Loading...
CCPC Minutes 07/25/2007 LDC July 25, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, July 25, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION for the Land Development Code Amendments, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Tor Kolflat Brad Schiffer Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff Paul Midney (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Catherine Fabacher, Planning Services - LDC Coordinator Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Susan Istenes, Zoning Director JeffKlatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome, everybody. It's the Land Development Code meeting ofthe Collier County Planning Commission, and it's the 25th of July. And would you please rise to be -- not to be sworn in by the court reporter, but to pledge allegiance to the flag. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please take the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, he's here, too. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next -- I don't have an agenda in front of me. I don't know one was issued for the meeting other than the fact it's the LDC meeting. So we'll go through a couple housekeeping issues. One is our next meeting, I believe is our regular meeting next on the 2nd of August; is that correct? MS. F ABACHER: No. August the 8th at 8:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But our regular meeting is-- Page 2 July 25, 2007 MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the 2nd of August. And just checking with everybody. That will be next Thursday. Is everybody intending to be here? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I will not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat you will not be here? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And everybody else, fine. We'll still have a quorum. Thank you, sir. And then August 8th will be the continuation of this meeting. And so that will be a daytime meeting, is it? MS. F ABACHER: At 8:30, begins at 8:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8:30. Does everybody knows that they're going to be here? Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That will be here, at 8:30, this room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our meetings this time on these issues will be here. There's going to be -- now, I have two procedural things to talk about. One will be how today's meeting will be handled and another one is a -- more of a, I guess, I don't know if it's political or a way we address things in the public. The moratorium ordinance was, as everybody expected, very controversial and we spent a lot of time on it, and each one of us had our reasons for saying why we didn't particularly either vote in favor or not in favor. One thing that's come out of that, there's been a lot of questions of each of us of why we voted the way we did, and we have absolute, I think, opportunity and expectation to say why we voted the way we did, but none of us have the right to say why this commission voted the way it did unless it reiterates what we stated on the record. And yes, we voted it down. We recommended by a majority, but Page 3 July 25, 2007 each of us had a different reason. So I ask would respectfully, if any of you are contacted by the media or discussing this, that you try to explain your position on it, but please don't try to explain mine or anybody else's because those are our own issues, and we can answer that either by reviewing the record or addressing it ourselves. So that's one housekeeping matter. And the second one is, the way these meetings were handled in the past, we sometimes had two meetings on these hearings on the LDC amendments. MS. F ABACHER: Two hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The code is -- there were some changes made. And the way the code reads now, we shall have one meeting unless we vote to continue the issue into a further refinement. Now, what that means is that if we come into something tonight and we finalize it here tonight and staff doesn't have to come back with some corrections, we can be done with it. Ifwe feel it needs to be refined, we can keep continuing this meeting until such point that it gets refined enough that we feel it's either going to go forward with a negative or a positive recommendation, and that will eliminate the need for a second meeting but we have a continuous continuing of this meeting until we resolve the issue. And Mr. Klatzkow, is that a -- is that clearly (sic) enough or do you have a better way to clarify it? MR. KLA TZKOW: No. I think that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then if everybody's comfortable with that, what we'll do, at the end of each one of these LDC amendments, I'll ask, are we -- for a majority opinion or for a majority vote on if we want to hear it further or be done with it and vote into approval or denial on it tonight, and we'll keep going that way until we finish them all. Okay. And with that, I don't think there's any other housekeeping issues. I don't remember any other regular items. Page 4 July 25, 2007 So Catherine, are you the one that's going to be walking us through how we're going to -- MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- move forward? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: For the record, Catherine -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, excuse me. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was thinking, just for order, why don't we -- there are staff members that are on some of these items. Why don't we let them go home as fast as we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what you've done, isn't it? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: I have it arranged that they -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: I don't have the whole staff, but we will have the full staff on August the 8th, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. MR. KLA TZKOW: Do you want to do the public first? MS. F ABACHER: Huh? MR. KLA TZKOW: You want to do the public first? MS. FABACHER: Well, yeah, we can if you want, but I mean, then we'll present that issue. I think we have two members of the public here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are both members of the public here, by their speaker slips, for the same item? MS. FABACHER: I have one speaker slip. MS. HUMPHRIES: I'm the only speaker. MS. F ABACHER: And you're speaking on the setbacks in the Estates, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The setback in the Estates is the Page 5 July 25, 2007 second or third one up? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll get to it pretty quick, so-- MS. F ABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In order to allow you to not be sidetracked, we'll just go forward with the agenda like it is. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. All right. I think I said good evemng. And also before we began, I did want to clarify that if Patrick White's watching, he's going to be very upset because he's always a stickler about the distinction between a hearing and a meeting, and I think what you're saying is we can have all the meetings we want but we're only required to have one public hearing, just to state it for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we opened the public -- we've opened this meeting up. And if you want to call it a hearing because of the way it was advertised, that's fine, but this is the only one, I believe, now that we have to retain and continue as being open until we finish. MS. F ABACHER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you can call it anything you want. We're just -- I'm sure whatever the advertisement -- MS. FABACHER: Well, there's a distinction, because you can have a bunch of meetings to one public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: So I just -- we never said the word hearing, so anyway. And before we begin, I would like to introduce a new staff member who's graciously been given to help us with the LDC now, and that's John Kelly. John, you want to stand up? (Applause.) Page 6 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're the guy with the flack vest on. We recognize you. MS. FABACHER: Okay great, all right. Should we begin on page A of our summary sheet and page 1 of our green book? And we're talking about the -- remove the motel/hotel density in the residential tourist zoning district from the transfer of development rights provisions. If you look on page 2, it's down towards the end. As you know, only -- you can only transfer