Mr. Murray. I just want to clarify our position as professional planners. There's nothing personal here. I think everybody as a human being has an Page 90 September 7, 2006 appreciation for the job that the fire and EMS folks do, and certainly if it was our structures on fire, we would certainly love it if they were next door. As a professional planner, you have to balance the public needs of essential services and the compatibility or the ability to fit in the neighborhood. The way you can do that through your land development code is essentially three ways: First is through your conditional use process. And a conditional use is technically defined as a use that would otherwise be permitted in the district. If not for certain characteristics associated with it that may be problematic from a compatibility standpoint. That's not a highly technical definition, but that's just an explanation. The second way to do it is to allow it as a permitted use but to draft some development standards that would make it compatible. It's not going to be 100 percent of the time because every piece of property and every development is different. But you may draft some development standards such as minimum lot size, minimum landscape buffering requirements, building heights, setbacks, maximum square footage, those type of things that would offer protection for a permitted use that people could rely on additional buffering. I mean, in a sense look at it as buffering. And hopefully that would mitigate some of the impacts. That's a way to do it. The other way to do it, as suggested here with the site plan process and that being reviewed for the public, I can tell you, that is not going to be a time savings at all. And I'm not trying to influence your opinion, if that's the board's direction that they want to go. From a -- I'll just give you my professional observation, that is not a time savings. You have to have certain criteria. I mean, you could have five people interested or you could have 100 people interested. It could drag out much longer than a conditional use process would. So I just wanted to make sure you all understood our professional Page 91 September 7, 2006 opinion on this. It's nothing personal. And I'm getting the sense that some people might think it is, and it's not. If you have the public interest and the balance for the need for the essential services, those would be the three professional ways I could recommend to you that you may achieve that balance. But that's up to you all to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may continue the dialogue for a brief moment more. What I understand is that a road was taken, and alternative roads may have been chosen, but they weren't, and that's no harm, no foul, but we are at a point where some of us, maybe all of us, might feel that this is not the most effective means of achieving the result intended. And so while at the same time I personally, and I think I probably represent the opinion of most, if not all, that we agree that it's an essential service, we agree that something needs to be done to accelerate a process, and particularly because of the requirements of the insurance companies, can't get fire insurance if you don't have a stand pipe there -- or not a stand pipe but whatever that's called. Okay, can't get it and that puts people in a terrible situation. So is there any way we can get the words? I mean, I suppose we can say anything we want. Any way legally here we can get the words essential services in here today, if we're going to just pass on this motion, to somehow include this? I know we're going to study it, I recognize that. But it is going to go to the Board of County Commissioners absent anything. And I would be concerned about that. And I'll stop with that, thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Susan, first of all, it does state that essential services are permitted. You told Bob they weren't, but aren't they a permitted use? Under 3.0 1.03(A)(7). MS. MURRAY: I don't recall saying they weren't permitted. Page 92 September 7, 2006 But they're defined -- to the extent that they are defined in the code, they're defined in the code. And then there's certain development criteria for the type. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't want Bob to think that water systems and electric systems -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I was thinking that it was a public process. MS. MURRAY: He asked if they had to go through the same public process and I said yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm talking about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says here they're a permitted use. The wells, the electrical transmission lines are permitted. What public process would they go through? MS. MURRAY: My assumption, which you were talking about, wastewater and water facilities and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't realize that we had them in various level. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was in general. But I knew -- in my heart I knew that those others that you just cited were through our public process. So I thought that was representative of all of them. So you're saying that there are others that are not, and I didn't know that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, if you look at-- MS. MURRAY: Yeah,there's-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the -- you have the packet, you could actually look at -- MS. MURRAY: They break them -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I have several of you speaking at one time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you look at, you know, the Page 93 September 7,2006 packet you got, A -4 on down, you'll see the ones that are left. Susan, you gave the three ways to do it. What we're actually trying to do is number two way you have, which is establish conditions in which you can do it. And so I think that's really what we intended this meeting to be is discussing the conditions. It's the commissioners that wanted this thing to come forth. So I think essentially our job is I guess we could recommend denial and ignore it or come up with conditions that the commission can make a final decision on. MS. MURRAY: I think you had a start on that when you started talking about frontage on arterial and collector and all that. Again, my recommendation would be to look at -- and I think Commissioner Rautio brought that up. I thought it was a great suggestion. You might even have a set of -- to the extent you can, a set of architectural standards that might be acceptable in the Estates area. Because the growth management -- or the Estates portion of the Growth Management Plan has very distinct architectural characteristics that the community has decided. But that might be something that could be spelled out in the code so everybody knows out front, you know, how much it's going to cost, what it's going to look like, how it's going to fit into the neighborhood, the minimum setbacks, I talked about enhancing landscape buffering. Anything to create a buffer, and a buffer can be created either by physical barrier or by separation or a distance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's kind of what we meant when we established the adjoining -- the most restrictive adjoining would be that it would inherit those requirements. I didn't know we had the -- MS. MURRAY: Yeah, the problem is you're going to get differing -- you potentially in the Estates probably not. But in other areas you potentially could get different setbacks. If everybody Page 94 September 7, 2006 knows upfront what they have to design to, then they can purchase -- go and purchase their land with that understanding. And they know what they have to have to make their projects work. And that's where their planners and professional engineers could help them in their site selection process. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Once again, we are at a point where this needs to be studied further. There has been input given here today that no one had heard before. There is testimony given that nobody's had a chance to review. There's brand new language that nobody's had a chance to review. There is a motion on the floor by Mr. Adelstein for us to discuss this in a more finalized version at our next meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: September 21st. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Is there a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Discussion? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When did you guys receive this amendment? We discussed it last week. It was handed out to us at the last week's meeting. The time certain was given last week. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: No, we got this today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The early version you got, but the old version we could live with. But I mean, when did you guys get the packet? When did you get this information? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I got mine last night. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Last night. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Last night. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I got things last night, too. But, I mean -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think our purpose here -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to finish the motion to Page 95 September 7, 2006 a point where we're saying we make it on the 21 st of September, the first item we're going to handle, and that we -- yeah, and we have a second on it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Discussion? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If we do discuss it on the 21st, will the BCC have already acted on it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't think so. No, they will not have. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Probably not, so then let's do it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll join in the fray. I'm of the mind set, and while I agree that I'm not really happy when I get a bunch of papers and I'm supposed to read them at the same time I'm supposed to be listening and thinking, it's difficult. But I am concerned that if we fail to send some message to the BCC, unless somebody here can assure me that the BCC will not see this or be aware of it until such time as we've had a second bite at the apple, I would be in favor of trying to bring this to some kind of a conclusion. It struck me that in the second response having to do with essential services and others, some being subj ect and others not being subj ect to a public process, I'm just wondering whether or not that would help if they were given permission, or a permitted use and being subject to a public process, wouldn't that essentially be the same thing then as if they were under a conditional use? But that's a by-play item. I would be an advocate to remain and try to work something out rather than dismiss it, so I would vote no on that motion. