Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/25/2006 S (LDC Amendments) October 25, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 25, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., in Special Session for the LDC Amendments, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas Jim Coletta Fred W. Coyle Donna Fiala Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney Susan Istenes, Zoning Director Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ LDC AGENDA October 25, 2006 5:05 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY 1 October 25, 2006 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 3. ADJOURN 2 October 25, 2006 October 25, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good evening. Ladies and gentlemen, we're having the session here on the Land Development Code Amendment, 2006 Cycle 1. And at this time if everyone will make sure that their cell phones or pagers are off, and we'll all rise to say the pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. I'd like to let-- inform my fellow Commissioners that I have another commitment at 6:30, so I have to leave at 6:30. So if we can take care of any issues that may need to be addressed ahead of time. I believe Stan Chrzanowski has got also a commitment so if we can take care of him first, and then we'll -- MS. FABACHER: Let's count the speakers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Pardon. MS. F ABACHER: Then we'll count the speakers slips. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Good evening, Stan. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. Stan Chrzanowski with Engineering Review. The first item -- and I've been asked to keep it down under two minutes by Catherine. No problem. Back in the 1920s, the late 1920s, the National Geodetic Survey computer, the shape of the earth, they said it was a geoid. They made us -- they made the entire country go to this datum, North American Vertical Datum and Natural Geodetic Vertical Datum. In the 1980s when they started putting satellites into orbit, they realized that the shape of the earth wasn't what they thought it was in the 1920s, so they recomputed the shape of the earth for lack of a clearer way to put it, and they re-did the datum for the United States. Now we have -- in the 1980s they did the NADA 3 and the NA VD 88. And I left something on your desks about what is a geodetic datum. Page 2 October 25, 2006 We have right now in Collier County, all our water management district permits are gone to NGVD, National Geodetic Vertical Datum. The new benchmarks that were set throughout Golden Gate Estates by the National Geodetic Survey were set to NA VD, North American Vertical Datum. The map on the visualizer right now shows that if you look at those lines, those are lines of equidistant difference between NA VD and NGVD, and you see 00 is about somewhere up in the Great Lakes, and by the time you get down to Florida, you're around a 1.5, 1.3 area. We've plotted -- they have a website called Vertcon, V - E- R - T -C-O- N, dot com. You can put in a latitude and a longitude or a state plane coordinate, and it will tell you the difference between NA VD and NGVD for your site. And the surveyor, Dan Reagan, plotted that on a map, and I had to darken it a little. I'm sorry. I'm on page 77 of the green book as far as the amendments go. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I started a little too fast. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Seventy-seven doesn't do it. MS. FABACHER: In the green book, Commissioner. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Green book, not the orange one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mine is lime. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Seventy-seven of which tab? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's a shade of green. MR. SCHMITT: Under yellow tab, development standards, Commissioner. It's under development standards, the yellow tab, and COMMISSIONER COYLE: The yellow tab in the green book? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And it's page 77. It's amendment 3.02.10E. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Got it. By the way, you've got it wrong, Stan. It's flat. Page 3 October 25, 2006 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I've heard that opinion expressed to me before. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just wait. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The map you're looking at on the visualizer right now -- I don't know if you can see the map underneath. You can barely make out Estates on the right, but I'll -- hold on a second. I think you can hear me. If you look up at the top of the map, right about here is Lely Barefoot Beach, down here is Marco Island, out here is Immokalee. And you can see that like FEMA told us, most of the time the difference is somewhere near 1.3 for Collier County, but it varies in the county anywhere from 1.2 to 1.5. That's the difference between two different datums, neither of which are exactly mean sea level. So our problem right now is we have a lot of information. All the water management district permits and everything, to NGVD. NGS, National Geodetic Survey, no longer supports NGVD. Every new benchmark they put in for the old ones, they replace them are all done to NA YD. So we suspect that somewhere along the line we're going to start running into problems. So what we have done in section 3.02 and section 3.02.10, 3.03.05,3.05.10,4.01.01,10.02.03,10.02.04,10.02.05 is to put in a requirement that any drawing we see be done to both NA VD and NGVD. Now, you don't have to take every single grade that you put on the drawing and do them to both, but somewhere at least on the cover sheet you have to put an equation for that particular site saying, for this site, the difference between NA VD and NGVD is -- NA VD is 10.0, NGVD is 11.24, something like that. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, that runs up to page 84 of your book through -- 77 through 84 are all the amendments. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And that's the sum total of what we're Page 4 October 25, 2006 trying to do. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And how long will we have to do the double standard through the transition period? How long do you think that will be? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think we put in here for five or 10 years or something. It's going to be many years. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what is the vertical datum that is used for the FEMA maps that were recently prepared, and what impact will the change have on the conclusions reached by the FEMA maps? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, the FEMA maps, originally they wanted to give us in NA VD, but because our old maps were NGVD, what they did, on every map sheet they put the NA VD grade for the flood, base flood elevation, and then they put the NGVD equivalent. So you see elevation, AE 10, and then below it you'll see in parentheses, NGVD 11.3. It doesn't really affect anything because the calculations are done to NA VD and the grades show to NA YD. And as long as we don't screw up, you know, like when they tried landing the first lander on Mars and they were doing metric instead of English? As long as we don't do that, we don't have a problem. It's when people take one datum and try to translate it into another and -- and don't know they're working in NA VD, think they're working in NGVD, then we have a problem. So we have to show both. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So your best guess is, we'll probably have this transitional period for 10 to 15 years, or you think longer? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. I would say five to 10 years. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think everything will go to NA VD at some point. Page 5 October 25,2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we'll be around. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not all of us. You're much older than the rest of us. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That makes me wise. And he's right, by the way. I'm the oldest one up here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Now ladies and gentlemen. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's okay. He's funnin' me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you want us to take a vote on this, or you just want us to give you direction to carry on with this, is that your -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know what I want. Whatever you want. MS. ISTENES: This is the first reading. Sorry, Susan Istenes, Zoning Director. This is the first reading tonight, so essentially if you have questions or if there's any public registered speakers, that would be appropriate. MS. FABACHER: There are no registered speakers on this amendment. MS. ISTENES: We won't be voting tonight on this. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one simple question. Of course, I don't understand much of any of this. How much does it cost us to have to do it this way? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, it doesn't cost us anything, and I don't think it will cost the engineering companies all that much. They just have to look up the difference between the two for that site, on the vertcon.com website, and put something on the cover sheet saying all grades in this drawing done to NGVD, for NA VD add or subtract so far. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And most everybody knows how to do this kind of stuff, Stan? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I would suspect that your surveyors all Page 6 October 25, 2006 know how to do it, as do the engineering. MR. SCHMITT: NA VD is more accurate. Most all the surveyors are moving to NA YD. Our new FEMA maps will be primarily in NA YD. It's just a more accurate datum. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. MR. SCHMITT: And that's the reason we want to move to that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other questions from the commissioners in regards to this? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I guess we can move it. MS. FABACHER: All right. Commissioners, Stan has one more that he's going to do, real quick one. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: And it's in your orange book on page 110, if you can find it. It's 1.02.03B. The author is Stephen Seal. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Steve couldn't be here tonight. And what we're trying to do -- and I've been told that this doesn't exactly do it, so I think one of the speakers is going to address it, is we're trying to give -- oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more time where we're supposed to be? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: 110. MS. FABACHER: 110 in your orange book. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, in the back. MS. FABACHER: Towards the back. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right after page 86. MS. FABACHER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HALAS: It jumps from 86 to 110. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think this will just be the new standard. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And from 110 to 211, wow. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's a different datum. Page 7 October 25, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: These are just newer versions of what you had in your green book, that's why they have the same page number. Just to clarify the confusion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Somebody didn't know how to number correctly. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. It happens. What we're trying to do is to give the development community another six months worth of time in between the time they have their preconstruction conference and the time their SDP expires and another six months worth of time in the extension they can ask for after that. I guess I should let the public speaker -- MS. FABACHER: Yeah, I think the speaker -- our first speaker is Mr. Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN HALAS: How'd the Planning Commission vote on this? MS. FABACHER: Well, it should be on your summary sheet. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I know. MS. F ABACHER: I wanted to say -- well, I could have a small explanation. Catherine Fabacher, for the record. Prior to this revision, the Planning Commission and the DSAC had actually voted against it because it -- they felt that it stopped their ability to delay the start of construction by the removal of one of the paragraphs. And now, because of the way the Planning Commission felt and DSAC, the authors, the engineering services, have put that back in to not delay their ability to delay the start of construction. So that issue has kind of been removed, but that was why the Planning Commission and the DSAC objected to it. And I think you have two consultants who will be able to speak to that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of Collier Enterprises. I think what happened, if you'll look in paragraph C, they struck Page 8 October 25, 2006 the words preconstruction conference for when you start the two-year period for when you must complete your infrastructure improvements. I think what staff intended to do was to leave the preconstruction conference language in and not refer to the date of the approval letter. Because if you look -- if you use the date of the approval letter as to when you must start and complete construction, you will have taken away the ability to delay your construction for that two-year period. So I think staff agrees that we need to leave the preconstruction conference language in and omit the underlined language update of the approval letter, and that would then be consistent with what DSAC recommended as well as the Planning Commission. Hopefully that's -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Staff agrees, that was the intent. I guess you could call this a scrivener's error. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that happens. You know, when you're converting to strike-through and underlines, sometimes the wrong things get struck. So I think we're -- if you make that change as I'm suggesting, I think that will be consistent with what the Planning Commission and DSAC -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: It is underlined like that in my book as date of the approval, approval letter. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That new language should not be there. You should leave the old language of preconstruction conference. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Preconstruction, okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That should be the right language, and the underlined information, date of approval letter, should be deleted. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that would accomplish what, I think, was the intent of the -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the one year? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Everything else stays the same, the two years and the one year. Those are correct. Page 9 October 25,2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any discussion from my commissioners? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that sounds great to me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just to make it -- just to make sure I understand it, the way it's presented here is not correct? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And are you handing us out a corrected copy, Stan? CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is the corrected version here, right, Stan? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: It would basically read, underline -- starting at underline, two years of the preconstruction conference, and omit the words, date of approval letter that are underlined. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do have a question. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It says preconstruction conference, i.e., commencement of construction. You have a preconstruction conference. Does that mean you start construction at the same -- on the same day? MS. ISTENES: No. Actually I think the way this is worded is in an attempt to define the commencement of construction as the event of the preconstruction conference. So in other words, the county won't really have any other way other than getting a notice of commencement through the building department, but this is basically when the time tolls is from your preconstruction conference. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then why don't we eliminate the reference to commencement of construction? If it is the preconstruction conference date that defines the start date, why don't we leave it at that, because we're going to get into a debate with somebody who waited six months later to start construction, and then Page 10 October 25, 2006 they're going to say, well, it goes from the time of construction, not the commencement. MR. SCHMITT: Fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, you need -- the reason you need to leave that in is because paragraph B says you must start construction within two years of getting your approval letter, and there's no definition of what -- what is starting construction. It's paragraph C that tells you when you've started construction, which is when you have your pre-conference meeting, and that's the way it's been working, and everybody's used to those terms and knows what they mean. And if you were to take out the i.e. -- MR. SCHMITT: I would agree with Rich, Commissioner. We've never had a problem with the way it's worded. Precon. is the -- normally it's very informal. It's just coming in, talking -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- with engineering, getting the approval letter, and then moving forward with construction. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand, but I'm the one voting on this -- MR. SCHMITT: I understand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and it's not clear to me. I'm not going to vote for it, okay? Now, you're saying if actual construction is not commenced within two years -- you need a definition of what actual construction is MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for commencement of construction. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That just doesn't mean the clearing of the property and let is set (sic), right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. You have to complete the infrastructure within two years of when you start moving -- actually Page 11 October 25, 2006 from two years when you have your preconstruction conference. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You start moving dirt? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then let me suggest this to you, in paragraph C, we say two years -- within two years of the preconstruction conference, which will be considered the date of commencement of construction. MR. SCHMITT: Fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Makes sense. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay? And that makes it a lot clearer. MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're right. That is a lot clearer. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Even I can understand that now. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going to still use the typical calendar that we're used to using instead of -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which calendar do you use? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whichever one is acceptable to Collier County. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Has the highest number of days? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's exactly it. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The Gregorian calendar. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think so too. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. MS. FABACHER: All right, Mr. Chair. I think we have one more speaker on this. Mr. Doug Lewis. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. Lewis, are you here? MR. LEWIS: Not on this item. MS. FABACHER: He's okay with it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: Now, Commissioner, we've taken a toll of speakers, taken -- counted them up, and between the fire and emergency services and the boatlift canopies, the boatlift canopies Page 12 October 25,2006 have won. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Have won? MS. FABACHER: Have won. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: So we're going to go -- and if you have any questions -- remember we had looked at them before, and therefore it's in your orange book. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The only thing that, on the boat canopIes -- MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- is that you can -- 80 by 120 property, I'd like to insert in there, you have the choice of either/or; in other words, either a boat canopy or a boathouse. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Well, I think that would be appropriate to make that motion when we vote, but I will add that in. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Either/or. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're on page 11, section 5.03.06. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just to make sure we have clarification so that the person that owns that property can either have a boathouse or, but not both. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tell me where you are. MS. FABACHER: Forgive me. That's not correct. We're in the orange book, and we're on page 11, which follows page 12. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you sure? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. MS. FABACHER: 5.03.06 in the orange book. MS. ISTENES: It's on page 11. MS. F ABACHER: It's about -- MS. ISTENES: Under the first tab, hot topics. MS. FABACHER: No. That's the green book. It's in the orange book. Page 13 October 25,2006 MS. ISTENES: Sorry. MS. FABACHER: You'll recall that you had asked us to -- staff to add -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not on page 11. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's not on 11 of the orange book. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we have on 11 is with the Gateway Triangle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here's another 11. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, we have another 11 ? MS. FABACHER: Turn the page. My apologies. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The very next page after that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There we go. This is another 11, following page 12. It's 11, 12, 11. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You've got some tests for us. MS. FABACHER: I apologize. I've had a bad week with computers and machines, so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't tell us about bad weeks. We've had one ourselves. MS. FABACHER: And if I might remind you that at the last time you heard it, you all had -- or the first time we heard it, you all had asked that the maximum number of boatlift canopies be one and it be added under section F4, and you'll see that that's been done. And other than that, that's the revision you requested, and nothing else has essentially changed. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But I would think that it would-- in case someone thinks that they can have a boathouse and a canopy at one location -- okay? It's got to be one or the other, I would hope. MR. ISTENES: I think what I hear you saying is you just want us to clarify that -- to make sure it's just one per site -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MS. ISTENES: -- of whatever they decide to have. Okay. Page 14 October 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was -- MS. FABACHER: Okay. So -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hold on. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the Planning Commissioner's recommendation on the number of canopies? MS. FABACHER: You know, they didn't address that issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. FABACHER: But they were totally in support of the amendment. If fact, they had a lot to do with crafting it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So do you feel that you can have as many boat canopies as the lot would fit? What -- the Planning Commission? MS. FABACHER: Well, they thought it would be pretty much limited by the restrictions on the setbacks and how long your dock could be and how many boat canopies, but they, you know, certainly don't envision a marina. But they did talk about that and saying that the size of the boat dock would really just naturally restrict the number of boatlifts you could have on it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: On the residence? MS. FABACHER: That was their discussion, MR. KLA TZKOW: Their idea was that the canopy fits over the boatlift. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: And they didn't discuss how many canopies you could have. They just focused on, if you have a boatlift, you could put a canopy over it. And permitting comes with the boatlift more so than the canopy issue. So once you've got the permitting for the boatlift, then you could put a canopy on top of it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, traveling down Isles of Capri, I noticed that some lots have -- on the bay side, but not on the canal side -- on the bay side they had multiple boats because, you know, they parked them inshore. And when you get in a canal lot you Page 15 October 25, 2006 can't do that because of the width of the canal. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we just restrict it to the canal lots? Just in case somebody decides that, well, I can have one each. If it's on an 80 by -- standard lot, which should be 80 by 120 in residential. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On a canal lot, just restrict it to one? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commission Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I wished I had a boat or a boat canopy or a boat dock. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have one I could sell you. I don't use it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I assure you, I probably would get very little use out of it, but I'd like to -- I'm going to reserve my opinion on this till after I hear the people that have to speak, because I really don't know what's right, what's wrong on it. MS. FABACHER: I guess that's my cue? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Our first speaker will be John McCrohan, and then the speaker after that will be Cheryl Lewandowski. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. McCROHAN: My name is John McCrohan. I live in Bonita Shores. I'd like to thank you all for letting me speak and give me opInIon. I've been here quite a few times, I believe every time we've had a discussion on this. I don't want to be repetitive. But just what you first talked about as far as canal lots and bay lots. It is a difference as to whether or not you are blessed with being able to have two lifts or one. And if you have two lifts and you only get one canopy, then one of your boats gets destroyed. Page 16 October 25, 2006 I've already lost one boat and had to sell it, and it was an antique, because the sun just did so much damage. My wife will tell you how she prefers me not to put a cover on our boat because she would prefer me -- she would prefer the boat to deteriorate than to see me lose a couple weeks of work when I pull out my back or fall off. It is an acrobatic act out over the water. The canopies, if you really look at the issues with the vinyl, that Waterways -- I believe John will be up here later on to speak -- they're vinyl, no stitches, no seams. They're very strong, very easy to put on and take off. The difference of being able to protect your boat and not is huge. They are major investments for most people in this area. And the reason I believe most people like myself moved to this area is not only for the weather, but the access to the water. And if you're lucky enough to have access to the water, you don't want to see your investment -- and boats are considered a very valuable investment -- to be destroyed by the weather and the elements. And I would hope that all of you would see our plight into just protecting our investment and trying to enjoy what Florida offers us, which is the water. And the reason some people have two boats, like I used to and don't, is because my wife doesn't like to take the family or her friends out in that stinky little fishing boat. She wants her deck boat. And so, therefore, I try to accommodate and make my better half happy so that I can have an enjoyable life, maybe go fishing. But I've had to sacrifice my classic antique fishing boat because it -- literally, I could not maintain the teak and other things in it, and the canopy probably would have solved that. And I really -- I hope that you can see your way, if a dock comes straight in and it has two lifts, to be able to protect both boats, instead of trying to pick which boat you will protect and which one you'll sacrifice. Page 1 7 October 25, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you on a canal lot or are you on a bay lot? MR. McCROHAN: I am on a bay lot. I'm on 3rd Street in Bonita Shores, Little Hickory Shores. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think that we covered that when we said that if it's on a bay, then it would be no problem. But if you were on a canal lot in a residential area -- MR. McCROHAN: Well, Mr. Coletta said he wasn't too sure on that, and I wanted to express my opinion. And if you ever do get a little bit of time off, you're more than welcome to come down, and I'll take you out for a boat ride. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd have to pay for the gas though. MR. McCROHAN: No, no. I'm a pretty good sport. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question though, if I may. Now, when you're talking about protecting the boats, I can understand that. But would this also -- when you're saying a canopy, you're talking about canopy over it. Now, I know people also -- I used to place a cover over the boat itself, stretch from one end to the other. This has nothing to do with that? MR. McCROHAN: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would that protect the other boat, the second boat, ifit ever came down to push or shove? MR. McCROHAN: Well, again-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: But the man's got two hoists, is what you've got. MR. McCROHAN: Yes, I have two lifts. And that's the problem is, it's not whether or not you can get -- put a cover on, it's whether or not you're capable of it physically. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. McCROHAN: As my neighbor across the street -- Jim sent, I believe, all of you an email, and he was unable to make it because he Page 18 October 25, 2006 went out of town. Jim is bound to a wheelchair. His younger son he won't allow to put the cover on because he fears for his son to fall in the water and get hurt. And so, therefore, Jim has no alternative but to leave the boat on the lift and uncovered. And as much as I've offered to help him, it's -- you know, he doesn't want to see me do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's an exception to what everything else is. I mean, this gentleman would have a hard time probably getting downstairs or many other things. I mean, it's a handicap that he has, and it's going to have a limiting factor. But the general population -- I can remember years and years ago when I had boats, and three times I tried it, and every time it was disaster. You couldn't wait to get rid of the suckers. It had the little snaps that went all the way around. And it took a few minutes to put it on, but I believe, wouldn't that cover -- protect the boat, or do you have a problem with the sun coming on the side of the boat? MR. McCROHAN: Well, no, that would protect the boat if you can get the cover. Remember you're not walking around the boat while it's on a trailer. The boat is out over the water. There is nothing that you can stand on on three sides of that boat in order to clasp that down. You are literally working your way to the end of the boat, working your way around, and by the time you get to one side or the -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir, what we're talking about, in your case this wouldn't have anything to do with affecting where you are located because you're on a bay? MR. McCROHAN: I'm on a bay, yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. McCROHAN: I just -- I hope that Mr. Coletta can see that we're looking at that. And the -- it's difficult. If it's on a trailer -- which I used to trailer my boat prior to being lucky enough to have one of these. But it was much easier when you were walking around the boat. When it's suspended in the air, it is very difficult because Page 19 October 25, 2006 there is such a gap. But thank you very much for your time. And if there are any more questions I can answer, I'd be more than happy to. Oh, and one other thing, the flammability issue that sometimes comes up. Most of these are vinyl. The only ones I've ever seen are vinyl. There is no flammability issue. They melt and so, therefore, they do not jump. And with what we're talking about being boatlift canopies, there are spaces between each canopy to provide, you know, for walking. You're not actually covering the dock, like a boathouse would. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. Each of the speakers, we'd like to limit it to three minutes. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir, yes, sir. All right. Next is Cheryl Lewandowski, and after that, we'll hear from Jeff Garard. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. LEWANDOWSKI: Hi. My name is Cheryl Lewandowski, and I live in Bonita Shores, and I own a boat dock lot on Little Hickory Shores, and I'm here to ask that you do approve the boat canopy lifts, boatlift canopies, for both lifts, if you could. Well, however, you see fit. I agree with the speaker before. It's very difficult to cover your boat while it's hanging over the water. And you didn't ask about if it would destroy the boat. Well, when you have a cover on, sometimes the mechanics don't really work. They seem to stop and they get very moist when it rains and everything. When you keep your cover on a boat, it doesn't get a chance to air out, so everything does get mildewy, too. So that is a problem with having a snap cover on. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I haven't had that problem with-- MS. LEWANDOWSKI: You didn't? Page 20 October 25, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There was another lady that spoke the last time we discussed this. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. If it's an umbrella that breathes, why, you shouldn't have that problem. MS. LEWANDOWSKI: Oh. Maybe we buy older boats. That's a problem. So I'm hoping that you vote for it, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much, ma'am. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Mr. Jeff Garard, and after that we'll hear from Rick Palazzo. MR. GARARD: Good afternoon. I'm Jeff Garard. I'm a neighbor also of these folks in this same area, have the good fortune of having two boatlifts, would appreciate the opportunity to be able to cover both sides. You know, I happen to have a 28-foot boat. It's virtually impossible because of strapping purposes, would not be able to get out there and strap a boat cover down overtop of my boat. I think some of the mildew issues that we were just kind of going over right there, I think, are a concern. I know I come home and I wash my boat every time. It needs to have the open air to dry. If I want to wait two hours and then put it on -- but I don't happen to live right where my dock's located, so that's not a real convenience for me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are you located on a bay, sir, or are you located -- MR. GARARD: I am. I just -- I think it's something important for everybody whether or not they are on a bay or on a canal, they could have the dock. You know, you could be in a situation where you have a dockominium, marina-type situation so you classify one property. I think that might be an issue. Maybe you guys have thought about that, I don't know. I just really share the same concerns as these folks and just hope that you folks will use some discretion and vote for that. Page 21 October 25, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: I hope you understood what we said. If you have a residence where you have a home -- MR. GARARD: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And it's a lot that's 80 by 120 and it's on a canal. MR. GARARD: Okay. Maybe I'm not clear. I mean, I don't have -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Canal lot. MR. GARARD: -- residence on there, and I'm not sure I would classify it as the bay. Maybe -- it is considered a bay, okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Where is -- is this where those small boat lots are? MR. GARARD: Exactly, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And have you two docks? MR. GARARD: I have two lifts on my property. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And how big is your property? MR. GARARD: My property is approximately 28 by 30. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, 28 by 30. MR. GARARD: But this is -- again, it's something that's already been permitted with the two lifts there, so I'm not sure where there would be an issue. We have a variance that's been provided to allow us the setbacks to build within that area. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I know this is the only area that we have that, that's why -- MR. GARARD: Sure, I understand. Well, I mean, I think you run into the same issue in any of the Vanderbilt properties that are, perhaps, mid-rises or whatnot that are sitting there and maybe have multiple docks in one situation, so obviously you're going to run into that more than just in our area. CHAIRMAN HALAS: But as I classified it, a single-family residence, okay. MR. GARARD: Sure. Page 22 October 25, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's good that they have those things for people like me who don't live on or near water but would want to have a boat, especially with how many we're eliminating now. MR. GARARD: I agree. I mean, the affordability of being on the water's just astronomical, as everybody's aware. And I think this is a great alternative, because everybody knows where construction costs have gone in the last four or five years. For me to build a boathouse and maintain it, that's not even in the question right now. And I think if you look at a lot of the boathouses that are in downtown Naples, you know, to me they're dilapidated and, you know, personally they-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't think they have any in downtown Naples. MR. GARARD: Well, I don't know if it's maybe considered downtown Naples, but when I cut through Gordon Pass, there are some areas where they have boathouses where they've had the fire in the past. And, you know, in my opinion, this is a much more attractive alternative, and it's something that people are going to maintain more regularly than an asphalt shingled roof with siding or stucco or whatever means of construction that they've used to build the property. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a quick question, if I may. Help me out a little bit. What is permitted now and what are we trying to change? CHAIRMAN HALAS : We're not changing anything, we're just giving the option of either having a boat dock or -- we just want to make sure that there's clarification so somebody doesn't come in and say, well, I think I can probably sneak a boatlift and a boathouse on the property. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So at the present you're allowed to do both? Page 23 October 25, 2006 MS. ISTENES: No. Let me clarify. Susan Murray -- Susan Istenes, for the record. Right now you -- if you get approval from the Planning Commission and you meet all the criteria in the Land Development Code, you can build a boathouse and there are some architectural criteria that goes along with that. The roof has to be a certain material depending on the principal structure. This is proposed to allow an alternative to that so you could do one or the other or -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to make sure that it's clarified. MS. ISTENES: And this is being termed a boatlift canopy, and you don't have the same requirements as you do for a boathouse as far as the roofing material goes and permitted by right so you don't have to go before the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm back where we need to be right now, thank you. MR. GARARD: I just have one question for you, sir. When you said 80 by 120, I wasn't real clear on that, because obviously everybody has a different lot dimension, whether it's my lot or a 60- foot lot or an 80- foot lot. Are you trying to restrict us only to an 80-plus wide boat lot or -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the typical single-family lot, and then when you build a dock, you have to have a 15- foot offset on either side. MR. GARARD: Sure. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And you can build the dock on the rest of the, what, 55 feet or whatever, okay? MR. GARARD: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's all we're going to do is just make it clear in the Land Development Code. There's no restrictions other than, we just -- either you -- either you have one or the other, okay? MR. GARARD: Okay. Page 24 October 25, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. MR. GARARD: I appreciate it. Thank you for your time. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Our next speaker is Mr. Rick Palazzo, and he'll be followed by John Purvis. MR. PALAZZO: Hi. My name is Rick Palazzo. I've been here several times, and I appreciate all the work that you guys are doing on this boat canopy thing, and I'm hoping everything goes through all ri ght. I know you guys have been working on this pretty hard, so there isn't too much I can say except thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir. MS. FABACHER: Mr. John Purvis, and then after that, Mr. Gettinger. MR. PURVIS: Thank all of you for your time and effort and going forward with the boatlift cover ordinance. I think we need one. It's an alternative to what we have, whether it's a boathouse or it's a boatlift cover. If we have a permitted dock, it's very simple, let us protect our boat, and that's all we want to do. Put a cover on so we can protect it. It's easy to get on and off, and then they can protect all of our instruments, give us the option, instead of going and putting a boathouse up that would deteriorate and, in the event of a hurricane, could be catastrophic for the canals or the bays of the debris going in the water. Canopy would simply take it down, when the hurricane or tomorrow storm's gone, high winds, put it back up. Thanks for your time and all the effort. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. Next is Mr. Gettinger. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: When the speakers are finished. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay. Page 25 October 25, 2006 MS. F ABACHER: Then Joe Fuller will be next. MR. GETTINGER: John Gettinger. I'm with Waterway Boatlift Covers, and basically I'm just here supporting some of my customers and to answer any questions anybody might have about how we make them or what we can do. The -- I have heard discussions here, a couple of things about -- concerns me about the colors and material you make them out of. And I just want to throw this out there for you to caution you on colors. Most everybody takes care of their homes and paints their homes right and everything, and you might -- I don't know about the legal question about if you can mandate certain colors. I know when they did it up in Cape Coral, they decided they couldn't mandate the color. So I just want to throw that out there for you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So you can have a gamut of any kind of color you want? MR. GETTINGER: Well, I have found -- I've been in this business for quite a while, and they're not going to put colors up there to distract from the quality of their homes. People just don't do that, you know. You might get one out of a million that would do that -- but I seen a person put an orange cover up one time. I thought it was -- oh, my gosh. They wanted an orange color, but they're right. After they got it done, I went back and looked at it, and it looked great because they had just re-tiled the roof, they had orange and white tile on their roof, and the canopy blended right in with the roof on their house. So if you had -- say, they couldn't have put that orange cover up there -- you know, it just looked better. People -- give people credit. They're taking care of their house. They're going to do it right. The other thing I questioned you on -- or caution you on is trying to mandate any particular material to put on the top because there are certain materials that aren't waterproof. Page 26 October 25,2006 And what I'm -- what I'm getting at is your canvas and your cloth and everything like that. Eventually they'll start leaking. They make a great product for certain places, but for a canopy, the cloth or canvas is not the thing to use because it will eventually start leaking water. You have to waterproof it every couple of years, and so you want to stay with vinyl, which will stay waterproof. Outside of that, I'm just here to answer any questions that any of you might have. CHAIRMAN HALAS: My concern is, if we start limiting certain canvases or whatever, then we might be basically favoring one type of canvas company. MR. GETTINGER: That's -- I agree with you 100 percent. You don't want to say you've got to have all this or all that. That's what I'm trying to say to you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So if somebody wants to put a canvas up and it leaks in two years, then they have to replace it or whatever else? MR. GETTINGER: Right. You're right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So you're saying, just let them run the gamut of whatever they want to put on it, right? MR. GETTINGER: No, I -- there's many different canvases and vinyls. And what I'm trying to say is, you can't make them all buy a Ford, you know. I mean, somebody might want to buy a Chevrolet, you know, that's what I'm trying to say. Maybe I'm not saying it very well. I think we're agreeing on the same thing. But what I'm saying is, I heard -- I don't know whether it's true -- that some people say they wanted an X brand. Well, when I heard that X brand, I say, well, if they say you've got to have an X brand, you can put it, but that X brand is not the product for this, that's all I'm trying to say. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is -- what about wind loads? MR. GETTINGER: Wind loads? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, on certain different canvases and Page 27 October 25, 2006 vinyl, is there different wind load ratings on it? MR. GETTINGER: The wind load is mainly on your structure, whether it be your steel and your aluminum and everything like that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What if somebody doesn't take down the canvas top, is out of town and we have an event? MR. GETTINGER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So what has the lesser -- the most resistance against being destroyed in the wind? MR. GETTINGER: I wouldn't worry about the canvas or the vinyl material. It would be the structure of the steel or the aluminum that would finally collapse. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. GETTINGER: And when Hurricane Charley came along -- I live in Punta Gorda. We were ground zero. The engineer said, take it down at hurricane one, which is 74 mile-an-hour. Most of the people said they collapsed or the top blew away at 100, 110 mile an hour. Of course, in return, my attorney and engineer say, don't say that, John. Get them off at 70 mile an hour. But most of the time, you've got the problems up above 110 mile an hour, if they didn't take them down. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You've been waiting patiently. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's all right. I didn't have a question for you, sir. MR. GETTINGER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I asked the Isles of Capri people how they felt about boat canopies, and I just flat out asked them rather than do anything else. They said, your email attachments and summary and their contents was distributed to approximately 350 residents of Capri to allow those who are still in their northern addresses to also offer input. Page 28 October 25, 2006 In addition, we posted the information on our association website. Respondents had very similar feelings on the issues. They are as follows: Boat canopies -- that's the only one I'll read you -- most feel that no new boathouses should be constructed and that laws governing the current ones should be maintained in terms of structural strength, roof materials and visual barriers to neighbors. They feel that boat canopies over lifts should be allowed but only if they are a tasteful canvas or vinyl material that snaps on or off so that they can be removed during a windstorm. The aluminum structure to which they are attached should also be built to code for windstorms so as not to damage neighboring properties. In addition, they should not be allowed to restrict the neighbors' views. So that was just another comment from one of the -- from the people in Isles of Capri. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. GETTINGER: Any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I didn't have any for you, sir. Thank you. MR. GETTINGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anybody else? Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You got a business card? MS. FABACHER: Okay. We have Mr. Fuller and then Mr. Allen. MR. FULLER: Good afternoon. On behalf of the Collier County Boat Owners' Association, I would like to congratulate and thank the Planning Commission and you ladies and gentlemen for the hard work that you've done in coming up with an ordinance to address boatlift canopies. It has been a long road, at least from a legal standpoint, from our standpoint, and hopefully we can resolve the pending litigation if and when this ordinance is passed. Page 29 October 25, 2006 Again, I think the other speakers have addressed the issue that where a boatlift is permitted, then there shouldn't be any prohibition to allow a canopy to be permitted on that boatlift as well. So that is primarily, I think, the issue that you need to address. And as far as a boatlift -- or a boatlift canopy versus a boathouse, I would agree with Commissioner Halas, that that probably is a reasonable alternative, except in instances where you do have permitted boatlifts and multiple ones on docks. In those particular instances, they should be allowed to have canopies if they so choose. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So long as they're permitted. MR. FULLER: Yes, sir. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. MS. FABACHER: All right. Mr. Allen is next, and then Ms. Maggion. This is a vinyl sample that he's talking about. MR. ALLEN: These are the sample mat -- my name's Mark Allen, and these are the sample materials from Mr. Gettinger's product, if you all wish to look at them. They're made of vinyl. They're made in one piece, there's no stitching in them, which I think is a wonderful thing. Mine have been up over six years, and they've been flawless. They come loose in the event of a storm. They're designed so that this comes away from the structure so that the structure itself would stay. Mr. Coletta, in regards to your question about the snap-on canopies, I've heard him say that they're hard to put on. That's true. My main thing is, when I'm allowed to lift my boat up, under this, it's allowed to breath. When I snap these on my boat, it tends to make a sauna bath out of it. If you don't have a cover and you snap it on, you set it in the sun, the saltwater's always in the bilge. There's always saltwater in that bilge, and it makes a sauna bath, and it just ruins the electronics, gas gauges, amp. gauges, just melts them down, just destroys them, light switches. It's terrible. Page 30 October 25, 2006 In regards to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission, they said that they felt that anytime a dock with a lift was permitted, then it should have the right to be covered. That was what the Planning Commission said, and of course, we've somewhat altered that. The next question was color, Mr. Halas. I am concerned with you of the color. I agree, I agree. I've been here 51 years. I love my county. I love my home. The thing is, in the boathouse ordinance, the boathouse ordinance says, if you have an orange tile roof -- or excuse me -- if you have an orange tile roof on your house, then you must have an orange tile roof on your boathouse. If you have a green tile roof on your house, then you must have a green tile roof on your boathouse. So to control the color, I'm not sure. I'm not too sure that shouldn't just say that it blends with the surrounding area. I'm not sure. And I understand -- understand what you're saying, sir, but some of it's got to be left up to the public to make their own decisions. And I don't know how else to go with that. I want to thank Mrs. Halas -- Mr. Halas, Ms. Fiala and Mr. Henning for seeing me. I've never done such a thing as that. I enjoyed your time. I hope I was helpful. I'm sorry that I didn't get to meet you guys, but I know you're very busy, and I do appreciate it. Susan, thank you for your effort in this, and this is -- I'm sorry we disagree. But sweetheart -- and congratulations, marriage, huh? MS. ISTENES: Thank you. MR. ALLEN: You go girl, go. Mr. Schmitt, you told me a long time ago, said, Mark, this seems to be a condition of the haves and the have-nots, and you said you had to do the right thing, and you've stuck to it. Thank you. And this poor lady over here. She was dropped in the middle of this thing, and she's hit it on the run. She's been gracious, she's been courteous, and I thank you guys for your time. Thank you very much. Page 31 October 25, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Mark. MS. MAGGIO: Good evening. For the record, my name is Emily Maggio. I'm here tonight representing 10 property owners of the Little Hickory Shores area, seven of them on 3rd Street. I'm also here representing the Hickory Harbor Condominium Association, Incorporated, and their 51 unit owners, also located on 3rd Street. We think what the county started out to do was to allow people with residence and a boat dock in the back yard flexibility of having something other than a roof that matches your house, a canopy, and we have no problem with that. Our problem comes in with these boat dock lots on 3rd Street. They do not currently have permission to have a boathouse on those lots. The conditional use and the provisional use that they received was for a boat launch facility, i.e., a boat dock. They weren't given any other rights under those provisional uses. We -- excuse me. My mind went blank. They have the ability to go lot line to lot line. That was all granted to them. We're not happy about that, but its water over (sic) the bridge. We have to live with it. We're not asking you to take away any rights from these people and we're not asking for any special rights. All we're asking is that you follow your own rules as relates to residential single-family districts. It says here what you can have in that district. It says you can -- you can allow certain variant structures, but the caveat is that you must hold the character of the residential neighborhood as the pnmary concern. That doesn't show up too well. The reality of this amendment as written, if you pass it, there will be 30 boat canopies on the south side of the road in very close proximity. These lots are 30- foot wide and they have zero setbacks. Thirty here and 46 here. Now, we've -- our position is we just fail to see how that virtual Page 32 October 25, 2006 tent city preserves the character of our residential neighborhood or how it protects or enhances the health, safety and welfare of the people who actually live on that street. These are absentee boat owners. We have heard many times that these lots are unique in Collier County, and they are. But does unique mean we throw out all the rules? Are these people so unique and so privileged that they should be granted a boathouse without meeting the criteria that every other waterfront property owner must meet before they can have a boathouse? And that is an upland structure. We believe that you can tweak the wording here to allow residences to have a canvas cover boathouse if that's what they prefer without negatively impacting this residential street any more than it already has been. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: We have one final speaker. That's Jerry Haslouer. MR. HASLOUER: Good evening. My name's Jerry Haslouer. I live in Bonita Springs, 35 years, and I've owned a boat dock lot down there for about 26 years. Enjoyed it very much. Several things tonight. Color. Well, I think if I go down there and put an iguana green boat dock canopy down there, it isn't the county that has to regulate it but -- enforce it. I think it's going to be the neighborhood that's going to enforce it, because it probably won't be there three days from now, so -- but that right there is just minor. That item I just saw up on the board, the count that 30 on one side and 46 on the other side, I'm sorry. There's only 11 lots on the one side and very few -- I mean just a few more on the other side. Let's don't exaggerate about this thing right here. And those were put down there, what was allowed through the county many, many years ago, and people have been paying taxes on Page 33 October 25, 2006 it. The taxes are going up. The value of that property is going up. And it's not taking the value away from anybody else's property. Let us use it. That's what we bought it for. We're paying taxes for it, and we are going to do it to code, to what you tell us to. Let's don't let some people tell us that it's going to be a tent city, because it's going to be nice. I'm not going to put one up for several years yet. And so I ask you to accept this thing the way that it is and not change it any more than what you see that is really fit to benefit us at this time. I thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, that's the end of the public speakers on this issue. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One thing that we've all been very careful about on the commission is trying to protect our docks, whatever we have left. As developers buy up more and more dock space and marinas and privatize them, and very little is left, I think we have to preserve anything that we can for the boat owners. We're soon to lose Brookside. I don't know if you guys know that or not, but we're soon to lose Brookside, and soon to lose Caloosa in Goodland. And these are other places where people like me and you can take their boats that can't live on the water and can't store it in our yard. So I would hope that we preserve what we can for these people in Little Hickory Shores. I don't think we ought to tie their hands. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The -- after the comments to the commissioners on page 4 F, number 4. COMMISSIONER FIALA: In the orange book? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, semi orange. Just in the Page 34 October 25, 2006 sentence with, on canal lots. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not sure which four we're talking about. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page 14. MR. SCHMITT: 14. COMMISSIONER HENNING: F, and then number four, just add the words, on canal lots. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, the guidance we have is, bay would be two canopies and canal would be one. That's what we heard last time. Are you changing that? Is that what -- we just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're restricting -- we're restricting the maximum number on canal lots, and it was stated that there's no way that you can get more than two on a bay. MR. SCHMITT: Bay lots. Our intent was to spell that out in that sentence -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: -- and then come back to you with -- it would say, basically a bay lot would be two lots -- that's all they could fit on those bay lots -- and then canal lot would be only one. Isn't that what you heard? MS. ISTENES: I had written down bay lot could have more than one and a canal lot could only have one, that you wished to limit it to two on bay lot, or do you want to just leave it at more than one? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, is it true that you can only get two on a bay lot? I mean, if you take an average lot, it's 85 to -- MS. ISTENES: Probably, yeah. MR. SCHMITT: Probably, single-family home-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this where we're covering, single- family home? Is subdivision -- MS. ISTENES: Generally speaking, your canal lots are going to be surrounded by single-family. But I'm speaking mostly because I Page 35 October 25,2006 know North Naples, not the Goodland area as well, so -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Goodland is all single-- except for, there is multifamily. Now, there's a different -- different regulations for multifamily? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. There are different permitting processes. You're impacted by the Manatee Protection Plan. Those are deemed to be commercial development and commercial permits, so there are other restrictions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there restrictions on commercial? MR. SCHMITT: You're prohibited based on the areas of the county for the Manatee Protection Plan, as -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we really don't have to overemphasize it in the language, do we? Because we're talking about platted -- existing platted lots, residential. MS. ISTENES: It sounded to me like your concern was to make sure there wasn't a proliferation of boat canopies or boathouses on the canal lots where the lots were smaller and the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not sure that platted residential is limited by the width, and that's your concern? MS. ISTENES: Right, yeah. I can't speak that there wouldn't be something -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. ISTENES: -- some lot that didn't -- that could still meet the regulations. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Add two more words. I don't have a problem with adding two more words. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me ask. What did you do about Isles of Capri? You said that they have more than one on some of the Isles of Capri lots on a canal? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, on a bay lot. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you said on a bay lot they did, Page 36 October 25, 2006 but not on a canal, right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. If you take a look at canals, they are restricted with width. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about like in Goodland, for instance, those new things that they built and they're two stories, and so the whole thing is a canal and they have all of those docks? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What would you do in an instance like that? MR. SCHMITT: That's Caloosa Village right there in Goodland? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. MS. ISTENES: And you could also actually -- MR. SCHMITT: Those I believe were like -- those are fee simple lots. There's a -- even though they're connected homes, those are all like a townhome, fee simple, so it's a lot -- a dock per home, a dock per home. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. So that if they wanted to put a canopy top on there, they would be allowed to, even though they're like right in a row, but is that what you're saying? I don't -- MR. SCHMITT: I'm not sure how we -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just trying to clarify for my own MR. SCHMITT: It depends on how we've permitted the docks in that, because it's all one linear dock, as I remember when it came in for the review. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, the way this is drafted, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's covered under the Manatee Protection Plan under boat docks. MR. SCHMITT: And the way this is drafted, it would be. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. The way this is drafted, if you have a Page 37 October 25, 2006 legal boatlift attached to a legally permitted dock -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: You could have the boat canopy. MS. ISTENES: -- you could have a boatlift canopy. MR. SCHMITT: And anything 10 or more docks require them to go through a separate permitting process and are impacted by the Manatee Protection Plan, so there's preferred sites and other definitive criteria, and that's a different application. But docks are not the issue here. That's -- the issue here is, what you can put on the dock. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Canopies, right. And that's what I was asking. MR. SCHMITT: I think at Caloosa Village it would be deemed a canal. That is really a canal. It's not a -- MS. ISTENES: Yeah. The other thing you're going to get into is you're going to have corner lots where they're going to have frontage on a bay and frontage on a canal, too, at the same time. And often you'll see docks on both. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wouldn't it be great to have a choice like that? MS. ISTENES: I know. MR. SCHMITT: I would recommend -- I recommend go with what I think was discussed, one on the canal lot and no more than two on a bay lot, because that way if they came in perpendicular, if they had a dock -- a dock with a boat on each side, then they could have two, and that meets -- fits the bill even for the Little Hickory Shores, because they can't -- there is no more than two in Little Hickory. MS. ISTENES: You might -- because a lot could have frontage on both, you might just want to define it by frontage. I mean, at least what it fronts on rather than a lot, per se, because if a lot has double frontage, then how would you take one over the other kind of thing? See how complicated this is? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're making it complicated because -- let's apply practicality here. You're concerned about how Page 38 October 25, 2006 many boats can go on those corner lots. MS. ISTENES: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No? MS. ISTENES: My concern is applying the code when somebody comes in for a permit. I have to know how to interpret and apply the codes. That's my only concern. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if your boat dock is on a canal, wouldn't you apply it as one, and if it's on the bay, wouldn't you apply it as -- MS. ISTENES: Yes, if -- but you're using language that says lot right now, and a lot could have -- one lot could have water frontage on a bay side and on a canal side. So if I say lot, which standard am I going to use if I define it as a lot? That's-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three, three boats. MR. SCHMITT: Docks in a single-family home are still restricted by the riparian lines and the area for the boat to actually maneuver, so that's part of the permitting process. MS. ISTENES: I've seen docks -- MR. SCHMITT: On each side, yeah. MS. ISTENES: -- on each side. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want to make sure I'm on the right page 14 because nothing you've talked about makes any sense to me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you're on the wrong page. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. First of all, can you tell me where in this entire section it says anything about a different -- differentiation between a bay lot and a canal lot? Is that just language you're adding right now? MS. ISTENES: No, Commissioner. At the beginning of the discussion, Commissioner Halas suggested the language, and that's what we wrote down. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That applies only to F4. Page 39 October 25, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: F4. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that correct? CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It doesn't apply to anything else other than F 4 ? MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, it's my understanding that boathouses and covered structures cannot be allowed unless there is a principal structure on the lot. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Other than what we have up in -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it doesn't say -- that's what my problem is. I don't see that sentence. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I see no exception for Little Hickory Shores here. So what this says is, they can't have a boathouse and they can't have a covered structure on Little Hickory Shores unless they build a principal structure. MS. ISTENES: There is a separate ordinance or resolution that was adopted that gave them the right to have a boatlift without a principal structure and absent the requirement to meet side yard setbacks. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. ISTENES: So the only thing they could have is, if this is passed, is a boatlift canopy. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then they can have only -- they can have two boatlift canopies there as long as they meet -- well, they don't have much of a side yard setback. CHAIRMAN HALAS: They don't have any side yard. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. MR. SCHMITT: They have zero lot lines. They're basically zero lot lines. Page 40 October 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there can be two boatlift canopies on each one of those? MS. ISTENES: There can be two boatlifts, but under number four we added boatlift canopies, and that says, boathouses, boatlift canopies or covered structures per site, one. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. They're on the bay. It's two. MS. ISTENES: That's if you add the language that you all suggested. MR. SCHMITT: That's why we're asking. MS. ISTENES: So that's what we're trying to clear up. Yes, you're correct. If you -- if they're on the bay and you want to allow the bay to have more than one, then they could feasibly have two. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So each of those could have boatlift structures. Now let me go a little bit further. A boatlift canopy is permitted. Does it really have to be a boatlift? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If someone wishes to leave their boat in the water, can they have a canopy built off their dock -- MS. ISTENES: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that will cover that boat? MS. ISTENES: Not after this is current -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It actually has to be a mechanical device that lifts the boat out of water? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MS. ISTENES: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: These are designed for the boat to lift up. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I know what they are. I've got one. I just wanted to know -- make sure. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You have a canopy, too? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm not allowed to have a canopy in the City of Naples. I have a boat cover. Of course, I was 39 years of age when I put it on. It's never been taken off. Page 41 October 25,2006 I'm like Commissioner Halas, we don't get a chance to use our boats anymore. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All of our time is spent here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. My sailboat turned into a bird sanctuary. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You should get credit for that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I should. Hey, that's an idea. I can get a reduction on my taxes, can't I? CHAIRMAN HALAS: You've got a preserve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, is there -- is there any confusion at all between what is a boatlift canopy and what is a covered structure? Are we pretty clear on that definition? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, we are. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you think we're okay there? MS. ISTENES: I'm comfortable as staff, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So the only thing that remains undetermined now is whether or not you're going to permit two boatlift canopies on a bay lot. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, could -- the way you have F4 reworded bothers me a little bit because it's my understanding that the boatlift canopy, as it specifically applies to Little Hickory Shores, would permit two, but this particular F4 says the maximum number of boathouses, boatlift canopies or covered structures per site could be two for a bay lot, Little Hickory Shores, or one for a canal lot. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, Little Hickory Shores can't have boathouses or covered structures. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you word it the way you've suggested, it implies that all three might be available unless you go back and refer to that other addendum, which is not here, okay. Page 42 October 25, 2006 MS. ISTENES: That's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And all I'm suggesting to you is that if you really want to make it clear, maybe we should have another paragraph that says, in section such and such, which addresses Little Hickory Shores, the following provisions will apply. Does that make more sense to the commissioners? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. We will refer to the other ordinance. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because right now it's incomplete because we don't have anything that tells us anything about Little Hickory Shores. MR. SCHMITT: We will put that in there. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we would have any more lots like this anyplace else in Collier County? MS. ISTENES: No. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Figures. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's just hoping for more. He's a glutton for punishment. MR. SCHMITT: Actually he's looking for a redistricting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I think you've answered my question. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to approve with the amendments in number four and the additions to recognize the ordinance that was discussed during this item. MR. KLATZKOW: We're not voting, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's -- MR. KLA TZKOW: We're just taking direction from you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is the second reading, right? MR. KLATZKOW: No, it isn't. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, it isn't? MR. KLATZKOW: No. Page 43 October 25, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: This is the second reading for this, Jeff, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we've just done it in the past where we've taken a vote on separate items while the public was here and get it done with. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know that this was noticed as the second hearing. I've got -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Was it? MR. KLATZKOW: We have a second hearing notice for November 6th. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Cycle 1. MS. FABACHER: October 25th. MR. KLATZKOW: No, we have-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, have you got the -- have you got the way the meeting was -- the meeting was posted? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That will clarify. MS. ISTENES: Commissioners, while he's looking for that, I also want to put in that we need to incorporate a slight delay to the effective date of this ordinance because what we're required to do now is, we're going to have to set up an application for these boatlift canopies and a short review process and a fee to look at them because of the standards that are here. It's an administrative process. It's not -- obviously it's not a hearing process. But if approved, we're going to have to have a little bit of time to set that up and make sure that that's adequately covered between the departments because this crosses over the line of building department as well as the zoning department. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. The notice that was published in the Naples Daily News back on October 25th states, and I quote, final adoption of the ordinance will be considered at the tentative November 6, 2006, one p.m. meeting. Page 44 October 25,2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. My motion gives direction then instead of approval. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the directed motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. MR. SCHMITT: Now we're back to first readings. MS.ISTENES: I think we're ready to move on, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: Yes. All right, Commissioners. I think we have the fire, law enforcement and essential services here in great numbers, and I think that Chief Page is going to give you a little bit of a background on the amendment, and then I think he's going to ask their attorney, Laura Donaldson, to be able to answer any specific questions for you, who drafted the ordinance. MR. PAGE: Good evening. For the record, Jeff Page, Emergency Medical Services. EMS is currently a permitted use in commercial, industrial and agricultural zoned areas. MR. SCHMITT: Jeff, can I -- just to get everybody on the same sheet of music. MS. FABACHER: I apologize. MR. SCHMITT: The orange book, page 1. MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, it's in the orange book on page 1, immediately following the amendment summary tables. Page 45 October 25, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Just for clarification, this is your first reading of this amendment. MS. F ABACHER: Entitled 2.01.03, essential services. Has everyone got it? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What page again? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Page 1, very first one. MR. SCHMITT: The reason it's in your orange book, it's been amended and worked on and tweaked between the meetings with the Planning Commission so you have the latest version that is in your orange -- the orange book. Thank you, Jeff, sorry. MR. PAGE: Okay, sorry. This is just a small area ofa map I had printed out this afternoon. But you might remember from the growth plan we were looking at these docks on this map which indicate those calls of service where we exceed our 10-minute response time in EMS. The challenge that we're having is that -- the problem we're having with these particular dots is that they're starting to occur where emergency services are not subj ect or that -- where they are subj ect to conditional use permitting. Based on the information provided to us by facilities, and they normally build our stations, the time associated with going through the conditional use permitting can increase the construction cost to $100,000 or more with each station. In addition, the cost to hire a civil engineering firm to take us through the proj ect, that can be anywhere from 50 to another $100,000. Fire and EMS, traditionally we do go through the steps to anticipate the future land use participating in the preapplication meetings for new DRIs and PUDs. And while that does assist us in identifying the reserving -- and the reserving of the land for future use, it doesn't alleviate the issue that we have in the lag time associated Page 46 October 25, 2006 with that conditional use permitting. So what we're asking is, really, we're trying to simplify this process. My wife constantly reminds me that change is a hard thing to get through, and certainly this has been very difficult for us. I think we started back in May with Catherine's help. And I can tell you that what started with probably a three-page document -- I believe its nine pages now -- it's been probably revised 10 sometimes over that time period. We have worked with a number of different agencies. We've all come together to come up with this final document. In addition to that, some of the Planning Commission members had also worked with us independently on this final revision. So what we're asking today is that you consider this. And if there are any questions as to the particulars of this document -- it's changed so much -- I'd really ask that we turn that over to Laura at this time to go over those technicalities. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay MS. FABACHER: All right. Laura Donaldson. MS. DONALDSON: Hi, Laura Donaldson. I'm special counsel to the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District. And I can't take credit for drafting it. I got brought in in July, I think, so -- I know Catherine said I drafted it, but I drafted it towards the end. But I just wanted to let you know that the proposal in front of you eases the difficulty of citing emergency service facilities residential zoning districts while protecting landowner's -- landowners' rights. We would not be asking for this change if it wasn't necessary, but we feel on a whole that it's necessary to protect our citizens. This proposal does not allow facilities to be built in the middle of a neighborhood. It's not a free-for-all. If you approve it, you know, we just can't go in a 200-lot development and say, okay, we're going to buy a residential lot and we're just going to dump it right smack in the middle of it. Page 47 October 25, 2006 There are several protections within the proposal, and I'm going to go through them really quickly because I was surprised as I was typing this up how many proposal -- how many requirements that actually were finally agreed to. First, the site must be on a road classified as an arterial road or collector road or on a site adjacent to a site that's on one of those roads. So basically you can be one lot off of an arterial or collector road in order to qualify. So that's the first requirement. Second, facility can't be more 12,000 square feet. Third, we can't have four emergency bays, more than that. We came up with four because we're looking at doing joint facilities. I know Commissioner Rautio will go into that more in detail. We find that four is sufficient to allow a couple fire districts to get together with EMS and maybe police or the sheriff. Four, the facility can't be over 35 feet. Five, all parking requirements under the code have to be satisfied. Six, it can't be an administrative facility, although it is allowed to have a little bit of office space in case -- you know, to meet the needs of that fire station. So if our firefighters need to get together for a meeting, there's space for that. Seven, we have to have a 30- foot setback requirement regardless of that zoning district's requirement. So let's say the zoning district generally has a 15- foot setback, we have to have a 30 no matter what. In addition, there are additional buffer requirements, including a landscape perimeter -- it can't just be grass. It actually has to be landscaped -- a minimum six-foot high opaque screen. And in some cases it will be eight feet high. And we have to have 14 feet in height in trees, planting schemes in double rows, basically to buffer what's next to it. So that's up to -- that's eight requirements thus far. Page 48 October 25, 2006 And the facility can't exceed town (sic) limits. The local governments required to have a public informational-- neighborhood informational meeting, and the facility cannot be an outdoor training tower. So you can't have like a facility and then an outdoor training tower attached. If you don't meet one of those requirements -- let's say meet all of them but one, you have to go through the conditional use permit process. The only way it's a permanent use in residential districts would be if you meet every single one of those requirements. And so that's why we feel that the neighborhoods are protected because there are a substantial amount of requirements that have to be satisfied in order to be permitted use, if not we're a conditional use. In addition, I want to correct a misconception. During the Planning Commission process, it was stated that under a fast tracking system it would take four to five months to get to the conditional use process. That may be true if your application is perfect. If the minute you have your meeting you give it to them, it's deemed sufficient, you're ready to go. From then it takes four to five months. If there are any questions, that delays it. It also doesn't take into account the environmental and transportation requirements that have to be met. So I don't want you to take in a vacuum that fire stations can be built in four or five months and this really isn't needed. That's four or five months in addition to all the other permitting requirements that they have to go through. One of the issues raised throughout the Planning Commission meeting was that the local government is just required to take comment at the neighborhood informational meeting and that under the conditional use process, they get more -- the public has more rights because they get to come in front of you to speak to you about this. Well, to be honest, you just have to listen to what they have to say . You don't have to take those requi -- you don't have to take their Page 49 October 25, 2006 comments, you don't have to make new requirements. I mean, you get to listen to public comment, just like the fire district gets to listen to public comment. And just like in the fire district situation, if the residents don't like it, they get to vote the fire commissioners out. I mean, that's the reality. Fire districts are on a very local level. If you put a fire station in the neighborhood and they don't like it, your commissioners might have some issues, and so we're trying to be good neighbors. And it's not like we're going to avoid going into commercial and industrial. We want to go into commercial and industrial and agricultural areas. It will be cheaper for us if we can find the land because we don't have to meet the landscaping requirements and the height requirements and all that other stuff. The problem is, is some of the fire districts don't have a lot of that area, that zoning in their district. They're mostly residential or state zoning. And so this, hopefully, will facilitate and help them build their stations faster. In conclusion, this proposal was a collaborative effort between staff, and I know Catherine spent a lot of time on this, County EMS, Chief Page and the fire districts. We just ask that you approve it because we feel that it's an abili -- it allows us to build these stations more effectively, efficiently, and help saves lives because we can put stations where they need to be. And if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You stated that as far as the buffering it has to have a double row of trees. I think what you meant was a double row of hedge of spacing of trees. MS. DONALDSON: If I read it correctly, it says trees clustered in double rows or the minimum of three trees per cluster. Trees shall be planted with a maximum of 15 feet on center. And the trees have Page 50 October 25, 2006 to be all native and a minimum of 14 feet in height. So unless I'm wrong, it's double rows of these, and they can't be palm trees. Like we're going to have to plant oak or pine. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I think you're looking on page 5C(I); is that correct? What do you-- MS. DONALDSON: I'm actually looking at C double I, 2. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I think that should be trees clustered, and it shouldn't be -- it should be hedged? MS. FABACHER: No, Commissioner. There are three options here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. F ABACHER: One will be a wall with trees on the side of the abutting residential property, another will be an opaque fence with hedge on either side, and then the third one would be a berm like we use at the gas stations, an undulating berm that would be planted. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. FABACHER: So they have three options they can choose from. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you'd actually have a staggered row of trees? MS. FABACHER: If you chose the option with the-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. F ABACHER: -- wall, which kind of -- well, the trees would be on the neighborhood side -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. FABACHER: -- of the wall the fire station's on. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a better buffer than a landscape hedge? MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, you're asking the wrong person. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We do have a landscaping person here. Page 51 October 25, 2006 MS.ISTENES: Mike Sawyer can respond to that. He actually helped draft this language, so -- MR. SAWYER: Commissioners, Mike Sawyer, Senior Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. Actually what we've got with the buffers are two components. The first component is the screen, and there are three options for that. And then in C, that is the options as far as the trees, so you need to look at both of those. The best way to look at the hedge component would be in the screening section. And so the options are, with the screens, doing one of those three options under the screen option 1. You've got one, two and three. You can do anyone of those one, two, or three or you can do a combination of those. Where you've got C, that's where we start talking about the trees, and they're required to be 14 feet. One option is to have a double staggered row of trees, which is most similar to our type C buffer requirements. Then double I is where you've got clusters of trees. That's your second option. And then the third allows you to use retained plantings or retained materials to meet those standards. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it doesn't incorporate hedges, or does it? MR. SAWYER: Correct. The only place where you can use hedges are up in -- it would be 13. That's one of the types of screens that you can use. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I don't want to make it difficult, but we also want to protect neighborhoods. If you have slash pines -- I mean, there's no real vegetation on the slash pines until you gets up to about like 30 feet. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Shouldn't there be an infill of native vegetation in between those trees? Page 52 October 25, 2006 MR. SAWYER: Well, the -- Commissioner, slash pines would help meet the tree component of that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. SAWYER: But they wouldn't of the screen. You'd still need to provide that screen component. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Where's that at? MR. SAWYER: That is where you've got the options for screens. MS. ISTENES: Top of page 5 under 1. MR. SAWYER: Correct. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. There's three options. There's one, two and three to provide the screening, and then you have a separate requirement for the trees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. MR. SAWYER: And that's -- again, that's where we've got the dual -- two components, the screen and then the trees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Gotcha. MR. SAWYER: And it's a combination of the two. You have to meet both criteria, both the screen and the trees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good. MR. SAWYER: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Coyle was first. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Coyle, okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Let's try a hypothetical to help me understand this a little better. Let's presume Commissioner Fiala and I live on the same street and we're one block off a collector or arterial street and there are two vacant lots -- no offense to you gentlemen -- two vacant lots between us. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's having a real good time Page 53 October 25, 2006 tonight, isn't he? At our expense. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. And can you come in and build something in these two vacant lots without telling us, without consulting us, just come in and plop it down? MS. DONALDSON: You are two lots off of the arterial road? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. MS. DONALDSON: No. You're on the arterial road? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we're a block off. MS. DONALDSON: You're a block off, okay. I don't know how big your blocks are down here. If you have -- If -- let's say you have 100 -- or let's say you have an 80-foot lot on the arterial road and you buy the lot right behind that 80- foot lot on the arterial road, you are adjacent to that site on the arterial road, and you would then -- we would then -- that's -- we would meet that one condition. And regardless of noticing, once the conceptual plan -- nothing's conceptual, nothing's been filed with the county -- you would receive a notice that there would be a public hearing. You would come and you'd give comments, and our hope is that you would come and say, you know, we like the bungalow style. Can you come up with something bungalow, not red brick? And the local government would say, you know, this neighborhood really has bungalows, not Mediterranean or brick, and they're going to try to fit it in. And I know deputy chief, assistant chief -- Assistant Chief Reynolds -- I get confused on deputy and assistant. MR. REYNOLDS: You got it right the first time. MS. DONALDSON: We'll have a picture of a fire station that we actually built in a neighborhood after going through the conditional use process, and you will see it's not your typical fire station. It looks more like it belongs in the neighborhood than it does, you know, a brick building in a commercial. So you would receive notice, you would have the ability to talk Page 54 October 25, 2006 to your commissioners about how it looks. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if rather than a siren, you wanted wind chimes or something like that, you'd listen to us, right? MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. I mean, I think at the end of your day, you're in our district. We need to make our district happy. You elect our commissioners. We want to be good neighbors. I know I've gone to meetings in Pelican Bay on another issue, and Pelican Bay residents -- and that fire station is right in Pelican Bay -- loves having a fire station right in Pelican Bay. So I don't think it's a negative -- and not like one day you're going to come home and there's a fire station, or you have a big sign that says, future home of the, you know, North Naples Fire Control District. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if the government wanted to condemn, let's say, the two dilapidated properties between Commissioner Fiala and mine, they could do that, right, and build a public services or essential services facility there? MS. DONALDSON: The-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think what it says is just one lot off. MS. DONALDSON: Right, it's one lot off. I mean, I guess if you would hypothetically use eminent domain and you'd have to follow the new sector requirements and potential for new constitutional requirements based on the election next week or two weeks from now, you could buy it, come to the county to replat it into one parcel, and then you'd be able to do it. But I mean, it would be very technical -- not a very easy process. And you would definitely know if we were condemning property next to you, because everyone knows when property's being condemned. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I support the intent of this change. My fear is that when you have people who are living in neighborhoods and they've been living there, perhaps, for 15 or 20 Page 55 October 25, 2006 years and there's vacant property there that meets the requirements here, and then you just -- make it a right to come in and put something there that they never anticipated, it can be quite disturbing and disruptive to a neighborhood that never expected this sort of thing to be put there. And I'm just trying to find a way to see if we can limit that. And in residential areas -- and it's probably the only place I'm concerned about. The other kinds of zoning districts that are addressed here don't cause me nearly as much concern as does a residential zoned area. And I'm wondering if there is a way that we can mitigate this particular problem for a residential area. MS. DONALDSON: The -- this proposal basically only deals with residential areas, because that's where the problem is. We already have the right to do it in three other zoning districts. I understand your concern. I would guess potentially the one way to deal with your situation is we get the fire station because it's one lot off, and then we're going to either buy or use eminent domain to get the other lots, and now we're expanding the original facility. Is that one of your concerns is basically getting it and then expanding? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not so much, it's just that I've been living there, let's say, for 15 or 20 years, and then suddenly one day the government plans to build a fire station right next door. You know, that's -- that changes my life, and it might even adversely impact my property values. MS. DONALDSON: I can understand that. You know, I mean -- and that's one of the reasons why we looked at doing this as a permitted use. A lot of people don't -- you know, it's the not in my back yard. We know you have to provide fire service, but darn it, you can't provide fire service anywhere near us. You know, I mean, the reality is, is your house is going to burn down, you know. If we can't get to you -- we need to have stations where people are at. Page 56 October 25, 2006 Chief Page showed the map where they're responding to the calls that can't get there in time because they don't have stations. You know, I felt we've spent like months trying to come up with really strict requirements to make it a permitted. If they don't meet those requirements, then you have the conditional use. You'll have notice. You have the ability to go talk to the fire commissioners, just like you'd have the ability through the conditional use permit process to talk to the Planning Commission and talk to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got to leave, but I'm just going to interj ect that I've looked at -- I read this pretty closely, and I looked at -- talked to some of the people that were on the Planning Commission that went -- worked through this process, and I think their recommendation was to unanimously deny this. And I'm concerned, I think, the same things that Commissioner Coyle has, and that is that the process isn't there for the citizens, and I'm concerned about it. And so I'll just say that's where I stand on this so -- I'm not sure where this will go. I wanted to put my two cents worth in before I leave. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you. And on behalf of yourself with the empty lot that you occupy, I think that we ought to take a class action suit out against Commissioner Coyle for demeaning our property values. (Chairman Halas left the hearing room.) VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Coming back to the fire stations, the way this is presently written, it excludes -- of course, you can't go to municipalities and force this on them, so they're not part of the equation. We're talking commercial, we're talking -- we're talking retail, we're talking residential anyplace in the county, as long as it meets the criteria as far as where it is in relation to an arterial or collector; is that correct? Page 57 October 25, 2006 MS. DONALDSON: The way this was written is you -- we can already, existing Land Development Code can go into commercial, agricultural and industrial. That's not changing that. What this is going for is residential zoning in Estate-zoned districts. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Residential-- MS. DONALDSON: Because that is where we're having a problem. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Residential zoning in an Estates zoning district, beginning and end? MS. DONALDSON: Exactly, that's what the-- VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm opposed to it 100 percent. MS. DONALDSON: Exactly. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll tell you. I wouldn't mind if it was across the board for the whole county and it was equally across the board and everybody shared into it, but I'm not going to put this burden on the people that I represent and they're going to be the only ones as a special class of people that have to carry this on their backs. What I think we ought to look at now -- this is my suggestion. You originally had the idea of going with countywide; am I correct? Just nods your heads up and down. You were looking for something that was countywide. You figured this would be an easy sell if you went just for the Estates type zoning. MR. SCHMITT: No, Commissioner. This is for all zoning districts. The way it's written now -- the way it exists now in the Land Development Code, it excludes Estates and residential. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It excludes? MS.ISTENES: They have to go through conditional-- VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Conditional use. MS. ISTENES: -- use process to get approval. This changes that and says, it can be permitted in residential and Estates if they meet all VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Residential Estates, not just Page 58 October 25, 2006 Estates? MR. SCHMITT: That's right. All residential excluding PUDs unless expressly set forth in the PUD because -- VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're coming back. I got a little misinformation there, and excuse the excitement there. But just like my fellow commissioners, I'm very, very defensive of the area I represent. I don't think we're getting to where we need to be, and I'll tell you why. Planning Commission coming out, what was it, unanimous? I mean, that's just about a death sentence. Now, slow down. Let me tell you what my idea is. We missed the boat on this. Now, there's definitely benefits to be able to do this. It's not only a time benefit, a dollar benefit, but the cost of insurance comes down when you are able to place stations strategically throughout the system, no doubt about that. I mean, I, for one, would like to see lower insurance rates, but then again, too, I want them to build it down the street rather than next door to me, but that's another issue. Possibly this is something you might want to look at bringing back -- and forgive me, I know two years is a long time -- as a referendum to go on the ballot. I'm serious. This should be something that's probably decided by the residents of Collier County at large. Too bad we missed the opportunity. And I see Tom Cannon back there, and he probably wants to put on the ballot too about the consolidation of the fire departments. At the time we could have one item and a second. Keep smiling, Tom. Just kidding, you know. But, no, seriously, think about the ballot idea because right now you have two commissioners that have reservations on this. This takes four to get it passed. This is -- this has got a long ways to go, and I even have some reservations. If I went to the civic associations and talked to them, they would probably be real strong opposed to it because of where it Page 59 October 25, 2006 might go, not where it is going to go. Now, maybe an educational campaign, a two-year project, get on the ballot in '08, let the voters decide. Just a suggestion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're in charge. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm in charge, okay. I just -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're adjourned. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? Oh, no, to be honest with you, I tell you what we are going to do, we are going to take a break. We did promise the court reporter here that we would give her a break every hour and a half, and Commissioner Halas ran 16 minutes over. Not me. Commissioner Halas. Weare taking a 10- minute break. (A brief recess was had.) VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, would you take your seats, please. We're going to continue the meeting. I'm going to ask the -- we have -- still have some speakers left on this issue of the placement of fire stations throughout Collier County. I think you got pretty much the sentiments of the commission on this. And I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to talk to you for a few minutes during the break there. So keeping that in mind when you address us, it would be very much appreciated. You know, there's some things that are possible in this world and there's some things that aren't in the direction we're gOIng. Next speaker? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, wait a minute. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. I want to give you a scenario in Golden Gate Estates. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We adopted the Growth Page 60 October 25, 2006 Management Plan, the Golden Gate Master Plan, identifying activity centers and also showing that's the only place that conditional uses can go, okay. And Golden Gate Estates is quite large. That is going to be problematic to cover the coverage in Golden Gate Estates to where you want to have a five mile driving distance. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I hear you, Commissioner Henning, you're right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's just like our roads. You have public meetings. They've got to have -- we're requiring them to have a neighborhood meeting. They can't let a contract to build without it being in a public meeting and a fire commission meeting. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I mean, it's just -- there's several cases. Essential services are just like infrastructure. You've got to have it. And there's certain choices where you can have it in this case, and also roads. So what we're -- the amendment here is just trying to make it easier to allow government to provide those services. It's not trying to shove it in somebody's back yard, okay. That's my feelings about it. I think it's a good amendment. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think the amendments got some -- is a good amendment but it's got some serious flaws, and it's the public perception of what it is. I attended the meeting of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association the last meeting this came up, and they were irate. I mean, even though they know to a person that the -- you have the stations strategically placed, you're going to bring down the response time and the cost of insurance, even though they know this, all -- all of these other elements out there that are going to make a difference, they're still individually concerned that that station might end up next to them without due process. Page 61 October 25, 2006 Now, it's great to have the fire department take on the responsibility of standing up to the public, but who gives them that ability to do it? It will be this commission when we're here right now. Now, I really don't think we're going to get there the way you're talking about. Is it a good idea? It's good under most circumstances. But we're not talking realities. We're talking politics, and politics is what is driving this whole thing. I think we're still going to get there, but we might have to look at it several other ways, one is the way we do the permitting process to be able to move faster through it, and number two would be maybe to approach this in '08 on a referendum to give everyone guidance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How do you feel this is politically driven? VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I feel it's politically driven in that they're coming to me and some other commissioners and they're telling us they don't want this to be a conditional use. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you mean the residents? VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Exactly. Who do I work for? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't know. I mean, I was trying to understand that. So the fire district did a presentation before the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association and the residents were irate? VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I can't say they did. I haven't attended every meeting. But I can tell you the last meeting I was at, this subject came up. I don't think there was anyone there from the fire department, even though we held the meeting at the fire department in the Golden Gate Estates. And it was universal on the opinion that the people had on this particular movement. In fact, I'm really surprised not to see them in the audience tonight because they were trying to round up a group to come In. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So how are we going to Page 62 October 25, 2006 address the needs of the fire services in Golden Gate Estates when we have limited their ability to locate where it's needed? VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you know, Commissioner Henning, I kind of resent the fact that we're just saying Golden Gate Estates as a special element. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'm giving you an example, just an example. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's say countywide because it's universal whether it's Golden Gate Estates or it's Golden Gate City or anyplace else out there in the residential area other than the PUDs. They all have a similar need for this to happen. So when we're saying Golden Gate Estates, I mean, that's site specific, and that's one of the reasons why I made so much noise before and wanted to go countywide with it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And it is countywide, but I'm just giving you an example. Let me give you an example, in District 3 in Golden Gate Estates, our own EMS facility, to protect the residents out there. I just -- again, take a look at sheriff substations, fire stations and EMS stations, is something that we need to provide to the public to respond to those public needs within a moment's notice, and within a second's notice, whether they have a heart attack or whether their house is on fire. That's -- that's what I'm concerned about. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a process in place where the main problem is the fact that it's expensive and it's time-consuming, but it still works. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And how (sic) can we do to improve the process in place if we can't move this forward? COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about keep an open mind about this and try it. If it works -- if it fails, then do away with the process. I mean, I'm taking a look at -- I mean, we have elected Page 63 October 25, 2006 officials out there that also needs to be accountable to the people who they serve. So if they abuse the public, they're not going to be there. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's do this. Let's move forward with this. We still have two other commissioners that want to talk. Let's hear the rest of the people that are here. The only person we know for sure how he feels about it was Commissioner Halas before he left. He wanted to make sure that -- let us know that he's opposing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I know how you feel. I'm just trying to change your mind. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I understand, and it's-- and I'll be honest with you, this isn't an easy one. I'm trying to weigh the public good against what the public wants. And it's one of those things that you struggle with. You're struggling with the devil on this one to try make the very best happen for all elements. And the problem is, is the public perception out there, the ones that I'm talking to, are very much opposed to this. And, you know, you talk to them about the problems with locating fire stations, response time and the cost of insurance, and they still look at you saying, well, that's fine, but find some way to make the permitting process work faster. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm also opposed to everything if I get one side of the story. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we've still got the-- everybody else's side to get. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. In that meeting of the civic association, if it wasn't presented with what is being presented, I can understand their concern. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, very much so. I can, too. But I -- we have to deal with realities, and this is where we are with the reality. So let's do this, this evening isn't over yet. I don't think we're going to get much past this one item tonight the way we're Page 64 October 25, 2006 going. But with your permission, what I'd like to do is come back to you, and I'd like to go to Commissioner Fiala, then to Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. A very simple question from the landscape guy. What is an undulating berm? MR. SAWYER: Commissioners, Mike Sawyer with Zoning Land Development Review again. An undulating berm is a berm that is, generally speaking, three feet in height, and it does undulate up and down and also can wiggle back and forth through that 30-foot area. So in other words, we don't have just a flat, straight berm going through there. The idea is that it does have some more residential character to it. It's very similar to the requirement that we've got for the gas station requirements. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I could just see it wiggling around, and I thought, I better just get a firm definition there. MR. SAWYER: That's a very good question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. And the second question is, I think -- I think, Joe, you said that this -- PUD's are not included in this; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that because in any PUD we can already request or strongly request that they have an allocation of land for a fire station or something? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. But it -- the language here says excluding PUDs unless expressly set forth as a permitted used in the PUD. So existing PUDs, we cannot self-amend through an ordinance an existing PUD. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that. But like, for instance, a lot of building that is being -- taking place right now -- we've had a lot of things coming on through -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. Page 65 October 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that are PUDs, and we could -- we could request that they include that so that at least -- and they cover from one side to the other. We should be able to request that they include some -- some kind of facility to encompass all three, right? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. Lands designated for public service type facilities in the review process, normally that's identified. Heritage Bay is a good example. There's some land in Fiddler's Creek identified for public service. So there are -- the large PUDs, Lely. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lely, yes. MR. SCHMITT: PUDs have public service identified. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fiddler's Creek, and right now Treviso Bay, and Sabal Bay will be coming up. We've got a lot of them coming in that we could strategically make sure, you know, working with our fire departments, that they -- they have accommodations for some kind of an emergency. MR. SCHMITT: Treviso Bay and Sabal Bay are both already zoned and been through the amendment process. I can't tell you now COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sabal Bay does have a place, doesn't it? Don't they, Tom? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, I believe it does. They have a designated area for essential services. COMMISSIONER FIALA: They do already. I don't know about Treviso Bay, but -- MR. SCHMITT: I can't recall if Treviso Bay or -- but Sabal Bay does. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I mean, I think we should be able to do that with any future or even any PUDs that are bubbling to the surface right now -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am, that's part of the review process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- if we could have that. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Page 66 October 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that would -- that would affect the entire county, which is good. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well put. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think that is a good idea. And for most of the county, I believe that we have the opportunity to create the kind of space that essential services and emergency services people really need through requirements and PUDs and through existing activity centers and/or commercial property. I do believe that one of our biggest exposures is in the Estates area because there are none of those there and there're not likely to be any PUDs there of any size; is that a fair assessment? So we're talking about mostly single-family developments covering a very wide geographical area, and it's going to be very difficult for emergency services to be able to locate in a pattern that will permit rapid response when it's needed. And I'm wondering if we really shouldn't look at this from a bigger way. We have a lot of challenges with respect to the Estates area. There is no commercial property there to serve the people who are, you know, going to be moving into the area. And I've just talked with the county attorney about our ability to take certain property and zone it, rezone it, as activity centers in Golden Gate Estates and any other area where it is difficult to locate the kinds of services that we need. To me it's far better to make those zoning decisions in advance before people move into those areas. I mean, we could select areas where people haven't built yet. The rezoning does not devalue the land. As a matter of fact, the county attorney seems to suggest that such a rezone would, in fact, increase the value of the land. And so rather than trying to do this piecemeal, what are the Page 67 October 25, 2006 problems associated with just making some decisions about where we should have commercial and essential services in these areas and create activity centers, create the zoning that would establish them, and that way we solve this problem? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, you asked an excellent question. That is the basis and kind of the underpinnings of the entire east of951 study. We've already -- the first study we already had. Commissioner Coletta was at that. The committee's been selected. Land use and essential services are some of the fundamental elements that are going to be part of that, especially looking in the Estates on strategic locations for these type of services. So -- and the fire chiefs will be involved in that as well. They have been. That's one of the things we're going to look at holistically through that horizon study. And that's -- the land use as well as identifying areas where essential services, such as fire stations, EMS, are going to be -- need to be located. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I understand that, but that is a long-term process. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, I would be willing to bet you if you lined up all the fire chiefs and you said, where do you think you would locate places in these areas, I'd be willing to bet you in a week they could come up with a lot of good locations and they could say, we need one here, here, here and here, and we could have identified already, you know, that quickly, where these places should be identified for that purpose. Now, if it is convenient for our emergency services personnel to service the people, then it's also going to be convenient as a location for commercial activities for the people to come to be serviced. So it appears to me that the decision making for locating where those places are can be greatly accelerated. And if we wait a year or two years to do this, we're just increasing the cost for these people Page 68 October 25, 2006 because the costs are going up, the delays are taking place and nothing's getting done. But if we could get the fire chiefs to give us a plan -- and a plan could cover the entire county. I mean, it doesn't have to select a particular district or neighborhood -- but determine where in the entire county you would like to see these things, and then we as a commission could take the necessary action to create activity centers in those locations to serve the public and to make sure that the appropriate essential services were provided to the public. And that way we would -- we would solve this problem in a more holistic fashion rather than dealing with, where are we going to put a fire and EMS department. MR. SCHMITT: And you're correct, Commissioner, in that type of activity to change the Estates zoning would also -- would require a compo plan amendment. We would -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. MR. SCHMITT: -- have to identify the land, do a compo plan amendment, figure out how we're going to acquire that land. So it is -- it's the right thing to do. It's the method on how to get there which is the difficult part. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm not sure it's the method. I think we know the method. Now, you've got experts here who can tell you where those -- their services should be located, and I'll be willing to bet you, every location they identify where they think should be a fire department or an EMS station, I'll be willing to bet you there ought to be a commercial facility there too to serve the people in that area. And if you could make those decisions pretty quickly, we could go through the process of doing the compo plan amendment on a much more expedited basis, and we wouldn't be spending a lot of time. And to solve their primary concerns, you know, we could do other things to help them in the interim, like fast tracking permitting. Page 69 October 25, 2006 We could do lots of things like that to help them get through this process very quickly. So I would suggest we take a look at that. And I don't know how the other commissioners feel about it. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala's next. We'll find out. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, we desperately need them out at the East Trail. You know, that's all -- I don't think there's a station out there. And I think that our people have been trying to identify some locations right there, and I think that's a great idea. I wrote the same thing down, so I totally agree with you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're just trying to take credit for the great idea. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Another idea I thought of along the way -- I'm going to trade you in. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's about time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Another thing is, maybe there are areas like Vanderbilt Beach Road, for instance, where we're condemning homes, and those people are moving out, that might be a place to put something like this where we're already inundating a road with other things. And so, you know, maybe we could take advantage of things that already are being eminent domain. I don't know how else to say it. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 00,00, nasty word. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, well I -- for roads. I don't know how many other places we're going to be doing that in, but there may be other ways that we could consider that as well, the least disruptive. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now a few minutes ago I think I might have cut you a little short, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. If you don't mind, I'd Page 70 October 25,2006 like to get the speakers up so we can progress. Who's the next speaker? MR. KLATZKOW: Assistant Chief Karl Reynolds, followed by Ms. Rautio. MR. REYNOLDS: For the record, Karl Reynolds, and it's actually Deputy Chief of Life Safety and Prevention. I thank you for the raise, but I doubt I'll get any money with that. And I'd also like to use some maps to answer some of your questions. To answer some of your questions about -- and let's go to the PUD process. Currently, we have been, always have been, involved with the PUDs, and in the past we have asked for land and was given land, but not necessarily given access to land afterwards. So that doesn't always function. Secondly, there is already a lot of PUD -- and to answer the other questions, there's a lot of PUDs that are already set; therefore, with them being existing PUDs, we have no way of going into those, nor do we necessarily want to. We'd be able to still provide emergency services if we could get areas around them. If you see all of the brown on there, basically that's the Estates areas and residential Estates. So those are the areas that you were just talking about not having the commercial areas for, or agriculture or industrial for stations to be located at. That's why this change to the LDC is very important. Part of that is that we also have to be on arterial and/or collective (sic) roads, so that also limits us once again. Basically with this -- and I'd like to show you that as well, but you already have -- you also have a copy of. That gives the roadways that we have to meet the standard of the change in the LDC to be on or adjacent to. That still limits us to where we can be at. The biggest problem we have -- and across the nation -- is that approximately, according to the 2002 census, 57 percent of all the Page 71 October 25, 2006 fires across the nation still occur in single-family homes. Our problem is the time, the five-minute, being able to get there. And we're not able to do that when we have to go through some of the processes. The process is expensive, and we understand that. I'd beg to differ with the part about whether we're bringing the price down or price up because if you're saving people money and you're saving lives, I think we're doing more than that. Secondly, being classified as essential services, that's a wonderful thing, but I hate being compared to sewer lines, towers, communications, and things of that nature because I think all of the essential services are a little bit better than that. Third, what I'd like to do also is that part of the problem is, as the population density increases, then fire stations and EMS stations and police stations, they have to be situated so that we cover less geographical area -- less geographical area to maintain our time span for arriving. Some of the other parts about planning, I don't think that you're going to find much better planners than the fire department. We're required to submit a five-year plan at -- every time we submit a budget every year, and we have been doing that, and it's adjusted on a yearly basis. Part of the things about where we want to locate them, North Naples has already purchased the properties. We are trying to plan ahead. I have approximately four sites that we've already purchased, and we're going to be affected in some of these areas. The other part of it is is that with that planning, you don't always have -- it's no different than the government yourself and dealing with roads and things of that nature. You don't always have the money to do what you need to do when you need to do it. And so we purchase when we can, and if we can save money, save the taxpayers, that's what we're really trying to do. Thank you. Page 72 October 25, 2006 VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: My next speaker is Commissioner Rautio, and then after that we'll hear from Fire Chief Brown. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: For the record, lA. Rautio, North Naples Fire District fire commissioner. Well, I had some remarks prepared, but it's more exciting to punt and give you all some answers. First item that I thought of here while you're all talking and been discussing, I really appreciate hearing your thoughts because I know what it's like to be an elected official and try to figure out how to make a really good decision. Essential services, power lines. Nobody seems to like to have power lines marching down their street or wherever, but they need them. They're essential services. Someone else is going to talk about cable television. It's not quite as intrusive as a power line, but we're talking about fire stations, EMS stations and your sheriff substations. They all provide emergency services. When this issue came up before the Planning Commission, I was there, we spoke. One of the things that concerns me is that you all have been told that it was a unanimous decision to reject. Well, that's only part of the story. The first part of the story is they had a motion after lots of discussion. That was a positive motion to accept the amendment as drafted with some technical changes that are in the version you have before you. That vote was 3-6, partly on the testimony of some of the information about how quickly you could get through a conditional use process under the new approach, which is supposedly four to five or six months. After that discussion another motion was made to outright reject, and that one did end up being unanimous with the idea that, okay, they'll fast track us and that will solve all the problems. I'm not an attorney, but I do understand a lot about parliamentary Page 73 October 25, 2006 procedure. I was on the Planning Commission, and I was also chair at one time. You don't normally make two motions. So you have to understand that it did go down 3-6 the very first time and there was no motion for reconsideration at the same meeting. So that is a clarification, and we could argue about that. But that's not really relevant. What's really relevant is the fact that we're here today with a version that has given very specific items that Laura Donaldson has shown us at the advice of the Planning Commission and staff to come up with some development criteria, and we have that development criteria, and we feel that in residential and Estates zoned areas, which is basically residential, you have an option of putting the infrastructure you need for your fire stations and your EMS. And we're not going to just be putting them anyplace, as we've already explained. We have the approach of planning. As Deputy Chief Reynolds explained earlier, we do have a five-year plan. We have been planning. I will say to you all that -- I've got a couple of people that will waive their time to me if it's okay with you all. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. As long as they're waiving it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yeah, they'll waive. The idea of a five-year plan, we had an option to build a station in a planned unit development. Major discussions, and we thought we had a time, and then suddenly it didn't happen to us -- for us. And we were told by the county it's possible we can't build a station at the eastern section of our district; therefore, we went out and bought more property in the area because we know we have to serve it. North Naples has been planning. We can build two stations in the next couple of years. Hopefully one of those will be at Heritage Bay, but we don't know that for sure. But we have been very involved in purchasing property filling a gap in North Naples in the section -- the north part of our area, but we had to buy industrial property. Page 74 October 25, 2006 We can't find the residential property right there for you because you need about an acre, two acres or so to build on. So we've been planning, we have five-year plans, and we've tried real hard to follow through. North Naples. Now, I'm standing here as a fire commissioner from North Naples, but we've been very involved with helping Golden Gate and Big Corkscrew Island, because they don't have the same type of zoning as you've discussed. They have a lot of estates. They have agriculture. You need to be able to site infrastructure to save lives and keep property from burning down. Let's see. We have a joint station. As you know Grey Oaks facility is a great operation that showed the cooperation between East Naples Fire District, North Naples Fire District and the county EMS. It worked well. That's why we said four bays. Have a facility that's a neighborhood scale but combine us, put us there so we can all respond. Let's see. I think -- we talked about power lines, the residential areas, the unanimous vote. And the idea of fast tracking. I don't think we've had a conditional use process, one go through yet that wasn't approved by you all. It just adds another four, six, eight, 10 months, and it still gets approved, and it's still a good facility. So this is trying to help us be able to place the infrastructure, as Commissioner Henning has said, where we need it. Because we don't build fire stations if you don't need them. You don't build EMS stations if you don't need them in the neighborhoods. So I think we've got a really good version here. It's reasonable, we've met the development criteria that everybody's worked on, and I think we could place fire stations. If you don't meet one of the criteria, you could end up with a conditional use anyway. Any questions? VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I have a question. The-- in the process now, if this went forward, when would it be coming Page 75 October 25, 2006 back? How does this -- where are we in the process? COMMISSIONER HENNING: November-- MR. SCHMITT: This is our first reading. We have to bring it back, and we need to discuss some dates with you at the end of the meeting before we conclude our meeting because there's some options. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: November 6 meeting is the final hearing date, but there will only be four commissioners at that meeting and we're going to discuss about delaying that possibly till December when there are five commissioners. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Based upon what I heard and the passion that Commissioner Henning showed and, of course, Commissioner Rautio, I'm willing to move it forward in the process and keep the whole thing alive. And hopefully, if -- of course we need Commissioner Fiala to nod her head to make it work, because there's only three of us left up here at the moment. Hopefully if we do agree to do that, you'll do an outreach and start going to your local communities and telling them what it's all about and coming back with some support on this. There's a lot of misgivings on the part of the public. And if you're going to rely just on this commission to carry the ball for you and try to force it through, I don't think it's going to happen. You're going to have to get some public support on that. So now's your opportunity to be able to go back into the bushes and come back with some supporters to keep this thing alive the next time. How do you feel, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I really agree with you. Nobody's even really talked to me about it yet. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, the only thing I've heard Page 76 October 25, 2006 is negative. But, you know, we can move it forward. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So does that exhaust everybody that was on this? I know Ms. Rautio -- maybe they can change our minds, you know. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Some of them will waive. May I just make one comment for the record? We do have a picture up here of our Station 43 that is -- actually technically it's on Vanderbilt Drive in Bonita Springs. That's the address. But it shows that -- you have a copy out there -- the station itself and how it fits right into the residential neighborhood. You really can't tell that that's a fire station. And when you see -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's Florida style. That's really cool. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We know how to do this, and we have been planning and we'd certainly like your support. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. I appreciate your being here this evening. Possibly Bob, you'll carry this back to your civic association. MR. MURRAY: Be delighted to. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would love to hear from some of the community leaders out there. MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, would you like me to read off VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. MS. FABACHER: -- the speakers and see who'd like to continue to speak? Chief Michael Brown. MR. BROWN: I'll waive my name in support. MS. FABACHER: Orly Stolts? MR. STOL TS: I'll waive my time. MS. FABACHER: Joe Hessling? Page 77 October 25, 2006 MR. HESSLING: I'll defer my time also. MS. FABACHER: Chief Greenberg. MS. GREENBERG: I'd like to speak briefly. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course. That's your right. MS. GREENBERG: Rita Greenberg, fire chief, Big Corkscrew Fire District, for the record. I would like to thank the board for considering this and, Commissioner Coletta, your intent to move it forward. A lot of the conversations tonight have dealt with a large majority of our fire district. We have very little or no commercial or industry and agriculture -- we have a lot of agriculture, but getting there is a challenge. The majority of our district is the Estates residential zoning. And I appreciate the support that we have in from the other fire districts in moving this forward and your compassion and understanding in trying to move it forward. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Chief, if you would, please, take this on the road, go talk to the Corkscrew Sanctuary, talk to the Rock Road group, maybe even come and make a joint appearance with Golden Gate Fire Department to the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association and come back here this next time with some community leaders in support of this so we can do the right thing for everyone that's concerned. MS. GREENBERG: Absolutely. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any others? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just an example. On Corkscrew, they have some properties in Golden Gate Estates that doesn't fit the criteria for a conditional use, therefore they would have to do a comprehensive amendment to the Growth Management Plan in order to -- Page 78 October 25, 2006 VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- in order to do it. And did you just purchase this property because it was pretty or is it strategically located or what? MS. GREENBERG: Well, actually, Commissioner, we spent about nine months researching our response times, our needs, the community's needs, and the area we came up with was a mile corridor along the DeSoto Boulevard eastern edge of our district. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there is no -- if I remember right, there is no activities on DeSoto Boulevard. MS. GREENBERG: No, sir. The areas that were designed for activity centers within our jurisdiction were not within the areas that we needed to be locating in order to fulfill our needs for the community. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you only have one in an activity center today, and that's on Immokalee and Everglades? MS. GREENBERG: Correct. And that was not an activity center at the time that that was constructed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's right, but I think it was under consideration. MS. GREENBERG: I believe so, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So anyways. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know a nice mulching center near the Corkscrew Sanctuary. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well-- and we don't know if it fits their plan. I know that they -- each one of the districts submits to the Board of Commissioners on their needs, and I don't know if a mulching facility fits their needs of a location. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, the mulching isn't getting permitted. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It would be a good site for training maybe. Page 79 October 25, 2006 MS. GREENBERG: We would take a training center. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you're fine. Keep going. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, anything else? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I was just playing. MS. FABACHER: Two more. Thomas Cannon. COMMISSIONER CANNON: I'll be brief. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Try real hard, Tom. COMMISSIONER CANNON: It'll be difficult. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You going to tell us about the swamp buggy too, Tom, while you've got some free air time? COMMISSIONER CANNON: This weekend. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm working Sunday morning there. COMMISSIONER CANNON: My name's Tom Cannon, chairman of the board of the East Naples Fire Control District. I've been chairman -- commissioner for 22 years. In those 22 years, not one person complained to me about a location of a fire department. I've had many people become very happy because we located. But I want you to look at this thought. Two hundred twenty thousand dollars. That is what East Naples had to pay because we had to go through conditional use on a piece of commercial property that we owned for 12 years on Bayshore Drive. Do you want to know the funny part about it? County's partners in us with that. They had to pay 35 percent of that. This is not a fire -- just a fire department issue. This is the EMS, sheriff and fire. Go back to Commissioner Coyle, with that two lots between her (sic) and Commissioner Fiala. Do you know, with the way your codes are written, the county can come in, build a sewer plant there without a conditional use but we can't come in and build a fire station? So I'mh Page 80 October 25,2006 happy to see you want to bring it forward. We can load this place up. I would suggest you find larger quarters. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Cannon, I suggest that the people you fill it with, not firemen and your commissioners, but I'm talking about the civic leaders that we can recognize when we see them. That would be most helpful. COMMISSIONER CANNON: I'll give you one other example. Our station that we have on Davis Boulevard backs into an apartment complex. Those people love that fire station there so much that it's not a week that goes by that somebody's not bringing them chili, spaghetti, cookies, cupcakes, they come over and visit so -- we'll look forward to whenever your next meeting is. And once again, swamp buggy this weekend. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Commissioner Cannon. MS. FABACHER: Rob Potteiger. MR. POTTEIGER: Potteiger. MS. FABACHER: Potteiger. I'm sorry, Rob. MR. POTTEIGER: Thank you. Waive. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You have -- oh, you're waiving, okay. MR. POTTEIGER: With a thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: That's all the speakers we have, Commissioner. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. When you were gone for a few minutes there, we have three commissioners that are willing to move it forward to the next step to be able to see what might come of it, and they graciously agreed to get the public involved, to go to civic associations, to bring in a lot of supporters the next time so there won't be any doubts in our mind as far as political leanings of the community called Collier. Page 81 October 25, 2006 Anything else? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I have a question, but Commissioner -- VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm not going to oppose it, but all I'm suggesting is, let's not forget the overall goal that we've been struggling for years to deal with not just this, but lots of other things, and we could do it all with one set of procedures. You know, the activity centers in places like the Estates and everything else. I don't know why we insist on segmenting all of that except to do it more quickly. And I do concede that it will be faster to solve this problem if we deal with it alone. But that leaves us with a host of other problems that we haven't addressed, and we should be thinking about those all together. And I think we can do the whole thing pretty quickly. But nevertheless, okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you threw the idea on the table already for them to identify areas, right? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, no, but I don't perceive that your motion that you're going forward with now accomplishes that. It looks like it -- it only deals with the emergency services issue and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that's okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think the east of951 study is going to capture a lot of those other things that you're mentioning. And I don't know if you're aware -- I'm sure you're aware -- of some of the things that are happening east, just east of Golden Gate Estates that we need to also try to encourage. But I have a question on just essential services in general. This provision, does it allow a lift station within a preserve? MS. ISTENES: Within a what? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Preserve. MS.ISTENES: Preserve? Page 82 October 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: In a PUD preserve? MS. ISTENES: It depends on the PUD, but generally, no. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if it specifically says it within a preserve, that essential services are allowed in the preserve, then it is allowed? MS. ISTENES: If it said that, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Because we just approved one Tuesday under the consent agenda. MS. ISTENES: I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying the PUD would have to expressly permit that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you aware of that? MR. SCHMITT: I'm not sure which one you're talking about. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 16Cl. MR. SCHMITT: And it was for which -- I'll look it up. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just look it up and see if -- you know, if we circumvented the process. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's just stick with the agenda here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it was. It was an essential service item, and I just didn't know whether we circumvented the process by allowing it on the utility side instead of Joe Schmitt's side, and he'll look into it. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's good. Thank you. Do we have enough direction on this item so we can proceed? MS.ISTENES: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much for being here. MS. FABACHER: Our next -- oh, I'm sorry. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, while they're still here though, do we -- so they can hear when we're going to discuss this next -- because we need to address a couple of issues on the next meeting, and then we're certainly going to want to decide on where we go from Page 83 October 25, 2006 here. But Catherine, do you want to discuss some optional dates, because I know there will only be four commissioners at the advertised public hearing, and I want to make sure that the fire chiefs get the next date. MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, you were originally scheduled to hear AUIR on Monday the 30th and Tuesday the 31 st, and that has completely opened up for you. MR. SCHMITT: That changed quite a while ago, just was never cancelled off your calendars, so those two days are available. MS. FABACHER: So those days are completely open. We have the chamber all day and -- MR. KLATZKOW: Not for second reading. You don't have enough time to -- MS. FABACHER: Well, I was going to get to that next. MR. KLATZKOW: You don't have time. If this one's going to be heard again, a second reading. MS. FABACHER: Okay, for the second reading. MR. KLA TZKOW: This things going to be heard again for the second reading. I talked with Mr. Mudd on this, and his thought would be that you're scheduled for a two-day commissioner hearing in December, December 12th and 13th. MR. SCHMITT: Thirteenth. MR. KLATZKOW: And perhaps in the evening 5:05, we could have the second reading where this could be heard. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need a break. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the dates again? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, Commissioner Coletta's, you know, a nice guy and that, but I -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, he's not. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- but I just need a break. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it's only going to end up Page 84 October 25, 2006 working a half a day, around 12 hours, so what's the big deal? Once again, what's those dates you're talking about? MR. KLA TZKOW: Again, it's just a proposal. Your next full day that the board will be in session, my understanding, is going to be December 12th, and we could do this at 5:05 in the evening and -- or we can make it part of the regular meeting, if you prefer. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe part of the regular meeting. I'll be honest with you, when you start to get to about six, seven o'clock in the evening with these types of things, I'm fine, but my fellow commissioners go brain dead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's because he starts out that way. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Never can top Coyle. How do you feel? I really think it's pushing the envelope when we start to go past six. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Depending on what kind of issues we're discussing, too. If we've got -- from what I understand, because the two meetings before can't hold any land use issues, they're going to be all the land use issues on that, and that's why it's two days, and those things are grueling. And by the time we get to seven, eight o'clock, and all of the speakers and everything, we're torn apart inside. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We are. Is there any possibility that we might be able to have a commissioner that would be absent attend by phone for an evening meeting? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll volunteer. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we do the week -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can arrange to be absent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we do the week -- the first week from -- full week in December or the third week, which is the 18th through the 22nd to do LDC? MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you can, if the commissioners are Page 85 October 25, 2006 in town. What I'll do is tomorrow morning I will-- Jim Mudd, for the record. What I'll do is get with -- get with your staff, try to lock down some times that you're going to be in in that evening and try to break it out a little bit so that we make the advertising requirements so that we can have that and try to de-conflict it a little bit better for you. I didn't know where you were going to be -- and I know the 18th you have a joint meeting with the City of Naples, and that's Monday, and then we'll start -- we'll start taking a look at what's in between. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, just to give you a general idea, I don't have any plans to be anywhere, but we have to check the individual days with our aids because they keep the calendars and -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we'll take a look and make sure that we've got some, and then they'll be getting with you tomorrow to see if it's okay. And once we lock in a couple of times, I'll get with Mr. Schmitt and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just making cookies then. MR. MUDD: -- Mr. Klatzkow and we'll lock her down. But it will be the first or second week of December, in that time period. MR. SCHMITT: Just to make sure and clarify, Jim. For those who are listening and those who know, it will be -- the second hearing will be sometime in December. The November 6 meeting is then -- the time that's advertised, there's only going to be four commissioners. There's a couple of amendments. I think it's probably best to have all commissioners, so we'll delay and find a date in September -- I'm sorry -- December. We do have other amendments that we need to do for the first hearing. I don't know how long you want to go to tonight. We have Nick that's going to give a presentation, we may want to -- and may defer again. We do have Monday and Tuesday, the 30th and 31st, where we can go through some of the -- still do some of the first hearings and Page 86 October 25, 2006 continue the meeting. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me poll my commISSIoners. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't have to start real early tomorrow, maybe you do. I could stay till nine tonight and try to knock some of these off. If we can keep three of us here, we might be able to accomplish that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got to go. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Got to have a super majority. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Got to have -- I thought you only needed three to move forward. MR. SCHMITT: No, we only need -- we need three. MR. KLA TZKOW : We just need three. COMMISSIONER HENNING: My apologies. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay. That means I can go. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The senior member is exercising his discretion to be able to leave early. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He just acts and looks a lot older. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He acts it, too. Have a nice evenIng. (Chairman Coyle left the hearing room.) VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the next item? MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, it's -- Nick Hale is here. He's a Color Scientist, and talking about the county's project to design a color chart to be more objective. It's on -- about our decisions on color. It's on page 99 of the green book. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry to make you wait so long, Nick. MR. HALE: While you're looking that up I'll introduce myself. Nick Hale, for the record. Page 87 October 25,2006 The problem you have, we have, is that you have a section in the Land Development Code limiting the use of trim colors that is not defined in any reasonable term, it's not technically competent, and it's not legally defensible. It came to my attention when someone painted their store black on the outside. The code enforcement people were called and they came riding up and handed out a citation to the owner and told him how many times he was going to be fined if he didn't change the color. The Land Development Code section says, you can't use gray or black or primary or secondary colors in excess of 10 percent of the exterior of commercial buildings. Those definitions are meaningless. Primary and secondary colors are what the teacher teaches kids in kindergarten when they're using finger paint, not specifications. Grays are fine, except if you have a little bit of color in a gray, then it's an off-gray. So that doesn't work. When I brought this to Joe Schmitt's attention, I said, how do you define black? He said, well, he says, black is black, isn't it? I said, no. And I -- as an example I said, you take a gallon of black paint, you put an ounce of brown paint in, what do you have? In the field of color science, we've solved all these problems. That's why you have consumer products that are made up of numerous exterior components that some -- often made in different places, puts them all together and they all looked like exactly the same color. The reason you need to do this in a different way is you have to have a specification that is user-friendly, technically competent and legally defensible. Technically competent means you have to specify it in terms of numbers. You're running specifications. A specification must have a test method so you can determine whether you are complying with the specification. Legally defensible is self explanatory . You know what it means. Page 88 October 25, 2006 You want to first deter people from taking you into court, and secondly, if you have to go there, you want to win. Now, in the field of color, many, many years ago we were able to take all the colors in the world and put them together in a three-dimensional matrix so that we had white, grays and blacks and a central axis, and all around that we had all the hues, red, yellow, green, blue and purple, all the permutation in between them. And then from the central axis, the grays out to any of those vivid colors you had scales, scales of saturation. We had ways of measuring all these and specifying them with numbers, tolerances, all that sort of thing. What you need for the Land Development Code is to decide the ranges of colors that you want to limit to 10 percent for the trim of the building, and the rest of the colors can be used all over the building. The color charts you see up here are examples of four different lightness levels in this three-dimensional color space. And from left to right on each of the four charts you have 20 different hues, red, orange, yellow, green-yellow, green, blue-green, blue, purple-blue, purple, red-purple, and you're back to red. The vertical scale has numbers on it, with the grays at the bottom being a zero saturation, and going all the way up to 12 or 14, depending upon how vivid a color at that lightness and that hue can become, how vivid the paint can be. By specifying a line on each chart horizontally, you can limit the saturation that you want to limit for trim colors. When someone wrote, you can't use primary and secondary colors in more than 10 percent, what they were trying to say was that you can't have really vivid colors on more than 10 percent of the exterior of the building. By having a line across here at some level -- and I suggest that the level be eight, which includes these along here and the same ones over there, at -- above here the vivid colors will be limited to 10 percent, below that you can use them all over the building. Page 89 October 25, 2006 That -- demarcation was selected by talking with two architects I've worked with, one on the Planning Commission, Brad Schiffer, and one on the DSAC, Dallas Disney. And I'm going to take this before the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects and get their opinion because this is not my area of expertise, deciding where this line is, deciding where the colors have to be limited to 10 percent and where you can let them go over the whole building if you wish. Of course, you have the prerogative of making that decision. I will also take this before the CBIA and explain it to them. Now, what is the significance of all this? Right now I said it should be user-friendly. The users are the people who own the buildings, the architects, the developers. The architects using their expertise select the colors they want for the building mass and for the trim, then they take it to the planners or -- I mean to the permitting people, they look at the colors with this vague stuff you have in the code, and they decide whether those colors meet the requirements or whether they don't. You can talk to any architect in town who's been through this and he'll tell you that people who are making those decisions in the county government have a tough time making them, and there's a lot of arguments and back and forth and so on. One of the architects told me that three times the man making the decisions in the county government changed his mind. Well, somebody pays for all this architect time -- and you heard enough complaints about how prices are going up, how long it takes to get a permit. What this set of charts will do, they will look like this except I'm going to lighten up some of these backgrounds, but they'll be printed. They'll be very inexpensive. Joe will have them to sell for whatever he wants to sell them for. He suggested he was going to give them away. I said, don't do it. They'll all be gone the first month. But by Page 90 October 25, 2006 selling them for 10 or $15 a set, anybody can get them, the paint stores can get them so they can recommend things, and everyone will know. The architect will make his selection, and he'll then go to the charts and decide whether that color can be used as the trim or not. When he takes them to the planned reviewer, he will know that the colors are going to be acceptable, and the planned reviewer will have this effective tool so that he will know that they're acceptable so they'll both make the same decision using the same criteria, and that's what we don't have now. I think this will save a lot of time for the architects, a lot of time for the planned reviewers. Now I'll take questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You did a good job. When are you going before the architectural group in Collier County? MR. HALE: As soon as I can get -- as soon as they have a meeting, I'll try to be there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: This has already been briefed to the DSAC, it's been before the Planning Commission. And as Nick mentioned, what we're basically going to have here is a tool. It's a go, no-go. There's no longer this debate, hey, it's not as yellow as -- you think it's yellow. And it's either in the line or out of the line. And if the industrial feels that the line is too restrictive, we mutually agree to move the line. And it becomes exactly what Nick says. It's a scientific tool. We'll be the only -- this will be the only such tool in the country, I believe, Nick. We'll probably -- MR. HALE: As far as I know, yes, MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Because Nick and I have been talking about this for quite a while, and I appreciate the assistance from Brad and from Dallas, because they were extremely beneficial in part of developing this. The next step, of course, once we get your approval and we get Page 91 October 25,2006 this into this code, produce the color -- MS. FABACHER: Charts. MR. SCHMITT: -- charts, they'll be small kind of handouts. Nick's going to help me get these things printed properly and help set it up, and then we'll have an implementation date, and then we'll execute, so it's going to be a great tool. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. The thing that I like most is that everybody's working off the same chart. MR. SCHMITT: That's it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then there's no guesswork. It doesn't make any difference who is waiting on that person at the time or working with them, they're all working off the same chart. I think it's a good idea. MR. SCHMITT: Now, I want to clarify. This is only for commercial buildings. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. SCHMITT: We don't -- we have no control over residential. You can paint whatever your community wants. MR. HALE: Let me add this. This is a generic tool. If you should want to control the colors on industrial buildings, you could do that. You have other uses. Tonight we heard about boatlift canopies. Works just as well for that. A couple weeks ago I was here, and people were concerned with boat canopies. Same story. If you want to specify colors for signs or ranges of color for signs, it works well, too. It's a tool. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, if I may. I understand that we'd have this. This would become our property or you still own it? You going to have a copyright on it? MR. SCHMITT: Good question. MR. HALE: I'm going to -- I have copyrighted it. It will -- you Page 92 October 25, 2006 will use it with a license from me that will not cost you anything, and will go on forever. But for anybody else who wants to use it, they will pay for the license. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. So this is for use in Collier County by the Collier County government, and anyone else that wants it, like municipalities or some other county, then they would have to deal through you on it -- MR. HALE: Uh-huh, yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- is my understanding? MR. SCHMITT: It's proprietary as far as from the standpoint with Nick. It will be his -- it will be licensed and his name will be on it. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And our use of it won't be limited by 10, 20, 30 years; we can use it? MR. HALE: No, into perpetuity. The county attorney will write up a license, and then we'll argue with it a little bit probably, and then you'll have it forever. MR. SCHMITT: It will be an actual license as far as Nick being the -- identified as the author and the developer of this. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, good work. I like it. MR. HALE: A complete set of instructions and directions and so forth come with it. They'll be printed on the outside of a chart set. These fold to eight and a half by 11. You can put them in a clear plastic slip case. Catherine has been directed, I believe, to work up something on the cover, so if it's transparent you can see -- you'll see right through there, Collier County and so on. I'll have the charts printed for you and -- whatever quantity that Joe decides on. I'll have some extra charts for me, which is in my chart for you, which I'll use for samples, and anybody else, Marco Island wants to use it, City of Naples wants to use it, I can have them printed for them or they can have them printed as long as I approve Page 93 October 25, 2006 the results. Not trying to make a lot of money on the charts. They have to be priced at a low price so that everybody can use them. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's very civic minded of you, Nick. MR. HALE: No, it isn't either. I'll make money off the license. MR. SCHMITT: And Nick's going to -- we're paying for the printing and everything, so that's all under the contract. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll move this item forward unless anybody has any obj ection. (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Nick. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we ought to find some kind of graffiti out there on a building and preserve it and name it Nick Hale. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very kind of you, and here comes Nick to get you, too. Why don't we take a short break and then come right back. (A brief recess was had.) MR. SCHMITT: Catherine, where are we going next? MS. FABACHER: Joe, we have three -- we have two speakers that have waited a long time to discuss ordinance -- I can't even read -- 3.05.07, which is an environmental ordinance that -- if they'd like to speak, and then I think staff's here to answer any questions. MR. SCHMITT: That's in the green book, so that's the first hearing page, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Page what? MS. FABACHER: I've got to find it. MR. SCHMITT: 3.03.05. MS. FABACHER: It's on page 137 -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: 137? MS. FABACHER: -- in the green book. It is section 3.05.0 -- Page 94 October 25, 2006 3.05.07. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, they just woke me up. Watch it. MS. F ABACHER: Since we still have a couple speakers, we thought we'd do that next, and then we were going to do Mr. Murray and Mr. Bosi after that. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about a quick presentation and we'll go right to the speakers. MS. FABACHER: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, this is rather simple. It's a proposal to increase the minimum requirements of 75 percent of preserves during the PUD planning stage to 95 percent. And that's basically all we're asking is -- and it's on page 138. It's a simple change to identify during the development process to identify 95 percent of the preserves rather than what is existing now, it's 75. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's broken? MR. SCHMITT: The process normally -- well, what will happen sometimes in a -- in the development in the master plan, the last 25 percent becomes part of the problem if there's -- especially if there's one or two developers who are working within a PUD. It's not broken. This is just a method to try and bring -- more clearly define the preserve requirements at the master planning stage rather than at the plan or plat stage, and it was -- it's a recommendation as staff. So it's -- and we had two registered speakers on this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's-- MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, you have a -- I don't understand. You have a different requirement for percentages. MS. ISTENES: The first requirement is to iden -- or the current requirement is to identify at the time of rezoning 75 percent of the required preserves with the remaining 25 percent to be determined later in a different stage of development. Page 95 October 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. I see. MS.ISTENES: And we're running into problems with the remaining 25 percent because you're getting -- after a rezoning is approved, for example, you may have multiple owners and they're not talking to each other, and preserves aren't getting designated and allocated reasonably between developers, for example. And so I think what staff's trying to do here is identify the majority of it up front understanding that the 5 percent differential should leave enough flexibility at a -- to be determined at a later stage. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, let's do this. Let's go to the speakers, and then we'll get into a deeper discussion. I'm going to ask -- go ahead and call the first speaker. MS. FABACHER: Both -- Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Mulhere will be the speakers. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. Please, be concise but be brief. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good evening. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, again, on behalf of Collier Enterprises. I think the description of what you're doing is rather simple, but the reality of what you're doing is not as simple as staff would like you to believe. First of all, in order to get to the -- what the code currently says is we have to identify 75 percent of the preserve area at the time you do a PUD. What staff -- in order to get to the 95 percent threshold -- and by the way, your Planning Commission recommended against staff's proposal. In order to get to the 95 percent threshold, you're going to have to go through and pretty much finish up your Corps permitting and your water management district permitting before you even know whether or not you've got a viable project from a zoning standpoint. We think that's an exorbitant expense to have to go through to Page 96 October 25, 2006 know whether or not you even have a zoning proj ect, a proj ect approved by the commission, to go through that expense to get to that level of detail, do your full-blown engineering plans for your project, go through the district permitting, go though the Corps permitting, and we can get in front of the Board of County Commissioners, and the Board of County Commissioners can deny the proj ect. So we think you get enough assurance as to where the preserve areas are going to be at rezoning with identifying 75 percent of preserves. Staff has had a problem with a project or two where there have been multiple owners. It's an enforcement issue because what the code says is, at the next development order, you've got to identify the next 25 percent. So the next development order is going to either be a plat or a Site Development Plan for the project. The simple thing to say is, where's the remaining 25 percent for the project? If the property owner can't come to you and show you the remaining 25 percent of the project, you sit there and say, I'm sorry. Until you've worked it out with your co-owner in the project, we're not going to approve your Site Development Plan or your plat, remembering that that is at the very next step after you get your PUD approved. You'll then finalize your permitting with your -- with the Corps and the water management district. So there is a safeguard in place. I do not know if the -- one of the examples cited was the -- a project to 951 near the intersection with I-75. It's where the -- I guess the high school was just recently built. I believe the school board was not -- in their due diligence, didn't recognize that all the preserves had not been identified, so there may be an issue on that proj ect. Had the process been followed where staff would have said, we're not going to approve the SDP -- and this condition may not have even existed at that time. But if that condition did exist at the time, Page 97 October 25, 2006 they shouldn't have approved the first plat or SDP without identifying the remainder of the preserves. The expense that we're being put through to identify 95 percent of the preserves at a rezone stage is really not a justified expense when you don't know whether or not you're going to have a project or not. And keep in mind, that doesn't only apply to the private sector. It applies to the public sector. So the county commission is going to be required to do all their water management district level engineering plans at -- even before you do a conditional use or a rezone on a property that you may own. Do you really need to go through that level of expense when you don't know whether or not you have a viable project? We think you should follow the Planning Commission's recommendation, leave it like it is. It isn't broken. If it's -- if it's properly enforced, you won't have these issues and we will request that we leave it as is. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Yovanovich. MR. MULHERE: Good evening. For the record, Bob Mulhere. I'll be very brief because I think Rich really covered all the issues. I would suggest to you that this -- there are very few circumstances where this is a problem, but there have been a few. I think some of those probably were for PUDs that existed prior to the -- as Rich alluded to, before the LDC was changed -- I think. I may be wrong, but -- may wherein now you must identify 100 percent of your preserve, that 25 percent. You know, you get to identify 75 percent at PUD rezone and the other 25 percent, you must do it prior to the next development order. There's zero risk for the county, none, as long as that procedure is followed. You can't get a permit, you can't do anything as far as the county's concerned, unless at the very next development order you identify the remaining 25 percent. Well, why are we having a problem with identifying it up front? Page 98 October 25, 2006 Because there are some circumstances where as you go through that jurisdictional permitting process where there may actually be some changes to the preserve area, and it -- if we have already identified those, we're almost forced back into coming back to the county to say to the county, look, during jurisdictional process, we had to change some boundaries, we shifted something. Staff has suggested that's not really an issue because you should know where your preserve is, 100 percent of it, right up front, because under the new comprehensive plan provisions in the Conservation Coastal Management Element and the LDC there is a hierarchy of preserve. And based on that hierarchy, you can look at your plan and you can decide exactly where all your preserve is. That's easy to say, but I submit to you that there will be unintended consequences on some projects. It isn't that simple during the jurisdictional process. It's not as simple as I think staff is suggesting that it is. There's not a problem. We don't really need to fix it. We just need to enforce the rules and regulations as they are in place today. There may have been some previous older problems. They shouldn't occur again with the language that's in the LDC. Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mulhere. Mr. Schmitt, the LDC changes that have taken place, have we -- have they stopped this particular thing from being a concern, or is it still a concern? MR. SCHMITT: The 75 percent still creates a bit of a problem but -- what Rich said is fundamentally true. I mean, I'm not arguing that. It does put the onus on the developer to identify and spend a significant amount of money up front before they have any assurance of rezoning. I recognize and note that that is, in fact, the case. That is one of the reasons why the Planning Commission denied it. It is the amount of effort that needs to be placed up front before Page 99 October 25, 2006 the prior -- as part of the zoning process prior to coming to the board. There have been issues which both -- several -- the issue -- one issue that Mr. Y ovanovich identified was, in fact, an issue that was in place prior to even the 75 percent, and it becomes the tyranny of the last developer. They end up having to absorb the mandatory preserve requirements that were not actually preserved or not actually taken care of during another developer submitting a process. It usually happens when there's multiple owners. But then the -- the problem is our -- becomes my burden and the staff review burden to force the other 25 percent. Frankly, the 95 percent, it's a recommendation. There are unintended consequences, and it's up to you all, but I can live with the 75 percent, quite frankly. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning said, is it broken? And I don't -- I don't -- it doesn't sound like it really is. MR. SCHMITT: It's not broken. The 95 percent would just -- VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What happens if-- MR. SCHMITT: -- bring it more clearly focused, but it does create an inordinate burden on the developer because they have to go through all the permitting process before coming in for the rezoning, and I do recognize that. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Fiala, comments? I think we -- we're not -- we're not all that interested in it. MR. SCHMITT: Fine. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the next item? MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, we're in the green book on page 39, and it's -- we're talking about two new smart growth initiatives, one in PUDs and one in commercial zoning, and we have Mike Bosi from our staff and Bob Murray, commissioner -- Planning Commissioner Murray. I don't know who's going first. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, what page are we working off of? Page 100 October 25,2006 MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. We're on page 39 in the green book. It's the first page after your yellow tab. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. MURRAY: Thank you. Good evening. I'm not here as Planning Commissioner Murray. I'm here now as the last of the Mohicans of the former Community Character and Smart Growth Committee. And I have a book here that was a base for it, and it's dated April 2001. And I looked at my records not too, too long ago, and I don't have an exacting number, but I think I have put in better than four and three quarter years myself. And I'm glad that hopefully now it will be over. And I want to just give you a resume, if you will, of the events. You folks commissioned a study, and the intent was to try to create better places for people, walkable places. And then a smart growth premise was introduced and a company was brought on to show what smart growth principals were, and there were a number of them that the committee worked on. And I would love to have said to you tonight that we had 30 or 20 things that we achieved. We did achieve a couple of things. We had a change in the Growth Management Plan that permitted some of the things that we're asking you to review now in the Land Development Code. And basically what we're talking about, we're down to two things. We're talking about residential in PUDs -- these will be residential in PUDs -- mixed uses that are intended to provide pedestrian- friendly walkable communities, hopefully that will tend to eliminate strip malls eventually. There will be -- as perceived, there will be drive-in type of places where anything -- and this is the best way to look at this view -- anything that is on the outside of a collector or an arterial, any facade, any sidewalk, anything, must be in direct and complete accordance Page 101 October 25,2006 with the Land Development Code in all aspects. Once you drive into this place, the items before you are intended as incentives to creating those kinds of pedestrian- friendly places. And so signage is more liberal, conditions for heights may be more liberal, facades are more liberal, and in general terms, we're trying to create something -- if you will, something like a 5th Avenue. They may not all look like that. And, in fact, when we reviewed the areas where they could be fitted between activity centers and the like, we recognized that there'll only be a few, perhaps, but they would be an improvement, we believe, and they will give opportunities for some gap housing perhaps. Certainly they will provide opportunities to -- for people to not get into their cars often. They will have, within these places, a variety of stores. It's hard to know as I stand here to tell you what kinds they would be, but basically we presume restaurant, we presume -- I don't even want to go into it because there's thousands of possibilities, but in general terms, the innovation will come from the developer when they see the liberalization on the internal portion -- and I want to stress that, once again -- it's internal to the project. Going forward and suggesting to you on the -- by the way that was residential -- I'm sorry -- yeah, residential with a commercial component, which restricts the amount of commercial. The other one is mixed use, which is a commercial component with a residential -- I'm sorry, a commercial activity with a residential component. In this case this would be conditional use, and it essentially tries to do the same thing but recognizes that in a commercial entity there will be the possibility of some large stores and so forth. In fact, one of the jokes we had was, would you like to have the penthouse on top of Home Depot? And it was -- the thought being there that any kind of innovation Page 102 October 25, 2006 is possible, and while that's unlikely, other innovations are possible. Staff introduced into that process the idea of affordable housing, and I have no objection to that -- and I say I as opposed to we because this is what's left. I'm the guy. And the staff has taken over. And by the way, I'd like to digress for a second and say that I received such wonderful cooperation from the staff, as our committee did as well. But I say I because in the last months, I worked intensively with them and refined what it is that the committee had introduced and had progressed. And all along we received -- we received wonderful support, but in the final months, the individuals who supported were just terrific, and your staff has done a really great job of helping. Mike Bosi is here tonight. We had Nancy Gundlach and -- for the moment -- Diane, I'm sorry. And I could name several more, I guess, if I could remember their names. But the point being that they are terrific people. They worked hard. Once they understood what we were attempting to achieve, they worked with it, and they saw that it was useful, it was beneficial. I hope you do. And the particulars now you have in your packet, but Mike is more equipped to answer your specific questions than I would be. And I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to bring to conclusion my piece of that work and at the same time to know that we did a good job. The committee that I was a part of really worked hard. They really did. They spent a lot of hours trying to make sense out of this, and you established it, and a lot of good folks tried to make it work. I'm proud to come here with a small product by comparison to what they intended, but a very fine product nevertheless. Do you have any questions? If so -- if not, I'll retire. Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? I think this was something that you were made point person on that Page 103 October 25, 2006 some time ago. MR. MURRAY: Oh, yes. And I want to thank Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and Bob and a few other folks carried it on, and it ended up everybody died except for Bob. He's still living. MR. SCHMITT: Wore them out. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's an opportunity to provide mixed use in the urban area and, you know, it's a tool, and we hope that people use it. I don't know if you need any more explanation on this item. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, is this something that we should move forward? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Most definitely. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Bob Murray put a lot of time into it and it had a lot of input from the Planning Commission, i.e., I talked to some of the Planning Commission members that had problems with that, and as you can see, that they passed it with some amendments unanimously. MR. BOSI: Good evening, Commissioner. Mike Bosi of Comprehensive Planning. I just wanted to add, as Commissioner Henning had indicated, both the residential mixed-use PUD design criteria and the commercial mixed-use design criteria was passed unanimously after some changes implemented by the Planning Commission. I'm not going to go over the specifics of it because they're probably too numerous in detail, and Bob kind of highlighted that this has been a two-and-a-halfto three-year process. If there are any questions from a staff level, I'd make myself available. MR. SCHMITT: Just for clarification to that. The other Page 104 October 25, 2006 amendment is on your page 53, which is the commercial. Okay. MS.ISTENES: Are there any other speakers, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: No, no speakers. MR. SCHMITT: That's it. Next issue. No other questions? VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No other questions. Move it forward. MS. FABACHER: Okay. All right. Well, this one ended on page 70, and now we'll go to page 71. And we're going to do -- in the green book, and we're going to do the Copeland Zoning Overlay, and Mike DeRuntz, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review, will make a presentation. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may. On the Copeland item here, I received correspondence from one of the leaders of Copeland totally endorsing it and letting us know that the community that's been working on this -- for how many years now, two years? MR. DeRUNTZ: They've been working on this; they started a survey two years ago. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And -- two years ago, that they're extremely pleased with it. And I'm familiar with it, and if the other commissioners are, I'm not too sure -- if you want to hear the presentation, we can do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no questions. MR. SCHMITT: This is, of course, a result of money -- CDBG monies and other monies that were spent to try and correct some of the basic zoning problems in both the compo plan and the LDC. And, of course, the community was involved in this. And if you have no questions, I mean -- VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just my compliments to staff for the wonderful interaction that took place between staff and the Copeland community. I can remember back five years ago when I first went down there, it was just a riot. These people here said, nobody's ever did (sic) anything for us. We've always been left on our Page 105 October 25, 2006 own, and there's no sense of even trying. I said, well, you know, if you don't try, nothing will happen. And they have tried, and they've been extremely successful, and some people on staff have gotten extremely involved with Copeland, and I thank you for that. MR. SCHMITT: Keilia Leghorn (phonetic) and Kristin Holden and others and Denny Baker's shop all were involved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: As long as you're in favor of this. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very much so. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, you brought Copeland to the surface. I don't think anybody ever realized what a Copeland was so -- and I know you've been working closely with them. That's great. MR. DeRUNTZ: This is a two-step process. We have the overlay that you're working on now with the LDC amendment, and we are proceeding forward also with the rezoning element, and that will be going hopefully before the Planning Commission in the next month or so, and then it will come to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rezoning? Are people starting to build there or something? MR. DeRUNTZ: No. There's two zoning districts out there. There's a VR zoning classification, which you could see that in this area here -- or VR's in this area here, and then you have a conservation zoning district, and it's splitting the community. And a lot of the existing residential uses, which are mobile homes, aren't -- if they are destroyed, they can't be replaced in that area. And so they want to rezone that conservation area to VR. And then -- MR. SCHMITT: Village residential. MR. DeRUNTZ: Village residential. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. DeRUNTZ: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next item. MS. FABACHER: Next item, we're going to hear from our Page 106 October 25, 2006 excellent landscaper, Mike Sawyer, and we are going to be on page 89 of the green book. Talking buffer yards. MR. SAWYER: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Mike Sawyer, Senior Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review again. The first -- I'm actually going to talk about two amendments tonight. The first is to codify basically what has been a staff-directed practice where, within PUDs, where you've got an activity center, in other words, a clubhouse, a pool area, that sort of thing, normally black and white by the code you're required to have a B buffer and an A buffer. What we have done administratively is reduced that to a single B buffer because, generally speaking, you're going to have trees on the residential side that would be to an A level anyway. And so this amendment simply codifies that when you have a condition with a clubhouse or pool facility within a residential development, you're required just to have a B buffer, a single B buffer instead of both buffers. MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman, may I clarify that? I think this had been a practice probably going on for over 10 years. MR. SAWYER: Probably. MS. ISTENES: And what we've been hearing from -- well, let me try to make a long story short. It resulted in some confusion with some of our newer applicants that were coming in trying to apply the code and -- because it was administrative practice, like I said, that was started probably over 10 years ago, before my time. And we took a look at it and obviously if it's not in the code people aren't understanding it, and they weren't understanding how it was applied. So I asked Mike to just go ahead -- and we looked at it and said we thought this would work, but let's put it in the code the way it should read rather than the way it's been being applied so everybody would be put on notice. Page 107 October 25, 2006 VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see here that the Planning Commission recommended that adjacent be changed to abutting, however, staff disagreed because property with intervening canals and roads needs to be buffered to -- what exactly happened there? What is it we're working with, Planning Commission's recommendation or the staff's recommendation, or have they been a blend of the two? MR. SAWYER: In the discussion with the Planning Commission, it was, when do you actually apply this? And it is when -- you know, the language has always been adjacent, and that is where you've got, you know, properties that are, you know, immediately adjacent to each other, but in some cases you've got a roadway that might occur in there or, for instance, you may also have a canal that's in between the two. And in that case, you still want to be able to have that buffer because you're not going to have anything in between to take the place of the required buffer. And so I think that's where the confusion happened when we were discussing it with the Planning Commission. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the end result that you have before us today is adj acent or abutting? MR. SAWYER: Is adjacent. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Is that in number two in the second paragraph where it says an alternative B buffer is located within the residential PUD and adjacent to a lake, or is it in the underlying section? MR. SAWYER: It's in the underlying section. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We're adopting abuts, because that's what it says. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, it says abuts. I didn't realize that. MR. SAWYER: Oh, it does say abuts. I apologize. I thought we had changed that to adjacent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, obviously it was adjacent, Page 108 October 25, 2006 and the Planning Commission wanted it abuts, and somehow it got abuts in it. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. Commissioner, I'll have to check the minutes on that. It might just be a staff error. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The minutes on what? MS. FABACHER: On the meeting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the Planning Commission? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Do you feel that this summary sheet is correct on M where the Planning Commission recommends changing adjacent to abuts? Do you feel that's correct? MS. FABACHER: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's in there just like they wanted it. MS. FABACHER: You're correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Yep, all right. MR. SAWYER: It is. I apologize. MS.ISTENES: Mike, your -- my understanding is your recommendation as staff is adjacent; is that correct, rather than abuts? MR. SAWYER: It would be more consistent that way with the way the rest of that particular section reads and the way that we have normally used buffers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, explain to me how we got the word abuts in there if that's what you wanted is adjacent. MS.ISTENES: It's probably just a typo. We've had multiple iterations of the document going back and forth, so -- I don't know. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't know if it's really -- because it says that the Planning Commission recommends that adjacent be changed to abut. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they did, and that's what it says in here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It isn't a typo. Page 109 October 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it easy to get the minutes to that so we can find out what their justification was? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. Not right now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Where are we with this? We're talking -- now you couldn't get them? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to see what the Planning Commission -- what their discussion was on that so I could fully understand it. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is it something that you could pull right out now? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. MS. FABACHER: Not right now, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have this in front of us now. What are we going to do, just continue it and -- with the idea we're going to straighten it out the next time it comes before us? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. ISTENES: This is the first reading. How about if Catherine reports back to you and get a copy of the minutes to you? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, just email the minutes. Thanks. MS. ISTENES: Okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. We have one more item? MS. FABACHER: One more. MR. SAWYER: Yes, we do. On page 93 this particular amendment takes what are actually two sections currently that we've got requirements for building foundation plantings and combines them into one single one which will apply to all buildings based on the size of the building and the height of the building. What we're trying to do is level out the playing field for all buildings. There was -- you know, the second component of the Page 110 October 25,2006 current code relates to larger and taller buildings, and it is -- the current requirement is to have a continuous buffer or planting -- continuous foundation plantings around larger and taller buildings. That has led to a lot of open-ended types of unfair situations. Some buildings have a lot of area where you can actually put the foundation plantings, and those are the ones where they're winding up with a lot of foundation plantings around the base of the buildings. There are other buildings, for instance, mini storage types of buildings where they've got a lot of doorways and that sort of thing where it's not even possible to do the foundation plantings and other buildings, for instance, have large loading dock areas. And again, the code reads that the foundation plantings continue around the building except at points of ingress and egress. So what we've attempted to do with this amendment is to utilize a system where the foundation plantings are related to size of the building, the length of their facades, and then the height of the building, and it really simplifies things and evens out the playing field a bit. We feel that all of the calculations that we've made, there's actually going to be a net reduction overall in the amount of foundation plantings that are going to be required in most buildings. In some small cases there might be a slight increase, and in the larger congregate number of buildings, it's actually going to reduce a bit. We don't feel that that's going to be a problem aesthetically because you're going to be able to put those plantings where they're going to do the most good. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to interrupt you. Commissioner Henning has a question. MR. SAWYER: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- just overall, why was -- I mean, we have a landscaping buffer around the project, most of them, Page 111 October 25, 2006 because you have the parking lot, which is mostly in the front, and then you have the property next door, which you've got to have a buffer, and then we adopted -- how long has this been in effect, this perimeter buffering? MR. SAWYER: Well, the foundation plantings, the -- let's see. I'll get you the section. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was it '92? Was it when we first did the landscaping? MR. SAWYER: Correct. The initial -- let's see. It would be the 4.06.05B4. That section's always been in from the inception of the landscape. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's what I thought, but then we applied -- when Commissioner Hancock was a commissioner, then we applied architectural standards, and that was in MS.ISTENES: Ninety-six. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ninety-six. And I'm just wondering, what are we trying to hide? We're buffering it from the general public through the streets and the neighbors, and then we make the buildings pretty only to hide it. I'm not saying landscaping is bad, a bad thing, but I'm just saying, is that overkill? VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I do know the Planning Commission passed it unanimously, so did the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I don't-- VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- DSAC. You know, and I don't claim to be an authority on landscape buffering, you know. I'll be honest with you. I'll listen to anyone that has -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: When I did my building I put more landscaping than was required, but I'm just saying, is the overall theory of, we have architectural features and standards to make the building pretty and then we put trees and landscaping to hide the architectural features, or to buffer it. Page 112 October 25, 2006 VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To buffer it. That would be a more appropriate word. MS.ISTENES: Yeah. This buffer actually functions to kind of break up that hardscape where you get the building, and then you go immediately to a walkway or sidewalk, and then you go immediately to your parking lot. You've got kind of that transition green area where is softens the appearance of the building against the hardscape of your parking lot and your walkways. And I think, Mike, was this the one -- I think you all at one time asked, and we amended it, to require more of this or a different calculation of this type of amendment based on the building height? Was this -- MR. SAWYER: Right. That's where the 4.06.05B5 section was introduced -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. MR. SAWYER: -- was a request to -- where you've got larger buildings, to require additional plantings and specifically taller trees so that when you've got taller buildings, there was more of a way of getting those buildings to actually come down to the ground plane in a softer, more appropriate manner instead of just having the standard 10 percent five-foot wide band going, you know, around part of the building. That's actually where that second portion of the requirements came in, specifically to address larger, taller buildings. I think it was twofold. It was basically to try and address the big box developments that come in, and then also the taller buildings that the county started seeing a number of years ago. Not so much the residential, but some of the commercial products that were coming in. Again, trying to get those larger and taller buildings to relate better to the overall site. I guess the best way of looking at this is, we want to have both the architecture and the landscape working together and to get the environment to a level that we're used to having in Collier County, I'll Page 113 October 25, 2006 be real honest with you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. All right. Well, I'm not going to take it that far, so -- but as I go into Home Depot and Lowes, I don't see any separation. I mean, I see stuff in the parking lot, but you don't see anything in between the building and the sidewalk. MR. SAWYER: I believe most of -- most -- actually I know both of those products were based on the original 4.06B4 sections; so in other words, they're looking at 10 percent of that building's square footage, just 10 percent, a minimum of five feet wide. And on a big building like that, it doesn't go very far. And the requirement doesn't really say where that can go. If we were to go back to that standard, I think you would wind up seeing a lot more cases where, yeah, when you go up to a Lowes or Home Depot, you're not going to have green space. You're not going to have a separation between -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm looking at the lawn mowers. I don't care about the plants outside. MR. SAWYER: I agree with you, Commissioner, I do too. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. One of the things I like about this is that, let's face it, a developer's only going to build what they're required to build, and they're going to put in, you know, the least expensive plants. I mean, if they're required to put two and a half inches, they'll put two and a half inches. And sometimes we need a little encouragement through our LDC to soften the look of it a little bit, so I go along with it. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do too, at least for moving it along to the next step. I'm surprised we didn't have some people here from the industry here to interact with us on this, but maybe the next time if we agree to go forward. How are you with this, Commissioner Page 114 October 25,2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tell me when you go to Joanne's that you're looking at the landscaping when you walk in. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Joanne's Fabrics? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Their brand new place? VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You walked into that one. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I do notice when it doesn't look very good, yeah. You don't ever look and say, oh, isn't that beautiful. You just look -- you just know when you go and something doesn't look very good. Awe, yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, it's up to you. Which way do you -- I'm for moving it to the next step. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me, too. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we're -- yeah, we're going to have everybody here next time, and I don't think anybody's going to have the same objections that I am, so why belabor it? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, they might. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Might. Very well might. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's just move it forward. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nod your head up and down. That means yes. Okay. We'll move it forward. MS. FABACHER: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We might have time for one more. MS. FABACHER: One more, great. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A quick one. MS. FABACHER: Because Director Arnold's been waiting quite some time. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, yes, by all means. MS. FABACHER: This is on page 105. You know Michelle's Director of Code Enforcement. Page 115 October 25, 2006 VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We met once. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MS. FABACHER: Page 105 in the green book. MS. ARNOLD: Good evening, Commissioners. Nice to see you all again. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Didn't we see you about nine o'clock this morning? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, and yesterday. Anyway, I have an item on page 105, and it's addressing the stop work orders. Currently we have the ability to issue stop work orders, but this is giving us a little bit more -- it addresses, what if somebody violates that stop work order, and I want to make a distinguishing (sic) between building code stop work orders. That's something the building department issues, and these are more things related to the Land Development Code. And the language had been vetted before the Planning Commission, and they made some recommended changes. And they also asked us to show them some examples of what we were talking about. Some of the things that we were dealing with is, someone clearing a lot without the appropriate permits, and they're clearing in excess of what they're allowed to. If they do that and continue violating the stop work order, it can eventually cost them more to mitigate than if they were to stop and then comply. And those were some of the examples that we gave to the Planning Commission, and I believe they were pretty satisfied with what we gave them and voted unanimously to move it forward. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that detail need to be put in this amendment of the -- some examples? MS. ARNOLD: It's whatever the pleasure of the board is. I don't believe so. I think, you know, we -- that's just one of many examples Page 116 October 25, 2006 that -- you know, the thought here is, you know -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where doesn't -- where does not it apply. MS. ARNOLD: Where does it apply? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where does it not apply in cases of stop work orders? MS. ARNOLD: It would apply to all stop work orders. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So what was the Planning Commission asking for? Provide some examples of situations. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Examples of where we would, code enforcement, would apply it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you would apply it to everything. MS. ARNOLD: It would be applicable to things that are related to the Land Development Code, such as clearing without a permit. And let me -- it's -- predominantly those are the situations that we use it for because we wouldn't be stopping a building-related permit case because that's left up to the building department to do that. Mostly it's permit-related issues, and our authority is really limited to those permits issued under the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER HENNING: DSAC felt that the language should constitute a threat to property -- threat to life and property. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think they -- what they were questioning is, what does that mean, and we gave them an example of -- and I have some photographs for you if you want to look at them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you said it applies to all permits. MS. ARNOLD: Permits related -- that are issued under the Land Development Code. So it would be a clearing permit. It wouldn't necessarily be an engineering permit because those are things issued by the engineering department. Page 11 7 October 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now I understand. MS. ARNOLD: It would be those things that we have the authority to issue stop work orders for. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you need a permit to put landscaping in? MS. IS TENES: Put landscaping in for a residential? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MS. ISTENES: For residential? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, for commercial? MS. ISTENES: Commercial it's part of your site plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just taking it out? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, if you're taking out what's required, you'd need a -- well, you wouldn't be allowed to do that, so they wouldn't issue a permit. MR. SCHMITT: You'd have to amend your site plan. MS. ARNOLD: Right. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing. I wanted to see the pictures. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, you do want to see the pictures. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. This is just showing the lot before. This particular one is showing the lot before and then the lot after. And within the Estates they're allowed to clear an acre with their building permit. This is just showing, you know, a cleared lot. And then the other exhibit that we showed was a comparison in the cost -- comparison in the cost to someone that would have -- I'm going to make it more legible for you here -- someone that would have stopped work at our initial order and someone that kind of exceeded that time period. It could become very costly for them if they were to go beyond the stop work order. Page 118 October 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you go back to that first one, please? Can you tell me what kind of vegetation is on the left-hand side where it says Daniels Roads? MS. ARNOLD: Over here? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: I can't personally tell you but-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, there's already-- it looks like there's already a building on that lot. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, there was a building on the lot. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. ARNOLD: So when they came in for a permit, they could have cleared up to an acre with their the building permit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. ARNOLD: But in this particular case, they cleared it after without any permit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And more than an acre? MS. ARNOLD: And more than an acre. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you don't know what kind of vegetation they cleared out? MS. ARNOLD: I don't know, but my staff would know. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The staff would know from that picture? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, because what they do do is look at similar properties, and you can see that there's similar vegetation from the photograph here, and so you'd compare it with adjacent properties to see what the overall -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I looked at a lot in Golden Gate Estates that was for sale, and it looked like it was nicely vegetated, and I went out there, it was full of pepper hedge. Page 119 October 25, 2006 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are they -- is people trained to take a look at photos like this to find out whether it is an exotic or natural vegetation? MS. ISTENES: Yes, environmentalists can look. They can tell if it's wetlands, wetland vegetation, slash pines, uplands. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can they tell exotics? MS. ARNOLD: Oh, yeah. MR. SCHMITT: And they go out and do a site visit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And your staff is educated to do that? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, and we consult with the environmental staff all the time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So they're both educated to make that determination by a photo? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: Sure, trained biologists, arborists. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, nothing. I can't tell the difference. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know what bamboo looks like. COMMISSIONER HENNING: From the air? VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, you better believe it. You take a look at my house, you're going to see over one corner, it looks like a big explosion, like a fireworks explosion, going several different ways. Covers an area that's probably about, oh, a couple hundred square feet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's bamboo, huh? VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very easy to identify. Okay. Page 120 October 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, ladies and gentlemen, here we are. We're at nine o'clock, what do you say, call it a night? COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's been 12 hours. Let's call it a night. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's call it a night. Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Commissioners, before we do that, we need to determine when we will continue the rest of this first hearing. We have about four or five more hours' work on the first hearing of the amendments. Not as hard as this, the easy stuff. We looked at -- you have the dates of Monday the 30th, like we said, all day. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thirtieth of October? MS. FABACHER: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm okay with that. MS. F ABACHER: You have -- want to state a time for the record that this meeting -- this first -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Start it earlier, like -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nine. MS. FABACHER: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nine a.m. MS. F ABACHER: Just state for the record that the continuation of this first hearing of the LDC 2006 cycle one will be continued at nine o'clock on Monday, October 30th. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's already on my calendar. MS. FABACHER: Thank you so much. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what I just said, by the way. MS. FABACHER: I think it will be far less painless on Monday. VICE-CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. And if there's Page 121 October 25, 2006 no other business, we're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:05 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~.>~-- FRANK HALAS, Chairman \ \~YJ '. _~? '~!;9~, ATTEST;-..Gx-" ' QW:rdlrr,p:-'13ROCK, CLERK '-.....,~ - "',' "'""I ".. . ~~' .... ~( AtteSt'., to eM InNA S 111A1bn 0.1" These minutes approv~y the Board on I ( / 2l? jl...iXJb as presented ~' or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 122