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Anyone else have any comments before we take a vote? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I call for the question. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I'll call the question. All those in favor of dealing with this after staff has had a chance to review, Page 96 September 7, 2006 after the public now has some input and has also given their input and we also have a chance to review that we deal with this on the 21 st. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I believe it is 5-2. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you haven't asked that, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You haven't asked us yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I vote no, if that matters. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I vote no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Madam Chair, just a question. What do we do for now? Because first of all, the commission's the one that wanted this. The staff has had plenty of time to work on it. We've worked on it. We could have worked on it some more with staff. I mean, what do we do from this point on? I don't want it to just -- this thing die by being ignored by everybody, and then we come with a situation like this where people claim they never heard of it before. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: No, I don't want it to be ignored either. And I think we've given clear direction here that we want staff to not ignore it but to deal with it. But they're getting information that they're telling me they have not reviewed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not true. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: So-- MS. MURRAY: Catherine's been working this issue. I'm sorry to interrupt. Catherine's been working this issue so I hadn't reviewed it. Not because we haven't gotten it, just Catherine's really been the head on this issue, so -- Page 97 September 7,2006 ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, it's interesting then that in this entire discussion Catherine hasn't weighed in. MS . MURRAY: We had a discussion and agreed that I would weigh in. It's not overly complicated. So I've been sitting here -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what do you -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Other than in the beginning she said that staff has issues. And I think you need to address those Issues. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: We've already voted. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: We've already voted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you voted to table it. I'm just concerned about -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, we voted to continue it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Continue it. My only concern is what do we do from today till the next day? That's all. I think that if -- you know, Susan said your number two is exactly what we thought we were doing. So we'd love to get together and have number two meetings -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: There you go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- if you want. So set up something to do it in enough time that everybody has a chance to look at it. And you can count me in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is it even reasonable to have a workshop? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Chairman? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tor has a question. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'd also ask that for our next meeting we do this: Let's not wait till the last minute and the morning or the night before have the information distributed to us -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Exactly. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- because sometimes our Page 98 September 7, 2006 personal schedules interfere with the ability to drop everything and get right on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And while we're talking about that, let's come up with a deadline now. Because here's the problem: Some of us actually stay up late and do study the 11 th hour stuff. And there's nothing worse than feeling like a fool that you spent the time studying and everybody else is well, let's just kick it down the road. I would have loved to have gone to bed early on some of our earlier issues too. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, Mr. Schiffer, I don't think everybody's been kicking it down the road just because they aren't taking the time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's set a deadline, two days, three days, and then that's it. You just don't send us anything so nobody delivers anything so that -- the fool is the guy that actually takes the time and studies it. MS. MURRAY: May I ask for clarification, what is the board's desire? I mean, I gave to you three what I would call professional recommendations to address what I heard today, both from the public and you. Is there anything in that recommendation that you all want us to explore and carry out? Number two. I mean, I got that from you, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we have number one, so we don't need that. Number two is the one where we set conditions where it's permitted under certain conditions. MS. MURRAY: Then we would need to involve somebody from fire who had knowledge of what they need -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Absolutely. MS. MURRAY: -- from a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can get a committee. I mean, enlist these people. MS. RAUTIO: Thank you, Susan. That's what I was trying to Page 99 September 7, 2006 figure out. Just as what would you like us to be able to help you, both EMS and fire and the Sheriffs Department, what would you like to hear from us so that we can give you some more information? I just want to clarify some of the issues, please. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I think you need to first have a discussion with staff on that issue. MS. RAUTIO: Well, I've been discussing for quite some time with Catherine and we worked out a number of things. I've been discussing with Commissioner Schiffer and a number of these people in the room. And we didn't really get through all of the things that were in either of the drafts. So I just want to make sure we don't miss something that would help you all. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: The only reason that we didn't get through the entire draft is because none of the rest of us saw the draft until today. MS. RAUTIO: And I'm sorry that that didn't happen, because I had suggested, as a former planning commissioner, that you all could get that information earlier. And trust me, if I have to send it to you personally, I'll make sure you get to see it in advance. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: You can do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I would recognition, please? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I for one will tell the commissioners and any other interested party that with regard to this matter I would be, as Mr. Schiffer was, open to working with and helping any way I can within my limited abilities. And I think the item number two that was suggested by Ms. Murray-Stenis (phonetic), that that might be a good way of working it. Might be left oblique in this whole thing, I don't know. But until I sit down with folks and try to understand more clearly -- I came here with an understanding of "X" and "X" squared came up and that threw me Page 100 September 7, 2006 off a little bit. Not enough in my opinion to stop it. But I'm certainly willing to work. Now, here's the thing: Mr. Klatzkow, are we precluded -- as long as it's advertised, are we precluded, any of the other members and myself attending as a subcommittee? I think not. But I want to have that on record if it's true. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have any issue with your meeting as a subcommittee as long as it's done in the sunshine. It should be noticed and I think that would be fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does the advertising associated with this hearing today provide that notice? MR. KLATZKOW: You need new advertising. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: New advertising. I would recommend that a subcommittee be formed and individuals who are interested spend the time and energy to take care of this matter. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray, we're trying to get something done here in the next two weeks. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- and how it was done was on e-mail, obviously. So we're -- everybody's taking a shot at -- Jeff, what is the requirements, like for example if we came up with another e-mail and Bob was copied on that and Bob commented on -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no, no, no, let's not go there. If you want to establish a subcommittee, and we are on a very short time frame here. Let's keep that in mind. Because again, I don't know that you guys are seeing this again. That's really up to the board. I mean, the board may make a decision, you know, that it wants it or doesn't want it and it goes that direction. I don't know. The board will do what the board wants to do at the end of the day on that. But if you want a subcommittee, I don't know that you have the Page 101 September 7, 2006 time, but it's going to have to be done in the sunshine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, and I appreciate that may be the case. I guess I was also making a further point that perhaps in matters such as this where there are some issues, that in the future we may consider a subcommittee, because the will of this board is not always adequately perceived because of a vetting process that might go in one direction and continue on that direction. And I recognize the vote of this board and I appreciate that, but I think that in order for us to do our job, we need to see it. I know that Mr. Schiffer did his best to try and make something happen. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray, I think that you can easily weigh in with stuff on your own, as Mr. Schiffer has done, and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, and I agree with you, I can weigh in on my own. The problem, as I perceive it, is it may not make any difference, so -- okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, we're -- CHIEF GREENBERG: Can I clarify a point on the board when it's -- I'm sorry, my name's Rita Greenberg. He's given the impression to the audience that the board will hear this before the 21 st meeting. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes, they're scheduled for their first hearing on LDC amendments I believe on the 20th; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHIEF GREENBERG: If it should fall on that day, then the meeting on the 21 st mayor may not be -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Have any validity at all. So-- CHIEF GREENBERG: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, everyone. MR. McMAHON: I want to -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. McMahon, this is a closed Page 102 September 7, 2006 hearing. I've been very patient -- MR. McMAHON: It's kind of funny you just let two other people speak, so -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I know, I've been very patient in that respect. MR. McMAHON: If I may? If I may? We have a committee already which is involved in this with Jeff Page, myself, several others. Maybe that the staff and everybody would get together with us and we could work on it together. This is all I'm trying to get to everybody. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: That's what you should be doing, getting together with staff. MR. McMAHON: We have, because we've been in touch with Jeff Page with staff all this time. And I'm bewildered now as to why everybody dropped the ball again. It's just -- it's beyond me. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. We're moving on. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I am moving on. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Take a break? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: For the record, if somebody says in here we want to call the question, then you just don't say call the question. There's a vote necessary before you can do it. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: We did vote. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, not to call the question. The question was call the question and then you called the question to vote. You can't do that. You're supposed to call the question, that has to be voted on -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Otherwise there will be a point of order-- THE COURT REPORTER: Please, I have several people speaking at the same time. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Really, I need to ask everybody not to step on one another. Page 103 September 7, 2006 Mr. Adelstein had the floor and we need to let everybody finish their sentences before the next person jumps in. Thank you. We are moving along to LDC Sections 10.02.02(A)(2), (A)( 4)(H), and (A)(7). This is environmental services department with respect to EIS statements. It's Page 201 through 203. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chairman, I believe the reporter may need a break. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Oh, I'm sorry. Is it past your time? Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, we'll take a 10-minute break before we do that. Sorry, Barbara. (Brief recess.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, we're all ready to get started. We need a mic. Thank you. N ow we can get to Barbara. And it is Page 201 on the goldenrod sheets, gentlemen. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson, with environmental services. I believe we only have two environmental amendments before you today. The first one is the EIS amendment. This was presented to the planning commission last Tuesday and remanded back to the EAC. The EAC heard it yesterday, and staff made some minor modifications to simplify the language on Page 202. And the EAC approved it as it was written by staff. However, I do want to point out that a change was made after the EAC approved it. Because Mr. Yovanovich came to the EAC after they had heard the amendment and requested that some questions be provided to some -- I'm sorry, answers provided to some questions that he had on the amendment. And as a result of that, what staff added, (A)(2), little (d), Roman numeral V on Page 202 is the required amount of in front of preserve area was not previously approved. So-- Page 104 September 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you please repeat that? MS. BURGESON: Yes. We're changing the language to say, the required amount of preserve area was not previously approved, as opposed to just I think your copy might say preserve area was not previously approved. And that was to clarify that in the Land Development Code there is a section that permits that you can establish a minimum of 75 percent. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Barbara, before you go any further, I believe if you're talking about Page 202, you are talking about perhaps number four, Roman numeral IV, a previous EIS is more than five years old and preserve areas were not previously approved; is that what you're -- MS. BURGESON: That's not the version. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: All right. Then V is preserve areas are not in compliance with the current Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code requirements. MS. BURGESON: Right, that's not the most current version. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's what I have. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: It is the most current version that this panel has. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That we have. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes, absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're correct. MS. BURGESON: There's a September 1 version that was sent to the EAC. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Seven-one? MS. BURGESON: September 1. I think-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We're on 8-7-06 now. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Great. Now Mr. Yovanovich has the right one and the rest of us don't. MS. BURGESON: All right. This was sent out to the EAC Friday last week. And we did simplify and change -- I apologize what Page 105 September 7, 2006 you've got in front of you. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. Susan, this is the copy that you sent me for the EAC -- or for all of them? MS. BURGESON: For the EAC, DSAC and the CCPC on Friday. MS. FABACHER: Thanks. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I can't hear her. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't hear her either. MS. BURGESON: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have a hearing problem-- MS. BURGESON: Okay, I'll make sure that I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and our thing is not working here, so I thank you if you would talk louder. MS. BURGESON: Just to go through this, I don't have the previous version that you have in front of you, but what we have here in D, Roman numeral I, staff struck out the second half of that first criteria and is stating for the record, for the public record, greater impacts to preserve areas, and striking through, or changes in location to preserve areas, recognizing that we would want to support changes in preserve areas if they are in compliance with the GMP's or the LDC criteria. So we don't want to punish anyone for changing a location of preserve areas, just the greater impact to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Point of order, Madam Chairman? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is a new one. Now we don't even get it. N ow we've got to read it off the monitor for the first time. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: You know, I'm back to the same thing I seem to be repeating all day long -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If everything -- Page 106 September 7, 2006 ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: -- we need to get this stuff ahead of time and we should not be asked to make decisions on the fly. And-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is if anything we said at the last hearing were true, why are we listening to this now? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I'm not necessarily going forward with this, Brad. If you'd like to make a motion-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: -- I'm willing to hear it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that we actually get sent somewhat near the version that we're reviewing today. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: So without the sarcasm, could I have a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion that we continue this until we get the appropriate paperwork. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I can't hear. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: He's made a motion to continue until we get the proper paperwork. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion and ask the question: What is the date on your paper, document? MS. BURGESON: September 1st. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, ours is 8-7-06. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's the updated -- MS. BURGESON: There's an August 22nd version and a September 1 st version. And what was handed out -- or what is available today also includes a September 6th amendment. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Ours says -- mine says August 7th, but that's -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: We're behind the eight ball. So I'll call the question here. All those in favor of putting one more item off until the 21 st, please say aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 107 September 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: We'll hear this on the 21st in an updated version. Thanks, Barbara. And now the final thing that we have to talk about is we had -- after we had voted on allowable stormwater and preserves, we requested that -- two things: One of which was that the amendment go back to the EAC, which -- and the EAC heard this yesterday. I am asking only that Ms. Burgeson give us an update on what happened at the EAC meeting and so that we know. Our vote is going to go forward as it has. We're interested in knowing what the EAC had to say as well. MS. BURGESON: Okay. Let me preface that by saying that I handed out to you today a copy with the version -- the last version date of September 6th that incorporates the comments and recommendations of the EAC from yesterday. So you have in your packet -- you should have the September 1 st version that was sent to you, and today you've been handed out the September 6th version, which incorporates the EAC recommendations. And staff agreed with those. So let me read to you then -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: You did put that on our -- MS. BURGESON: Yes, on the dais earlier. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What page? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: It's actually Page 93, but her Page 108 September 7, 2006 pages were not numbered. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Page 93? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Barbara handed out the changes, however, that the EAC made in a white copy at your chair, Mr. Kolflat. And those pages are not numbered. However, if you look under other notes and version date, you'll see the final date on it is September 6th. And if you can just look at that, we're doing it for review purposes only. MS. BURGESON: I'll read to you the motions -- the motion and the approval that the EAC had for this amendment and point out to you how that was incorporated into the amendment. The EAC motion was to approve the stormwater amendment, as the planning commission recommended those changes, with the following changes: In sub-paragraph (H) (II) little (b), we are replacing the word "with" with "utilized by". And that's just to allow that to be more consistent with the GMP language. That would be on the second page. And I've missed one of those replacements, so I've made a note to myself that last paragraph, little (b), will read, stormwater shall not be discharged into upland preserves utilized by listed species. Stormwater shall be allowed in jurisdictional wetland preserves utilized by listed species, and then continue. So that's the first part of their motion. The second part of their motion was to add a piece to little ( a) above that where it states that the tree (sic) stormwater shall be allowed only in preserves that are comprised of jurisdictional wetlands, uplands comprised solely of hydric soils as mapped in the soil survey map. And then the piece that the EAC added was uplands that serve as buffers around the wetland in accordance with the approved South Florida Water Management District environmental resource permit, ERP. And the reason for that, we had a fairly -- in fact, we had a Page 109 September 7, 2006 three-hour discussion on these amendments yesterday morning. The reason that this was added was there will be times when the South Florida Water Management District wetland preserve has an upland buffer that may not be hydric soils. For the majority of the times, you're more likely to see hydric soils immediately adjacent to those wetlands. But for those instances where you don't and the agency requires an average of 25 feet of an upland buffer or a buffer around that wetland to preserve the integrity of the wetland, we wanted to make sure that that could count toward the preserve. So that's a little more flexibility than the direct motion that was made by the planning commission. But staff felt that was appropriate and added that in. And then the last part of that formal motion -- would you like me to read that through again? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Is everybody up to speed so far? Go ahead. MS. BURGESON: The last part of their motion was to add a deviation process that would utilize the EAC's appeal process, which is already in the Land Development Code and actually has been rewritten this amendment cycle to clarify it. So that would allow -- and that's on the last page. And that on your current version handed out today is little letter (f), and that states, a property owner may request deviations from the above regulations 3.05.07(H)(1)(H)(ii). Staff shall review the plans and propose deviations to ensure wetlands in the preserve will receive a benefit, and uplands in the preserve will receive no adverse impacts from the deviations being proposed. The process for granting deviations shall follow the procedures as set forth in the appeals section A.06.1 0 for the EAC and shall be heard at a public hearing of the EAC. That allows the applicant to provide staff with an analysis of those times when it may be appropriate for stormwater to go in a Page 110 September 7, 2006 preserve that wouldn't fall under the black and white regulations above and would allow the EAC to be the appeals process for that. Now, there's one more request since the EAC hearing yesterday, and that was during the EAC meeting they asked us to evaluate whether or not this amendment would negatively impact the RLSA's WRA's, which are the water retention areas in the rural land stewardship area overlay. So we took a look at that in the code and the GMP's and we're proposing to add one more paragraph that's not before you. And I'll read that to you. Stormwater shall be allowed -- and then I'll put it on the visualizer for you. Stormwater shall be allowed in RLSA WRA uplands in accordance with the standards and criteria set forth in Section 4.08.00, which just references that section of the Land Development Code that would permit this. I apologize if that's not typed, it's just handwritten, but I just did that this morning. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: And who requested this? MS. BURGESON: It was requested -- Margaret and Rich requested that to make sure that there wasn't going to be any conflict or severance of their rights in the RLSA area. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Question? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: There's nothing in here that would allow stormwater to be pumped into any of these areas. Would it all be just by passive flow, or could an owner pump stormwater into a wetland? MR. LORENZO: A pump system, if that's part of the stormwater management system, would be allowed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because I'm just questioning the expertise of a lot of the landscaping maintenance people who will probably be the ones who have to make that decision. When like at the present there's a lot of water on the ground and they're wanting to Page 111 September 7,2006 get rid of it. MR. LORENZO: Well, this would be subject -- this would be part of a stormwater management system that's permitted through the South Florida Water Management District. Typically you don't find pump systems. There may be an engineer here that might be able to answer your question in a little bit more detail who practices in the field. But typically it's basically gravity flow for the whole system. What we're saying here is that that's part of the stormwater management system. We're not saying that this goes further and allows someone to actually pump, let's say, flood waters into the stormwater system if it's not part of the stormwater system. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I would object to the act of pumping water into wetlands. Because I think a lot of the people who maintain landscapes don't have expertise in what levels of water would hurt native plants. And it's my experience that a lot of the preserve areas are not well maintained with regard to exotics as it is. And if we're pumping in a lot of stormwater, we're going to be destroying even more of the native species which will allow more exotics to go in. So I think this has to be closely monitored. And I would like to stipulate that you couldn't pump water into the wetland, that it would have to be by gravity flow. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I'm getting them from both sides. And I will say here we go again with brand new standards that nobody's had a chance to look at. So obviously we'll -- we can potentially talk about this at our meeting on the 21 st; however, we've sent through -- we voted on the last time, I believe, and we're going to have her double check this. We've already voted on this amendment as it was, and we are sending it forward to the BCC as we put it forward. So this is good, and I'm willing to look at it and see if there's anything -- any further comments that should be added for the BCC, Page 112 September 7, 2006 but at this point -- MS. BURGESON: I would suggest that the version that you received in your package, the September 1 st version, incorporates your recommendations into the amendment. And I would go further to say that the flexibility built in by the deviations process was also discussed at last Tuesday's meeting, but in terms -- more in terms of a variance process. So this is a little more flexibility than what the CCPC discussed last Tuesday. Wanting this to be more black and white and allowing a variance, we looked at a deviation process as opposed to a variance. And instead of the variance, which might go to the board, the deviation process going to the EAC. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I do believe that when we asked that the EAC hear this again, that we had said at the time that if they had changes, they should forward them to the BCC directly. I see a couple of changes that have been made. However, the EAC has not made the change in (F), so I mean, I think that's something for -- MS. BURGESON: But it did-- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: -- the public to bring up. MS. BURGESON: Right, they did discuss at their meeting yesterday morning that they wanted staff to evaluate that to make sure that that wasn't going to interfere. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: All right. So they left it up to you. MS. BURGESON: Yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Then that's fine. Does anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a comment. The handout you just gave us is for the last issue, and this will be our official delivery of that, correct? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: September-- Page 113 September 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 2001 (sic). 201. Page 201 you just gave us is for the last issue. So this is our official -- MS. BURGESON: Well, I'm not saying that you won't get a copy of that officially sent out to you. But since I brought extra copies today for discussion, in case you needed them, I wanted to make sure that I at least distributed those just now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. But we are forwarding as the planning commission the September 1 st version. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As amended by the EAC. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Not as amended by the EAC. The EAC is sending their own -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: -- version forward. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we didn't give them a blank check. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: We did not give them a blank check. And that is it. So I'll turn the meeting back over to you -- oh, I'm sorry, do we have speakers? MS. FABACHER: Yeah, all the gentlemen and ladies sitting in the back of the room are here to speak. Mr. Y ovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I wasn't sure you were going to speak because I wasn't sure you had the right version on this one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think I do. But there's a couple of comments. First of all, I don't agree that your September 1 version accurately reflects the motion which I believe was made by Mr. Strain regarding revisions to the section. I think he -- and I'm going to paraphrase it and maybe others who can Page 114 September 7, 2006 talk about it in greater detail. But he suggested a simple two-sentence fix to the language. And I don't think this was a simple two-sentence fix that's in front of you based on the September 1st language that you have in front of you. Be that as it may, a lot of what was handed out to you today does reflect what the EAC did and is generally acceptable to Collier Enterprises. There are a couple of things. One, I think the exemption language that Barbara put up, I haven't had a chance to go back and look to see what 4.08 says, but I -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Nor have we, because -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. So I think it would be simpler to say that there is a flat-out exemption for properties participating in the RSLA program. Then you don't have to worry about what does 4.08 say, because that's really what we wanted was a flat-out exemption for projects participating in the rural lands stewardship program. Second, and I'm reporting what was happening, because I did get there late because I was at the City Council. So I don't know, the version you have, the paragraph (F), right now they have a deviation process that requires a public hearing process. It was reported to me that what the EAC approved was an administrative process. I don't know for a fact, so we reserve comment on section (F) so we can go back and look at the tape to make sure whether or not it was an administrative deviation process versus a public hearing process. We'll look at that, but we did agree to a deviation process. We've just got to confirm whether or not it was supposed to -- intended to be an administrative deviation process. It doesn't make any sense to me, if staffs agreeing with the deviation why we would go through a public hearing process. You would think you'd go through a public hearing process when there wasn't an agreement on the deviation, but we need to look at that. So I just wanted to put that on the record. Page 115 September 7, 2006 And with that, I guess we'll be back on the 21 st to talk about the earlier provisions that were continued. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Next speaker would be Mr. De Lestang. MR. De LESTANG: For the record, Joss De Lestang. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I just have a few words to say on behalf of the engineers who have been involved. And basically I've been looking at this from the back row, as it were. And it really -- the issue for us has to do with some fundamentals that I think we have tried to -- we have tried to stress on and which are not really things of our doing. This is not an us versus them sort of situation, which is what it seems some of that is -- the kind of territory we're now getting into. It's really the issue of what do you do about stormwater? I guess you can ask people in Golden Gate right now, what do they do about water? The engineers have -- they help, they can do things about it, but there are a few fundamental physical characteristics about the systems we have that really we all need to bear in mind when we design systems, and for you folks who are crafting the laws need to be aware of so that we don't end up having impractical and physical things for us to work around. In particular I think I have particular issue with a point that you can actually prevent water from entering -- stormwater from entering preserves. This is a categoric statement that has absolutely no basis in fact. How can you really do that? There is no -- it's physically impossible to do this unless -- and as somebody brought out earlier on about pumps, yes, I suppose if you have a pump system you're allowed to -- you can decide to take the hydrology from one area of the site and transfer it to another at will, or depending on some kind of protocol that you may have arranged with the Water Management District. But -- and this is a separate issue, but it's not -- it's very difficult Page 116 September 7, 2006 to get pumped systems. The district does not allow this. You need to have entities that can be controlled such as municipalities. You cannot really do it. It's not a practical sort of outcome for most people and for most permitees. The point is, despite our best intention it's not practical or feasible to hydrologically disconnect a portion of the site from its surroundings, you know. In this respect, a developed site and a non-developed site have this in common: They are both subject to incident rainfall. And when you have incident rainfall, you have to be able to maintain the drainage that was there before. You know, the important thing to remember here is that the hydrology -- the hydrology of these areas, you know, and the maintenance of the hydrology depends on the proper hydration and the proper drainage. It's a two-sided -- it's two factors that you have to take into account. And if we decide to berm off an area because we want to protect it from stormwater, say intrusion from the surrounding, we in fact may be killing it with kindness. You will not be able to prevent the rain from falling in that area. I mean, you can't by definition. But what we will do is prevent the proper drainage from occurring, which is the other side of the equation. So it really -- it has to be in your mind when you're deliberating these issues, you have to bear in mind that you can write this into law, but we will not be able to work with this. We will not be able to achieve the kind of results that everybody wants to have. What we can do as engineers is we can influence the flow of water. We can divert the flow of water. We can slow it down. We can treat the water. But we really cannot prevent any portion of a site from getting wet or getting water. Sheet flow happens in a natural circumstance. And what we have after, we've taken an open space area and Page 11 7 September 7, 2006 turned it into a water management system, is all different portions of it that have to be interconnected so that you preserve the ability for drainage to happen. And when you do that, the other side of the coin also becomes true. When you have excess water in one part; i.e. your lakes or detention areas -- which are not your preserves, by the way, I think we discussed this last time -- when you have excess water in these, they will then must be allowed to flow into all the areas of the site, including your preserves. And this would only happen as it does in natural circumstances. So you see, it puts us in a bad situation where we listen to this and yes, we can add BMP's. I think if the staff feels that there's additional BMP's needed to make -- because there are sensitive areas of a site where you want to have -- preferentially you want to have water treated before they enter that. All this is doable. All this is possible. But the whole concept, the categoric statement that you cannot -- water cannot be allowed -- stormwater can't be allowed in a preserve. And again, even the word stormwater, it's a bit of a misnomer and it conjures up some ideas that are not really altogether true. We're not just talking about stormwater, we're talking about surface water management system. I prefer that word. It's longer but it means more. It's surface water. Whether it comes from a storm or whether it comes from some no-name event. I mean, did we know for example that Golden Gate is flooded? Did anybody see on the news that we had eight inches of rain or seven inches, whatever? It just happened. Right now what we have is a result of a slightly more better-than-average wet season condition, because the ground has already had excess water over a certain period of time. In other words, what we're having right now is perfectly natural. And this will happen again and again and again. And what do you do, for example, you have a gopher preserve or you have a natural area preserve in one of these places in the pines of Golden Gate. Page 118 September 7, 2006 What would happen to the carefully bermed out area where say a listed species would be? They would be swimming? You see, there are things that we -- and this is not something that engineers can do anything about. We are simply designing the systems. We can prevent -- like I say, we can prevent direct discharges, we can treat the water more efficiently, and as more BMP's are developed -- because these BMP's are moving targets, they do change, there's more and more beneficial things that can be added to a system. The code language should be able to reflect that and we can certainly adapt. But the facts are that we cannot disconnect a part of the system. You cannot compartmentalize hydrology on a site. It's that simple. It cannot be done. And so if there are ways to write this where we can take out the language that says we cannot discharge -- stormwater cannot be discharged into a preserve or any area of open space that we are now calling a preserve, whether it's a wetland or upland, I would be all for that. And I think most engineers agree on this -- of engineers with me, and I'm sure they can testify to what I'm saying. And I feel a little remiss because if we had the engineering staff from the county, I could ask them to verify what I say. Because it makes sense. And when you think about it you'll see that it's not really an engineering issue. I mean, I'm here talking about this, but it really is an issue we're all aware of. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. It's very fundamental, and it's something we have to work against. Yeah, storm protection is what we do because we know it's going to -- but we cannot compartmentalize hydrology. This is the most important thing I want to leave you with. Because I think it's important you have it in your mind as you're crafting this -- these codes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question. Do you see any need for an ordinance like this? And if so, what parts of the ordinance do you think are valid? MR. De LESTANG: I understand the staffs concern about Page 119 September 7,2006 wanting to prevent direct discharges into a preserve, okay. And like I say, as engineers, as designers of stormwater systems, there are certainly things you can do about that. We route things -- we route water preferentially to certain areas that are more where it's their design to receive water. But eventually and in the final analysis when you come to a point where water raises, comes up stages so high you would not be able to prevent it. So the language should just reflect first the -- should not reflect the reality -- should reflect the reality rather, that we cannot prevent water from entering any part of the site, but we can treat the water, see? Provide BMP's, if they're required and you have sensitive area of the site, you can provide more BMP's, additional BMP's over and above what a district permit might -- if that is Collier County's preserve and that's their desire to do it, I guess they're probably in their right. But really, the language, and I think -- I have Bruce here who were has I think crafted or written a very simple statement that I think would answer most of the questions that you are asking. Is there some simple language. And last time -- I'm reminded of the conversation you all were having last time over here, and Mr. Murray indicated that this was arguing -- this was an argument of how many angels you could have dancing on the head of a pin. And I thought that was -- it's really -- in a way it's true, because we're trying to do the impossible. Weare trying to take into account every slice of hydrology, every slice of habitat and trying to account -- with these codes trying to account for every one of them, how high you can let the water go. Each one -- it's impossible to do. Let the water go where it goes. We can prevent direct discharges. You can treat them, you can do all these things, but don't ask us to do impossible things to prevent -- because you're going to just kill these places. Page 120 September 7,2006 ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Gary Butler. MR. BUTLER: Gary Butler with Butler Engineering. I've been working in this county for 26 years, done a lot of projects. The majority of those projects have preserves. None of those projects have isolated the water management system from the preserves. And I've seen no adverse impacts in any preserves from stormwater introduction. I've seen exotic problems, I've seen where people have encroached on those areas with plantings and other things, you know, that live next to the preserves, but on no situation have I ever seen a preserve go bad from the introduction of stormwater. The other part of my speech has already been covered. He did it much more eloquently. Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: The court reporter just asked clarification, are you putting time limits on the speakers? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: No. There are only a couple of them. If they go too long, I will cut them off. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, ma'am. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: We know we have a time limit here as to when we need to get out of this room. MS. F ABACHER: All right, Mr. Layman. MR. LAYMAN: For the record, my name is Bruce Layman. I'm a senior ecologist with Wilson-Miller. I'm not here representing any particular development interest. I've just been involved in the review process of these LDC amendments since April, working with county staff through the EAC, through the EAC sub-committee, through the DSAC meetings, and then last week before you folks with the first of the two planning commission meetings. I'm going to cut right to the middle of this. When we met last week, Tuesday, Commissioner Strain suggested that in his opinion the old code wasn't that bad and that clarification of the old code may get us to where we need to be. And so as -- you know, versus taking the Page 121 September 7, 2006 code that was actually put before you and carrying that forward, he basically said let's put that aside, let's look at the existing code, tweak it slightly, and that would cover us to get us forward and get us into the right place. In fact, there was subsequent discussion between staff and he that this revision ought to be fairly simple. It ought to basically represent a paragraph, maybe two. And in fact staff made the comment, sure, we might even be able to have that to you this afternoon. I mean, that was the level of simplicity of what the revisions were proposing to be. So basically staff was given the direction to amend the existing code, not the code you had before you, but the existing code, to allow stormwater preserves so long as it benefits the system. Now, I'm paraphrasing the exact words, but was that the gist of it. That was in lieu of taking the codes you had before you and carrying it forward or modifying it or any such thing. It was taking the existing code that's on the books now, tweaking it to reflect allowing stormwater and preserves. And then it was further directed that that be remanded back to the EAC for them to review, comment on, revise and then bring back before you today. Basically what happened is staff subsequently took the code that you had seen Tuesday, they retooled it to basically condense it, make it a little shorter, cut some of the details out of it. But largely the code that you have in front of you that the EAC saw yesterday modified slightly, it has many of the same components of the code that you were reviewing last Tuesday. So I'm very confused. Are we going to be considering revising the existing code by adding some text to it and carrying it forward as you directed last week, or are we going to be trying to carry forward the code that was condensing the code that was put before you last week and that the EAC reviewed yesterday? Just as an example, Joss mentioned a little bit ago that I had Page 122 September 7, 2006 drafted some language that basically I think would be in the spirit of what Commissioner Strain had suggested, taking the existing code and adding to it some underlined sentences at the tail end that I think would I guess be in the same spirit of his direction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all right, I'll look at it here. MR. BUTLER: Now, the underlined code is something that I simply drafted up this morning, but I think it captures the essence of what Commissioner Strain was suggesting. So still I am confused, because it was noted earlier today that the vote that was cast last Tuesday was to carry your vote forward to the Board of County Commissioners. And I'm not sure if we're clear on what was being voted on. I was under the impression, as were many of the people here in the audience, that the example that I just handed out was closer to what you were voting on and not a retooling of the code that you had before you Tuesday. I was at the meeting, I purchased the transcript of the DVD and watched it several times last night, and I came away very confident that this was the direction you may have been going and not the direction as has taken place before the EAC and now back towards the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Madam Chair? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes, Mr. Murray, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not going to dispute with you. My recollection, though, was that it was a suggestion, not a direction. And wasn't necessarily the will of this board, but instead a means of achieving a result that might have been worked out. So I'm not sure, and I'm not criticizing, I will question one item here. I'm not criticizing what you're suggesting, but I'm not sure that that is as strong as it was. That's my recollection. But I'll get into the point. In ii there, it indicates, says, does not significantly modify. And of course that's a modifier, significantly. One man's significance is Page 123 September 7, 2006 another man's insignificance. So I don't know, where do we -- how do we relate to that? When do we know that we've significantly modified the existing predevelopment hydrology? What documentation, what studies, what do we have that would help us to know that that is broached? MR. BUTLER: Well, I guess I can answer that in two points. One being the word significantly. There needs to be a modifier. Because to say that the predevelopment cannot differ from the post-development, that's an impossibility, if you take it in absolutes. So I think there needs to be a modifier. And that's the first part of the answer. The second part is depending upon what the preserve is, what type of habitat, what critters are there, what their life history needs are, whether it's wetland, whether it's upland, a modification of three inches in your water table in a wetland may not be that significant; however, three inches of modification in a dry prairie, that may be very significant, or in a St. John's wart marsh may be very significant. So I guess it depends on the biology -- based on the biology of that particular system and what's trying to be done with it regarding the hydrology. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you for your answer. It does provoke a thought in my mind of what Mr. Joss -- that's his first name, I apologize for not remembering how to pronounce your last name -- but he indicated that the BMP's, you know, you're going to get -- you're trying to emulate nature. You're constantly trying to emulate nature. And you've just indicated that is impossible. And I agree with you, ultimately. Ultimately when you get down to it, you're going to have this cascade of water that you don't know what you're going to be able to do with, because no matter how many BMP's deployed, you now have an excess. So I guess I still have to come back to that question of significantly modify. Yes, I agree with you, you need some kind of a Page 124 September 7, 2006 modifier to reflect something from a standard. But maybe that's the problem. Maybe there's a standard absent. MR. BUTLER: I was not suggesting that -- not being able to mimic nature exactly. I'm speaking absolutely exactly. If the water gets up to 11.30 feet today and it gets up to 11.33 feet tomorrow, that means it changed. The way it's written without a -- I mean, this is getting into semantics, but without having a qualifier in there somebody could actually hold your feet to the fire legally, probably, and say look, you did change it, therefore you're out of compliance with what the code says. That's my only purpose. I'm not trying to do huge modifications. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand it. But we do need to understand, and I'm glad to you qualified that. And no one wants to have somebody with best intentions to do the right thing be held to the fire arbitrarily. But that would suggest to me then that we need something a little further then if we're going to go in this way. We need to be sure that we have within the standard we have a range then, or something. Because otherwise, what's to prevent someone who doesn't particularly care, who will do less than they should and we end up with a terrible condition? So that's my only comment on that. MR. BUTLER: May I pose one question, if I may? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. MR. BUTLER: I guess my question is, based on being involved in last week's meeting and watching it on the DVD, I thought it was fairly clear that there was a suggestion for staff to revise the existing text and on the books text, not the stuff that was being proposed that was in front of you, to revise it such in a small condensed paragraph form that basically says take the existing text, add -- you know, put some text on it that says you can put stormwater and preserves, so Page 125 September 7,2006 long as it benefits the systems. And then that would get carried forward to the EAC. That's not at all what happened. But now are we stuck with what the EAC saw? I just don't -- it seems to me if your vote is to carry this forward to the county commission, I'm not sure what's going to carry forward. I know what the EAC saw and what they voted on, but I'm not sure what this particular board has voted on to put forward to the commISSIon. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: They should have seen our September 1 st iteration. MR. BUTLER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a question for the speaker. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes, absolutely. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I once overheard a developer talking about his practice of when things got very wet that he would flood the cypress preserve. And he said, you know, they didn't want us to be flooding it. I forget how many feet it was. But he said those cypress just love, you know, the more water the better. They love it, you know. And a lot of people think the wetlands, you know, the more water they get, oh, it's just wonderful. And they don't realize that water is not always good to be flooded into a wetland or just dumped in there. And my question is, could this ordinance be used as an excuse or justification for pumping water out of the developed area of the property and to get rid of it to be pumping it into the wetland? That's my question. Could this be used as a justification to do that? MR. BUTLER: I don't believe so. Because in going through the environmental resource permit process and also the Section 404 permitting process with the Corps of Engineers, both the Game Commission and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service likely get involved during those processes, and if your preserves -- if it's a wetland and cypress preserve, chances are it's got listed birds that forage there. Page 126 September 7, 2006 So odds are that they're going to be reviewing it from a wildlife protection standpoint. If they think you could put a foot of water in there and it's not going to harm things, great. If they don't think you should change the hydrology, great. It largely depends on what the system is, what the habitat is, what critters are living there, using it. So I think all of that stuff does get reviewed during those two environmental permitting processes well before they come before the county for an SDP approval or the final development order type approvals. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm just confused, because it says stormwater is allowed in preserves. I listened to what the engineer back there was saying, I forgot your name, I'm sorry. But that you really can't stop stormwater from getting into preserves. So why are you talking now about letting it go in? It seems like you're actively trying to promote moving stormwater from one place into another place, and that confuses me. MR. BUTLER: Well, the stormwater, when it falls on a site, gets channeled to wet detention systems, lakes typically. And while it's there, it gets taken care of the -- basically the gross treatment of the water. But also it's a reservoir to hold the water on the initial slope coming in from a rainfall event. When it stages up, if there is a wetland preserve nearby, it might go over the weir at a certain elevation. The water then goes into the wetland preserve. All of that can be modeled and it will suggest how much water actually is anticipated to get in that preserve in a post-development condition. Ideally you'd be putting water in there. But the thing is, because maybe the drainage around that wetland isn't quite as much, the water you're putting in from here offsets what normally would have run off from the adjacent uplands. So the net result is you've not changed the hydrology, it's just instead of coming in from everywhere around the wetland preserve, it's coming into the lake system, channeling itself Page 127 September 7,2006 there at a certain elevation, popping off into the wetland. The idea is to try to at minimum keep the same hydrology as was there prior to the development. And depending upon whether that system has been dried out historically by, you know, ditching, diking, canals, roads, whatever, you may want to put some more water in there to make it wetter than it was today to maintain its health. And all that gets reviewed during the ERP process in particular, and depending on species issues, the Corps of Engineers Section 404 process. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Next, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Next would be Nicole Ryan. MS. RYAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy. And the Conservancy supports what staff has drafted. We believe that they did a pretty good job of taking your direction from your meeting last week and doing one very important thing, which is not allowing the stormwater into the upland habitats where it would be inappropriate. And then also adding the language where stormwater is going to be allowed that there be some treatment into those wetland areas. I had hoped that your discussion today would be strictly on did staff follow your direction and what was the outcome from the EAC. However, I guess I will be repetitive of my comments from last week, since we're rehashing the whole issue. So I apologize, but I feel that I must get this on the record. Right now I think it's very important to point out that stormwater, there is no provision to allow stormwater into preserve areas. Right now there's nothing there to do that. So while I sympathize with these pleadings of hardship, you're not taking anything away from the development community. This has been treated as a stormwater issue. Well, it really isn't. It is a native vegetation preserve issue, which is Page 128 September 7, 2006 very, very different. Staff had been on a case-by-case basis, potentially allowing some stormwater to go into preserve areas. And if you think back, this really started with the EAR-based amendments many months ago. And you had directed staff to put language in the Growth Management Plan amendments that said stormwater would be allowed in preserves if it benefited the wetlands. That language survived two meetings, there was a third meeting, I wasn't there so I'm not quite sure what happened. But the language was changed to no adverse impact, or something along those lines. So from that we now have the land development codes to implement that. And from your meeting last week, staffs concern was really focused on what happens when there are some wetlands that could use a little more water and could we put something in place to allow that to happen. And we believe that the language that they have put forward from your direction really does that. There was some mention from Mr. Butler, I believe, that they've been putting the stormwater into their native vegetation preserves. And if that is happening, then I believe that maybe there needs to be a staff meeting to find out what happened. If it has been done without staff approval, then it's a code enforcement issue. But I'm not sure that we need to keep allowing that just because it's been done. Again, it hasn't been allowed on the books. What you're going to be putting forward potentially will be more permissive as far as the location of stormwater. So you are giving additional allowances. As I mentioned, this really isn't a stormwater issue. This is an issue tied to your Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code that says that Collier County requires certain native vegetation preservation standards and vegetative types to be preserved on development sites. And those are ranked in order of priority; the first being listed species habitat and the second being the uplands, those rare uplands that we want to preserve because there Page 129 September 7, 2006 really are no other preservation standards for them and because they are so rare and unique. And we really want to keep the stormwater out of those areas. We know that in those non-hydric soils it isn't a good idea. You heard this last week. We believe that staff has done a good job of taking your direction. We would ask that you move it forward. I guess I would also like to mention, there's been a lot of discussion about the district and the ERP approval process, and that listed species and all of these things will be taken care of in the ERP. But again, since we're not really talking about stormwater, we're talking about native vegetation preserves, that's a county requirement, and the county is going to have to be the entity that enforces their own standards and requirements. You simply can't ask the agencies to do that. The county needs to take hold and do that. Best management practices, I think that's something that the county is going to have to look towards in the future, especially with watershed management plans moving forward, so I think that we can deal with some of these stormwater issues in the future in that manner. I guess I'll end with that and just ask that -- I know that there's been some new language proposed and I don't have my glasses on so I can't quite see that, but I believe that part of that was really you're turning your vegetation preserves into part of your stormwater systems. So I don't believe that that language really does what you want it to do. I would recommend that you move forward with staffs language that they have presented to you. Thank you. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Catherine? MS. FABACHER: That's the last speaker we have. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. As I had said before, I believe it was the vote of this board to move forward September 1 st to the BCC. And I'm certainly comfortable with what we determined on the 1st. And I'm also more than happy to have the EAC do their Page 130 September 7, 2006 additions and pass that along for the board's consideration. But I see no need to change what we sent forward. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Madam Chair, just so I get oriented correctly, the first is not what was reflected here today, what was given us today? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: No, this is the 6th. Which this is what the EAC -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the EAC change. The one that was unnumbered. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not concerned with that. So what -- are we not taking -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: If you look at the blue sheets that we're delivering. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Blue sheets. I'm not sure. Hold on. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: As things stood on the 1st. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I've got the blue sheets here. I guess to cut through the allowable use here -- all right, to cut through, basically what we're talking about, I just hope that we're not cutting off the opportunities for the language. This is the language? ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: No, we're fine, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, so I'm on target? That's what I needed to understand, I wanted to be sure. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, I believe so. All right, then now I will turn over the meeting to Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. Is there anything -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Actually, I do need to say one thing, and that's that we will continue this LDC second reading to the 21 st and try to get those -- I guess Mr. Adelstein, you've requested that Page 131 September 7, 2006 we take these issues first, anything that we've -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I said first or last, which is what I said. But I would rather get it done first and then go on. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I haven't seen the agenda for the 21 st, so I don't know if there will be -- I don't know what kind of meeting we have on the 21 st, so -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There is one PUD already on it. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: And that's it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't know about the others. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Oh, okay. Well, I'm fine with doing all of this first. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't care. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think it should be. MS. FABACHER: It might be problematic because all of the applicants and their consultants and everything will be here, and to ask them -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: To sit through it all? MS. FABACHER: Yeah, would be-- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Fine by me if we do it last. Really, I have no preference. MS. F ABACHER: I think last would be better would be my recommendation. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. I'm willing to go along with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's like stormwater coming into my preserves. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: We will continue then until the 21 st. And we will do it after our regular meeting. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is there any way that we can ask staff to ask the commission to move the things that we haven't had a Page 132 September 7, 2006 chance to act on to the end of their meeting so that in case they go over and have to -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I think we can ask Mr. Klatzkow that information, but I would not see any reason not to. MR. KLATZKOW: We can ask. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. All they can do is say no. MR. KLATZKOW: Board controls its own agenda, but we can COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Can we ask you to ask? MR. KLA TZKOW: Staff can ask that, yes. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Can we ask you to ask it? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you can ask staff to, yeah. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, fine. Any other comments? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yes, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Couple things. Jeff, there was an e-mail that came out, I think it was commenting -- I forgot what it was, but comments on an e-mail and I commented on it. There was concern over Sunshine Law. What is it we can't do? MR. KLA TZKOW: You can clearly have an e-mail to staff and go back and forth. What you can't do is to in essence evade the Sunshine by having e-mail communications among yourself or pass through those communications through staff to other members of the planning commission. You can have one way e-mail communications, like you can send out something, like attached please find a document. But it's not for discussion, it's just for purpose. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For example, let's say she sent out an e-mail saying all buildings should be painted white and then I Page 133 September 7, 2006 reply to everybody, including the commission. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think that's a good idea. Just to-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Catherine sends out. In other words, she sends out a version of the -- MR. KLATZKOW: But Catherine can't communicate what you want to the rest of the commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so if I respond back saying I remember that to be purple, that's not right? MR. KLATZKOW: You can respond to Catherine, as long as the intent isn't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But don't forward -- MR. KLATZKOW: The response cannot be communicated indirectly to the remainder of the commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Another question. Catherine, DSAC I know reviewed some of the things yesterday, correct? If they make a change, what happens to that? MS. F ABACHER: It depends on the author of the amendment. In if the authors can recommend it and feel comfortable with it, they put it in. And if they can't put it in, then staff notes it on the summary sheet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so then theoretically we could review something, DSAC could make a change, the author could like it and off it goes to the commission without us seeing it post-DSAC. Did that happen at all or -- and that doesn't make me comfortable. I think I'd rather -- ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: I think we've requested that that not happen with anything that we forward, that it be our recommendations and not anybody else's-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: -- which is the only reason that EAC is sending their own recommendations forward. And that would certainly include DSAC, that our recommendations are our Page 134 September 7, 2006 recommendations, and if anyone else has their recommendations, then you all decide how you handle that. But we've requested that several times. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: May I get a motion for adjournment? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. Just for Mr. Klatzkow. From your recollection, and maybe it's unfair to ask you this, but is that your recollection of the ordinance as it was organized, that that process be a parallel process instead of being a linear process? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm sorry, you're referring to what, sir? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To the EAC process to then the CCPC. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know that what we're doing was really contemplated by the ordinance because there's so many changes being made on the fly here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm wondering about. I'm asking the qualification for that, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: I think we're sort of -- I think we're with the intent of the ordinance, and I think it's a good thing. I think by having participation by the public here, getting some better product at the end of the day, I think when we wrote the ordinance it was more of a linear thing than was actually going on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought. That's my recollection from reading it. MR. KLATZKOW: But, you know, there's theory and there's practice. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, maybe we need to look at that again. MS. FABACHER: Well, I might comment that since we're unclear on how the stormwater got remanded, I was under the impression that we remanded it and it was to come back. So therefore, Page 135 September 7, 2006 if you voted on the thing and then remanded for them to -- you voted on something without seeing what the EAC did, if that's what your motion was at the last meeting. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: No, all we did was we made two different motions. One was to forward ours to the BCC, and the second was that because of comments that had been made, we thought it should go back to the EAC for their comments to give to the BCC as well. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Correct. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Because what they had worked on and submitted to us originally was vastly different than-- MR. KLATZKOW: I think what we send to the BCC will be the proposed ordinance with your comments, as well as separate comments by DSAC and separate comments by the EAC. ACTING CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, absolutely. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: May I get a motion for adjournment? COMMISSIONER TUFF: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Meeting is adjourned. Page 136 September 7, 2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3 :00 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DONNA REED CARON, Acting Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 137