residential units and -- R T district allowed motels, and so mistakenly they gave you 26 units for the motel, but a motel's not residential, it's commercial. So compo planning wants to strike that. Anybody have any questions on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Comments from the commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a recommendation that this move forward with approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 7 July 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Boy, if we could run through the agenda like this, we'll be done. MS. FABACHER: Okay, great. Okay. So then -- I don't know. All right. Then the next item, which is going to be on page -- I think you see the note that the Goodland was pulled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. F ABACHER: On page B of our summary sheets and on page -- beginning on page 3 are changes to the Bayshore mixed-use district and the Gateway Triangle mixed-use district. And we have David Jackson and Jean Jourdan here tonight to discuss the changes with you and go over the map changes. So did you want to start, Jean or David? MS. JOURDAN: Yes. Good evening. For the record, Jean Jourdan with the Bayshore Gateway Redevelopment Agency. The LDC amendments before you are for the Bayshore mixed-use overlay, and that is the first one. There's actually two. One is for the gateway overlay also. The LDC amendments include additions and deletions of language for clarification at the -- and at the request of Catherine Fabacher, there's deletion of the residential uses from the land use table and adding them under the residential subdistrict. Reduction of the residential building square footage, reduction of the building -- residential building height, change to the building line to a setback line, map changes designating lots adjacent to the neighborhood commercial subdistrict for accessory parking zone, and furthermore, there will be map changes to the gateway mixed-use district also. What I would like to do is, when we get to parking -- because I know usually the procedure is you guys go page by page. When we Page 8 July 25,2007 get to parking I'd like to pause so that I can make some comments at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if nobody objects, I think we ought to proceed page by page as we have in the past because it seems to get us through this okay. And Jean, if you're finished then, we'll -- MS. JOURDAN: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll just start with page 3, it's the introduction. Anybody? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Jean, this is relative to -- you're requesting to do this with renovations to existing building. What's going to actually define existing building? Let's say I have a lot large enough to add another building. Is that a new building? I could argue in the building code I could, by building type, make that part of the same building. So is that a new building or is that an existing building if I create a new, mayor may not be, detached building -- or attached building? MS. JOURDAN: That would be an existing building, but we put this in here to define it because in the Land Development Code in this section, there is a percentage-wise if renovations are over a certain percentage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Show me that when we get there then. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When we get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Just a question. Why do you want to reduce the minimum required residential building square footage? What is the motivation? MS. JOURDAN: Because the lots that we are dealing with in the area are rather small. There's 40- and 50-foot lots. When the regulations were initially done, it was -- it required a Page 9 July 25, 2007 minimum of 1,500 square feet, and we found that that's been too large in order to put on some of these smaller lots. So we'd like to reduce it so if someone has a 40-foot lot, they can actually put something smaller than a 1,500-square-foot house on it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So accommodating existing lot sizes that are there? MS. JOURDAN: Right, uh-huh. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, are you going to come back every LDC cycle with changes to this district? You guys are -- MS. JOURDAN: Until we get it right. Any recommendations, please feel free to let us know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we did that the first multiple times we beat this thing up, but I hate to keep see it keep coming back so much. Page 4. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I think Ms. Caron's finger was up there first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Under accessory parking zone-- MS. JOURDAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- can you read that sentence to me? Because to me it's really awkward and I'm not sure what it means. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. The -- you want the entire sentence? Residentially zoned lots having a common lot line with the -- and under the same ownership or legal control, lease, easement, et cetera, as the subdistrict in C and used for off-street parking or water retention and management only. That's defining that accessory Page 10 July 25, 2007 parking zone are the lots which are next to the NC lots. And the only way that it can be defined as an accessory parking zone is if it's under common ownership. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And I do understand what the sentence means. MS. JOURDAN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just --language-wise it's very awkward and isn't really even a complete sentence. MS. JOURDAN: Can you suggest any clarification? COMMISSIONER CARON: I didn't do that, but I'm more than happy to do that for you. MS. JOURDAN: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to get back to her before we finish this section. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I'll get back to her. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Under 2.03.07. (1 )(A) at the bottom, just a qualification for me, please. When possible, buildings, both commercial and residential, are located near the street and they have front porches and/or balconies. I think I understand the intent of that, but doesn't the lot line require, you know, where you site them, or are you just saying, you could put a building there and, oh, by the way, if you want a balcony, you can -- you can put -- or a porch, you can put it there and -- MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. For the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is it more informational? MS. JOURDAN : Yeah. For the old Florida style, it's saying, this is what we would like to see. You know, if it's possible for you to do this, this is what we'd like to see because we want an old Florida style theme, and so that's why that language is in there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's under purpose and intent, so . , It s more -- Page 11 July 25, 2007 MS. JOURDAN: Right. Right-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- informational-- MS. JOURDAN: -- it's informational. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- it's trying to outline -- okay. That's fine. That's what I thought. And I also had my mark on that same sentence that it seems odd to put off-street parking or water retention and reference it under parking. And I know you probably said, well, do I create two things. MS. JOURDAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it's curious. It is curious. I'm sure Commissioner Caron will come up with something. That was it for me on that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on 4? If not, page 5. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is on D again. So just to make sure, what I understand, that what that's saying is that if you have an existing thing, you could stay under C-l, but any new development, any -- which, again, is a new project, it's not a new building on an existing site, is going to have to be done under the BMUD. MS. JOURDAN: Right. What it's saying is, it's not renovations or adding onto a building; it's a vacant site that you're actually putting a new building on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And do they have to go before the commission to get that approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One of the problems we had in the past was that, you know, we had conventional zoning, we had the overlay and we had to go to the -- MS. JOURDAN: Oh, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- commission to get that approval, so in this case, these would automatically -- Page 12 July 25, 2007 MS. JOURDAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- obtain the rights of the BMUD? MS. JOURDAN: Yes, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 6? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait. I'm sorry. Let me go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry. On E again, just to understand that -- the renovations, the nonconforming buildings, are these buildings that are nonconforming to conventional zoning or nonconforming to the BMUD? MS. JOURDAN: This is nonconforming to conventional zoning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You all finished, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I am. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Mr. -- We're on page 6 at this point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I notice under -- well, it's kind of hard. Let's go down through the list where it says motor homes. Do you really mean mobile homes -- MS. JOURDAN: I'm sorry. We're at page 6? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. It's on page 6. MS. JOURDAN: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you mean -- when you say under number 6, motor homes, do you -- perhaps you mean mobile homes or manufactured homes? Because later on you do reference mobile homes, and I think that might be just an error -- that's a common error, by the way. A lot of people refer to a mobile home as Page 13 July 25, 2007 a motor home, and there is a vast distinction. MS. JOURDAN: Let me confer with Mr. Jackson. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because if you refer to page 8, you'll see that you reference mobile homes in the list, which I think is appropriate. MR. SCHMITT: I would have to agree, because a motor home would be a TTRV. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, it would. Something you can drive away, you-- MR. SCHMITT: And you wouldn't want that on a lot unless it was a motor coach type of a lot. So I think it's a good catch. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think their intent was really a motor home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on page 6? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was it for me. That's also on page 7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Oh, we'll get there. Ms. Caron? MS. JOURDAN: Okay. It was in the old table, but it is -- it should be mobile homes so it just transferred it over. But that is incorrect. Thank you for catching that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I had a question. Why is -- your R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 is the opposite from everything else we do. Your most intense is the -- or your least intenses, R-4, versus your most intenses, R -1, which is sort of -- goes the opposite of everything else that we do, and I just wondered why that was. MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. This was originally done by the consultant, and like those really aren't changes. That was already in the LDC. His reasoning, I can ask Dave if he knows. He doesn't know. But it's just been there since the overlay was initially originally Page 14 July 25, 2007 adopted. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just hope it's not confusing to people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Too late now. COMMISSIONER CARON: You know, we get a lot of people wanting regular R-1 zoning and they really don't intend for anything that dense. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, it is confusing. We went over that last time with them and we couldn't change it, but I mean, it started down the trail. But if every time everybody looks at it they get confused, can't we fix it? MR. JACKSON: David Jackson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time now. Go ahead, David. MR. JACKSON: David Jackson. We inherited this when it came out of the comprehensive planning and zoning department and we separated it out and it became part of the CRA, and then the consultant took it over. Nobody really knows how it got started or where it started, but it is something we inherited. We did discuss it last time. Mr. Schiffer, you and I discussed it also. The only thing -- if you really wanted it to change and reverse the numbers, we can do that. It requires a considerable map change. The only people that I know that really gets confused with it is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Us. MR. JACKSON: -- you and us because we work with it all the other time. The people that are buying and selling and living there, it means nothing special to them. COMMISSIONER CARON: One final question on that play -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- on that page, and this is probably the same answer, but under boathouses and dock facilities, do you need to say private? I don't know. It seems to be inconsistent Page 15 July 25, 2007 in here. For example, if you looked -- look at page 7, it says private boathouses and docks, whereas in R-1 it says docks and dock facilities. I just didn't know if it should be consistent, you're happy with it that way, we can't change it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a suggestion instead of having accessory uses separated out, boathouses, docks and dock facilities in one and then the other one just saying private boathouses and docks, why don't you just make them the same if that's what they can live with, then you don't have to deal with different definitions or interpretations of what it means. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Strain, are you referring to the word private in those two segments or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not necessarily. If you look on page 6 where it says accessory uses, there you separate boathouses, and then docks and dock facilities is two different accessory uses. But on the next page is where Ms. Caron was arguing, or noting, under B, accessory uses, you have stuff lumped under private boathouses and docks. I'm not sure there's any difference between Bland 2 or B4. Why don't you just pick one and make it the same. MR. JACKSON: Very good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's all Ms. Caron was trying to say, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which will it be? MS. JOURDAN: Private boathouses and docks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on page 7? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just that it's the same, that item eight is mobile home, and she'll make that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that goes for page 8. There are similar issues on page 8 with the mobile homes. There you did use private boathouses and docks. Any questions on page 8? Page 16 July 25, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 9 is finishing up the uses. And then we get into the tables. And why don't we just take the tables as a whole. They go from -- all the way from page 9 to page 31. Any questions then from 9 to 31? Last time we spent quite a bit of time on these, so hopefully they're not too bad. MS. JOURDAN: Yeah, ifI may interject. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. JOURDAN: These are mostly -- when I was going through this for this amendment, I found a lot of duplications, so that's what I did is, it's basically cleaning it up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Except-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? MS. JOURDAN: Except for the residential uses, which we struck through. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Except on page 18. I think if you look on page 18 in that listing, you'll find the word motor homes. Now, motor homes mayor may not apply if -- no, I don't think they apply. I think it would be mobile home. In the categories of BMUD neighborhood commercial and waterfront. I don't think you want motor homes there. I'm not sure you want a mobile home there either, but -- MS. JOURDAN: No. We wouldn't want a mobile home there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wondered and I thought, in the area if you're subject to flooding, that's an interesting question. MS. JOURDAN: No. I know we definitely didn't want a mobile home there, and so I would assume we wouldn't want the motor home COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if you don't want the motor home, the motor homes -- MS. JOURDAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- could get away, but do you Page 17 July 25, 2007 really want motor homes in that area. Is that a legal -- is that something you legally want? MS. JOURDAN: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not a mobile home park. MS. JOURDAN: No, no. We'll strike through that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I would agree -- MS. JOURDAN: Eliminate that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- with you. Strike it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: On the top of that same page, 18, just checking the footnote numbering, you're at 7 and 8 on your SIC code numbers and your 6 and 7 -- MS. JOURDAN: Okay. I see that. MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry. What page was that? COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 18. MS. JOURDAN: That's page 18. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Top of -- the very first miscellaneous repair service. They both should be 7, 8. MS. F ABACHER: I got that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. My question was on the __ since the motor home is purposely put in there, could that have come from your committees? I mean, you have the -- your CRA committee. Could they may have wanted that? MS. JOURDAN: Well, as Dave was saying, we sort of inherited that, and it's been in there from the beginning, and we just -- that's something that we haven't caught. I don't know of anyone coming forward saying they wanted motor homes. Do you remember any discussion? No. I think it's just an error. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, your land is low, so if there is a storm, FEMA would appreciate that in there because they Page 18 July 25, 2007 could stick a motor home in there quick. But anyway, I think since it's intentionally put in there so often, I'm not sure I would throw it away that fast. MS. JOURDAN: Well, I could check into that and then let you know that the next time we come back when we bring back these changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be a better way to do it rather than -- MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine, but I would just -- wouldn't you have to have a TTR V designation under there in order to have a motor home listed? I mean, you're not talking about having that as an accessory? You're not talking about having it be the primary, I hope. So you thinking that maybe a motor home would be allowed to come in and park or what? I'm not sure now -- MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. As I said, that's something that I need to -- really need to research. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- TTRV designation. So anyway, you're going to check it. MS. JOURDAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Why don't you just look into it, and that one will -- when you come back to us, because there's going to be a few others on this anyway. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 32. Mr. Caron, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: We're back to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you've still got more on the other -- both pages. Okay. Where are you, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: We're back to page 19. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: You have the same -- Page 19 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Footnote? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- footnote. MS. JOURDAN: The numbering issue? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Number 8. COMMISSIONER CARON: On performing arts theater. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. What I'll do is I'll make sure I go through these tables and make sure that the footnotes correspond on every one of them. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on the tables? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now we're to page 32. Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I guess the intent here, up until this there was a real intent of moving these structures up onto the street, so this is kind of abandoning that, correct? MS. JOURDAN: Correct. I'm going to have Dave give you a little bit of information on that as to originally what the consultant was thinking of this being a 5th Avenue type atmosphere. Well, with the way Bayshore is now, it's just not realistic because of how -- the road, and it's not really a 5th Avenue, so that's why. That's the reasoning behind that. Is there anything else? MR. JACKSON: Good answer. That's it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that was a problem. MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And certainly no one's going to sit in a little sidewalk five feet. I mean, you're going to want it deeper. So essentially number one is to build to the front setback line now. MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. That-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's nothing in there, right? I mean, That's totally crossed out. Page 20 July 25, 2007 MS. JOURDAN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number two, there was the desire to have at least the 35-foot deep building. But the way it's worded now, the front setback is still five feet. MS. JOURDAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I could set my building back 20 feet and, therefore, the building has to be no less than 35 feet from the setback, so I have a 15- foot building; is that what you intend? MS. JOURDAN: Right, still so you can have that staggering effect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But I mean, number two was originally put there saying, look, we want at least 35 feet of building up on the road. But now the way that's worded -- MS. JOURDAN: Oh, I see what you're saying now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you're not getting that unless MS. JOURDAN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not sure that I heard. I'm having trouble hearing so much -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Me too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- because his tones are so mellow, so I don't get it all. But we are on page 32, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. We're on page 32. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And did he just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer hasn't finished his questions. Is this -- your question about his question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to qualify and understand it. Page 21 July 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my point was is that number two was essentially requiring at least a 30-foot deep building. The way this is worded now, because it's not a build to, it's a setback, which means I don't have to put my building on that line. I can put it no closer than that line so, therefore, that's not going to guarantee the 35 feet. MR. JACKSON: Yes. Mr. Schiffer, I believe that there's a little bit of semantics working on that one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. JACKSON: When we changed the build to line to make it a setback line, we still want a building a minimum of 35 feet deep. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't you just say that. Just say the building's got to be 35 feet deep minimum, bang. MR. JACKSON: When the word setback gets inserted here in paragraph 2, what is the -- intent for that to be was where the building is set. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. JACKSON: That front line. At that point it must be at least 35 feet deep. And we'll clear that language up because I see exactly what you're saying. Confuse -- using the same terms for two different descriptions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And ifI can, just in that same area, because I had the same kind -- I think I had the same issues. He's a lot smarter than I am. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And mellow. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Setback, and then we reference it. My note to myself here is you have removed the word line yet you reference it, and then I make the supposition to myself, suppose the property is irregular in shape with a jot; where is the setback then? And then I guess I was -- what I was trying to evaluate, when you drop out the word setback line in that first portion of your chart, yet Page 22 July 25, 2007 you reference it again on page 35 under H. I was trying to follow whatever it is to be -- for consistency. MS. JOURDAN: Right. So you feel it would be clearer ifI added the word line to -- under there? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If that's what Mr. Schiffer was referencing. That's what I'm referencing anyway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the answer is, the minimum building depth is 35 feet. Bingo, you don't have to figure it out, you know. You'd get there fast. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, this is being recorded tonight, so we do have to be careful not to talk over one another, so please wait to be recognized and don't speak until the other person's finished. That would be helpful. I'm sure Terri would appreciate that. Okay. We're done with page 32. On to 33. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead Mr. Murray, and then Ms. Caron. And please, wait to be recognized before you start talking, that way there might be other people in line ahead of you. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're right. I'm looking at your chart at the top, more or less the top. It's -- building height of story, 14 feet. Does this ever consider parking under the structure? In other words, that maximum height is 42. But I notice that you also have another section that says somewhere I saw it there, oh, here, 56 feet maximum structural height. MS. JOURDAN: Yeah, that's maximum, and you could do the parking underneath. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I wanted to make sure of. MS. JOURDAN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was my only question on that. Thank you. Page 23 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: At the top of the page where it says maximum square footage, is that intent -- did you really intend to change what you've changed? Because-- MS. JOURDAN: I'm sorry. On page 33? Page 33, okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: 33. Building footprint and square footage. I mean, I see that as a real change in intent and -- MS. JOURDAN: Right, right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that may be what you want. MS. JOURDAN: Yes. As a matter of fact, Dave and Catherine had had specific conversations regarding that, and she wanted to make sure that Mr. Jackson -- should I say -- she wanted to make sure that that was his intent, and that is the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you realize that you've just taken a site that could hold a 20,000-square-foot building, at 56 feet high, you could put on a 100,000 square feet on that same site that you just had 20,000 square feet maximum? On. I mean, that's five times greater than the previous code. MS. JOURDAN: Dave, you want to respond to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Concurrency ought to be fun, and so should impact fees with a building that size. MR. JACKSON: Well, yes, sir, that is true, however, there are other things that will limit the amount of square footage that will be built and stacked upon that 20,000-square-foot footprint, parking, landscaping, water retention. So they need more land to accommodate all the other accouterments required by the code and by the overlay. So quite often there's other factors that will limit that total number of square footage that will be built on that footprint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- I mean, I think if that's what you -- as long as you realize that's what it is and you -- now that you do and -- I mean, I don't -- it's up to you guys in that area, but that's quite a lot more intensity that you had there originally, but if that's Page 24 July 25, 2007 what the committee wants then -- MR. JACKSON: Correct, yes, sir. But also, knowing the size and the shapes of most of our parcels, unless there's one heck of a lot of assemblage, somebody's not going to be able to build that intensity on a 20,000-square-foot footprint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions on page 33? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 34? Page -- well, one question on page 34. D6, parking is prohibited in the front of buildings. Does that apply -- I mean, are existing buildings adhering to that as well right now? MS. JOURDAN: Commissioner Strain, this is where I wanted to make some comments. Since receipt of your packets, we've had discussion with some of the development industry regarding the proposed changes to the parking requirements, and we agree there are some concerns warranted there and -- that warrant further discussion, and we'd like to revisit the proposed parking requirement that we put in there and make any revisions needed, send those out to you before the next meeting, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a good idea. MS. JOURDAN: -- have them be heard then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on page 34? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty-five? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Looking at E where it speaks of all buildings immediately adjacent. I know that our -- our chairman relates often to the difference between adjacent and abutting. Is that our best methodology that you say that that way? MS. JOURDAN: I'm sorry. Are we -- on page 35? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thirty-five under 2E. MS. JOURDAN: Okay,2E. Page 25 July 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The new E. MS. JOURDAN: The buildings immediately adjacent -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It says, all buildings immediately adjacent to Bayshore Drive. Just a question. MS. JOURDAN: I'm thinking. I think the term adjacent is proper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you trying to be contiguous to Bayshore, on Bayshore -- MS. JOURDAN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or -- because adjacent could be a little ways away. Abutting would be on. MS. JOURDAN: It would be any building that's facing on the road of Bayshore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't you want abutting that? MS. JOURDAN: So would that be abutting, you think, would be better? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think in the vernacular immediately adjacent is probably common, but abutting, I think, would be more precise. MS. JOURDAN: Abutting, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you ought to look at that and see if it's consistent with what you're thinking when you come back to us. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good catch, Mr. Murray. Page 36. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, page 35. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: On that same paragraph, it says that exceptions may be granted for mixed-use projects of two acres or greater through the administrative deviation process. Well, if I think about 5th A venue, all of the buildings line up there and they all have their main entrance on 5th Avenue. Page 26 July 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Now, often you can also enter those buildings from the back, but it's not a main entrance. Why would anybody want to have this main entrance to the back? I mean, why would you allow for a deviation? I'm not even -- MS. JOURDAN: This language was actually recommended by a developer who has a site development plan in, and the conceptual site development plan was approved but they need this in order to go forward with what was approved on the conceptual site development plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they drew a plan up for approval inconsistent with the code and now want to change the code; is that -- MS. JOURDAN: I don't think that-- MR. JACKSON: David Jackson again. That's not the overriding consideration. And the reason that you have two acres or more is that you can arrange your buildings, and if you put an internalized street system into your two acres, the first buildings that are adjacent to or abutting Bayshore may not be oriented to Bayshore but may be oriented to the entryway into the internal street work, and that way you don't have a building on Bayshore with its back to the next building and the next streets. So it becomes a large enough parcel where you can internalize your own road grid system. It was to provide that for a larger development. Now, the small parcels we've got that are a quarter acre, a third of an acre, yes, and they're adjacent to another small parcel, they're going to have their front door on Bayshore because they can't do an internalized system, road system, to make it happen. So this is why this is put in there is for those larger projects which may take and internalize the system in a road grid. There are very few of those that would happen. And I'll just give you an example real quickly is, right over here we have Gulf Gate Page 27 July 25, 2007 Shopping Plaza, 14 acres. If you take a dead shopping center and turn it inside out, it will internalize the grid system within it and turn all the stores inside on it, and you can't take all the buildings and turn them around the other way, because then the buildings turn their backs on the main concourse of the pedestrian fare. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wanted to mention to you, Mr. Jackson, you may need to be talking a little closer to the mike. Between the court reporter and some of us up here, need your -- louder voice, it would be helpful. If we were to do what you're suggesting, then wouldn't the backs of the buildings then be facing Bayshore? MS. JOURDAN: The sides would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sides. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions on page 35? Ms. Caron, does that answer -- COMMISSIONER CARON: As long as it's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 36? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Number three, remove the comma, I think appropriate. All boat racks shall be enclosed with a wall. That's a simple matter. I believe that should be removed. Then under number 4.02.18, I just made a mark here for myself with a question, doesn't the five-foot setback do this where you've placed -- you've struck language here, and I'm not sure -- I don't know. Maybe it's not a significant question, but when I read it over, that's what I thought. Doesn't the setback accomplish this? MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. I agree with you. It doesn't need to be struck through -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Page 28 July 25, 2007 MS. JOURDAN: -- in order to accomplish what we're trying to do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then further down on 36, I started to do a little calculation to try to figure out the single-family lots, and when you relate it against the two-family and the arithmetic, it gets a little strange when you try to squeeze a two-family onto the properties that you're -- for these little lots that we're talking about. Anyway, without getting too strange about this one, if these lots are almost all ofthem, what 50, 60 -- 60 feet deep? MS. JOURDAN: They're -- in the overlay there are a lot of 40-foot wide lots, and the reason being, the overlay has the mobile homes in there. But we put the mobile -- we put it where you can put a single- family house on a mobile home lot. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I think you're really squeezing them in because I did -- you know, you're just about -- 1,500 squares would not have made it on most of these. MS. JOURDAN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you might -- you're very close -- MS. JOURDAN: That's why we changed it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess you did your own arithmetic. But when I looked at that and I compared it against the following page, 37, for the two-family, just -- I just wonder what we're doing for folks. That's not part of this particular evaluation, perhaps, but it strikes me as odd. And that was it, that was my only comment on that. If there's anything you'd like to -- and what did I have here? How visioned under, over, side to side. Okay. I'm going to stop now because it's arithmetic, and you folks are involved in that. If this is what you're comfortable with, well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else got a question on 36? Page 29 July 25, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about 37? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On that chart, looking, let's see, one, two, three from the bottom, maximum actual height, where you reference not to exceed 35 feet as measured from peak of enclosure to the average center line elevation of the adjacent roadway. Is that commonly the crest of the road? Is that what we commonly call it or-- MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. This language was actually recommended by Ms. Fabacher so that it would be clear. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that the new format that we're going to be using from now on, center line elevation? MS. JOURDAN: Catherine, he's referring to the language that you had suggested for -- it's on page 37, the 35 feet as measured from the peak of enclosure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, before you answer, ifactual height is already defined in the code, why do we need to redefine it in this document? Why don't we just strike any reference to a new definition and live with what the code already went through excruciating pain to describe? Is that -- MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you nod your head with noise so that Terri can take it. MS. F ABACHER: I agree, Commissioner. I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to leave the bold actual height in but strike the redefinition of actual height because it's already defined in the code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. So should I keep in, not to exceed 35 feet and then mark out the as measured from peak from there; is that what you suggesting? Page 30 July 25,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the new language that was suggested take out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think it's worth putting in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page 377 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty-eight? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 39? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: At the bottom of the page where it says single-family detached, did you -- you wanted that to be 40 feet and not 50 feet? MS. JOURDAN: Yeah, that's specifically for those smaller lots. COMMISSIONER CARON: I wanted to make sure that wasn't a typo. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 40? Last page of this section is a map. Any questions on the map? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Jean, we got through the first part of it. Before we go to the second part, Mr. Schiffer, you were absolutely right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask one question on the map. Is the only changes is the addition of the A TZ zones, correct? MS. JOURDAN: No, there's-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No other designations? MS. JOURDAN: Well, would you like me to point out all of the changes? If you look at the line at the top where the GTMU -- GTMD mixed use is, actually we moved that line to north of Davis Boulevard because the language in the compo plan actually excluded that from qualifying so it was a conflict. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why don't you use the other Page 31 July 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That will be in the next-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, please, if you've got-- okay, but -- yes, sir. Mr. Adelstein, go ahead. What did you want to say? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I just said, could you pick up the other mike and then we can see you with your hand and get it done. MS. JOURDAN: Testing? Okay. Can you hear me? If you see this line here, it was further down but actually it was in conflict with the comprehensive plan language so we moved it so that it would be the same, it would be consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're still on the BMUD, not the -- you've on the wrong map. MS. JOURDAN: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The question was -- MS. JOURDAN: When you said map changes, I just started talking about it all. Yeah, for the BMUD, it is the APC, but also over here, which is next to Windstar, this was also BMUD, but we removed it for the fact that this area here has an agreement with Windstar that they develop under their guidelines, their standards. Even though they're not part of the PUD, they actually have an agreement to develop under their standards. So that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the property owners for this objecting? Because the county doesn't enforce private deed restrictions that I know of. MS. JOURDAN: Yeah, that I don't know. But I know there was some issues with it being in the overlay that they were -- these houses here are, you know, larger scale than something you're going to -- that you're going to find over here, and so they were having a problem building, and plus you would have to put a front porch, a certain percentage of the building, and it just didn't meet with what was already there. Page 32 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you, by the next meeting, provide us with the documentation you're referring to that would fix that property? MS. JOURDAN: Sure, no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Since it is coming into play for the county, I think we have a right to see that. MS. JOURDAN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on the map? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not on the map, but I still have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. We're still on the BMUD section, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. And the first question I asked, if we -- where is it showing how to define what's an existing building and what's not? MS. JOURDAN: I'm sorry. As far as the renovation goes, that would have to be something -- it's in the Land Development Code, the regular Land Development Code where it says 50 percent of the appraised. He wants to know that section. I don't know it off the top of my head, I'm sorry. MS. F ABACHER: For the record, Catherine Fabacher. It's the nonconformity section, 9.03.00. They're just referencing -- and that's 50 percent, I believe, ofthe replacement costs, nonconforming. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would mean that it's a new building. So in other words, ifI have an existing building there and I'm going to increase the -- 50 percent of the replacement cost of it, then it's a new building. It's not an existing building being renovated? MS. JOURDAN: Then the new code kicks in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to bring your mike a little closer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the new code Page 33 July 25, 2007 MS. JOURDAN: Yeah. You have to bring it up to where -- you have to, where the property is nonconforming, say, for instance, the setbacks, the flood elevation, all that, if you go past that, then you have to -- the regular code kicks in, and that was because it's not only in the Land Development Code -- Catherine, please correct me if I'm incorrect -- but it's also to do with the state and the floodplain, the whole conversation that Mike DeRuntz and us was having, that's -- MS. F ABACHER: Well, this is just cross-referencing our policy for nonconforming buildings and just reiterating it because they wanted the language in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my question isn't exactly for nonconforming buildings, although they may not be conforming. They certainly would be if they immediately had to hit the BMUD statistics and they didn't meet it. But it was really -- remember the introduction to this, it had -- it discussed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't push your mike too far away there, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's back. I had to turn the page. It says that -- this is to clarify additions or renovations to existing buildings. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm just concerned, when is a building existing and -- I mean, because there are projects down there that have buildings on them that could be added onto, or new buildings could also be placed on the site. MS. JOURDAN: No. For our purposes, intent of the overlay, if this helps clarify your question, is that when we say that the overlay development standards come into play, that is actually completely new development. That's not adding on to a building. That's not if, you know, it's nonconforming and that it's completely applicable to new development, a brand new building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So-- Page 34 July 25, 2007 MS. JOURDAN: Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. So any additions to be building in the BMUD area are going to be treated and it's going to cause the project to be totally treated as new building in BMUD? MS. JOURDAN: No, no. Just the opposite. Any additions, you can -- you can opt -- when it's renovations and additions to the building, you can opt to development under the underlying zoning or do the BMUD design standards. Only when it's new development do you have to develop under the BMUD design standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that I understand. MS. JOURDAN: That's not additions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we don't have to hang everybody up on it, but my concern is that I think we should be clear as to what's a new building, what's not. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And building, you know, could mean two buildings side by side with firewalls and stufftoo, so it's even more complicated. But let's -- since you're coming back, maybe we'll have a conversation on the phone or something, okay. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you need to address it by a reference to the current section of the LDC, maybe that's the simplest way. But if you'd take a look at that before you come back, that would be helpful. Is there anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had started to say, Brad, you were right earlier. I didn't realize that the two sections that were ahead of the Estates setbacks for which members of the public are here were these lengthy beat-them-up-type sections. So before we go into the Gateway portion of this, I'd like to take a few minutes and revert back to the Estates issue so we can resolve Page 35 July 25, 2007 what I know members of the public are here for. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, I have a small PowerPoint if you want a presentation. If you'd like to see it or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the Estates issue? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know where --I'm surprised you got that on every one -- everything on this book you got PowerPoints for? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. I'm just curious as to what spurred your reasoning to have one for this. It's pretty straightforward basically. MS. F ABACHER: We were asked to trace the history of -- there was some questions before the board about when did this change and yada, yada, yada, so we kind of did a lot of research. And at one point -- we're going back to language that we had before and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why -- did any of the research that you did bother to contact anybody living in Golden Gate Estates about this change? Because I did. And the people out there are pretty upset that nobody was consulted, no civic groups. There was no outreach to the community, and this has a major impact in lots in Golden Gate Estates and the closeness, which is a huge factor in why people move out there. If we wanted megahomes, we would have moved to Donna Caron's district. But I just was curious as to -- you just said you did some research. I wish that the research that staff had done, or whoever initiated this, was simply go to the civic groups first, and them, because I've got letters from the civic groups out there as well as the people in those groups. Nobody likes this idea. It's pretty different than what the Estates was formed under. So I mean, I'm not sure what you're trying sell with the PowerPoint, but I mean, I don't -- I can tell everybody what -- I'm Page 36 July 25, 2007 certainly going to express my concerns. I'm going to read you letters from the Estates people. You all want to see the PowerPoint, that's up to you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to make a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me get everything on record first, then we have one public speaker, too, because this has got a lot of people upset and I don't know why. I don't know why this public couldn't have just been brought into the discussion before it went to change their lots, their homes, and their neighbors. MR. SCHMITT: For clarification, we were directed by the board. This was at board's direction to prepare this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I spoke to one board member who represents the Estates, and he didn't know anything about it, so -- MR. SCHMITT: It was -- it was at a board meeting. Catherine, what page is that on? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 75 -- 74. No. MR. SCHMITT: I think we noted on there that it was a -- it was board directed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there was-- MS. F ABACHER: Board directed at the March 13,2007 meeting. I kind of -- that's what explains -- PowerPoint just explains what it's all about, but I do agree with you, we should have done a better job on outreaching to the public like this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if there's -- something like this were to happen, the community ought to be involved because they're the ones that are living and breathing in these neighborhoods. And if they say, yeah, this is good for our neighborhood, fine, but I sent this and immediately got the various -- and there's several groups out there, and not a single one had heard about it. They were outraged by it. I've got letters for the record. We have a public speaker. I know she's going to be addressing it here, so -- MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, it was a public petition by a Page 37 July 25, 2007 property owner who was making claims that the zoning department was prohibiting him -- prohibiting him from adequately developing his property based on -- it was adequately -- that we were prohibiting him from developing his property. It was a public petition. The board then directed us to develop an LDC amendment to basically fundamentally reduce the setbacks that were mandated, that are in the code, and it was a board-directed action. It was based on a -- it was based on the board's direction. I guess we'll have to pull the minutes of that meeting. It was clear and evident that it was a board-directed action. And that doesn't mean that we agree with it, but we -- 1 have to comply with the board, and that is to develop the LDC amendment. And as far as public notification, it's like any other LDC amendment, we develop it, and this is the -- this is the public hearing for those. This -- we've already been through the DSAC and EAC. This is part of the public hearing process. I'm not sure what else you would have wanted us to do that would be any different than any other LDC amendment that we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, Mr. Schmitt, you don't need to pull the minutes. I understand what you've said. I don't doubt what you've said now that you've told us that. Second of all, as far as when something like this that is pretty substantial, when you take 10 percent of a frontage versus some of the lots out there now and you change the context of the neighborhood, when these civic groups are very active. They're well-known by all their elected officials. I'm just -- wish that someone had notified them this is potential before they decided to -- I didn't know how it initiated, but now that I know, I wish it had gone to some of these groups for review before it came back. This is inconsistent with the Golden Gate Master Plan Study Committee's findings and everything else. I'm just surprised it was done with -- Page 38 July 25, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: I prefer if -- because ifthere's a question, I'd prefer -- and if I could beg of your indulgence, that -- for Catherine to go through the history on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Catherine. Let's get it over with, and then we'll discuss it and I'll read the letters I have and I'll talk to the public speakers. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Direction to make the setbacks and the -- MR. SCHMITT: Catherine, can you -- MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. The direction to make setbacks in the Estates more equitable came from the Board of County Commissioners' public hearing on March 13. It arose from a case where petitioner had a 150-foot-wide lot. It had two-and-a-quarter-acre lot. In 1986 when he built the garage, the side setback in the Estates was 10 percent of the width of the lot for all structures. The gentlemen's problem is that now he wants to convert the garage to a guesthouse, however, the side setback structure for all structures in the Estates now is 30 feet and the garage has become a nonconforming structure so it can't be expanded. This is a little bit of the history. The Estates zoning district first appeared in 1968. The following requirements were minimum lot area, two-and-a-half acres. Minimum lot width, 250 feet. Maximum lot, coverage of principal structures, 25 percent. Front yard 50 percent, side yard 20, rear yard 50. '70s, the requirements were changed in the LDC to be two-and-a-quarter acres instead of two and a half, the minimum lot width was 150 feet. The maximum coverage of all roofed structures was reduced to 10 percent. The front yard setback was 75 feet. The side yard setback was 10 of the width of the lot, not to exceed 30 feet, and the rear setback was changed to 75 feet, and the front setback had been changed, too. Page 39 July 25, 2007 January '82, basically the same except that they removed the lot coverage requirements. In '91 when the LDC was, I think you would say recodified the first time when they were -- first it went all into a big book, it was then made to be -- this is when the change occurred for the side yard setbacks. You can see minimum area, the width in the front yard are all the same. The side yard then became 30 percent -- 30 feet or 10 percent of lot width for legally nonconforming lots, which would be lots that are less than 150 wide and less than two-and-a-quarter acres, and then the rear yard was 75 feet. And this kind of demonstrates to you what generally speaking we have out there. We have some 75 by 330s, we have 105 by 330s. Those are nonconforming lots. They're still allowed to use the 10 percent setback. You'll see on the 75-by-330-foot lot, it's seven and a half feet on each side. The 105 by 330 is 10.5 feet on each side. This 150 by 330 would be a -- conforming would be a regular lot, so it has to have 30 feet, and then 30 feet is the same for the 330, 330-by-330-foot lot. The point that the applicant had made at the time is he only gets to use a certain percentage of his lot where all these other people get to use a greater extent of their lot, so that's where it came from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Couldn't this fellow have applied for a variance? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So instead ofa variance for this one man, we're going to change thousands and thousands of lots to inconvenience all the rest of the buyers and property owners in Golden Gate Estates. I just -- that just doesn't make sense to me. MR. SCHMITT: No argument from staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the end? Thank you. I can read my letters for the record if the commission doesn't mind. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Don't have to. Page 40 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The first one is from Mr. Peter Goodwin. He's last year's president of the Golden Gate -- or the Oakes Advisory Group. I'm writing to register my opposition to decreasing the setbacks on Estates lots. My neighbor, Judy Jankowski has asked me to convey to you her opposition as well. She doesn't use email. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Slow down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We believe that many of the long-time residents of the Estates moved here to ensure themselves a measure of privacy that is hard to find in western Collier County outside the Estates. Proposed amendment erodes the privacy for no good reason. Under current side setbacks, even the smallest lot in the Estates has room for a truly monumental residence if it is situated properly. The stated aim of the amendment is to produce separable setbacks for lots of varying frontage. Its essential effect, however, is to have the setbacks on properties of two-and-a-quarter acres and less. If equitably it is the focus, may I recommend fixing each side setback at 20 percent of the front (sic). If this seems unreasonable to any citizen or staff, perhaps the true aim of the amendment is just to permit grander homes to face the street on smaller lots. No, thank you. Ms. Jankowski owns a buildable lot between our two homes. Everyone should be so lucky to have a neighbor like her. Obviously not everyone, or this amendment would not have been drafted. Letter from Mark Teeters, past president of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I have a few thoughts regarding one of your LDC amendments for tomorrow. I don't have the item numbers, but it is regarding the setbacks in Golden Gate Estates. First of all, why is it necessary to change this? There could be ramifications down the road towards buildout, not to mention density Page 41 July 25, 2007 issues. Weare starting to see the emergence of megahomes in the Estates as well. Just picture a megahouse on 1.25 acres next door to you. There's been no attempt to outreach that I know of to the residents of the Estates on this issue. My suggestion is a well-advertised public information meeting providing you feel there is actually a reason to even consider this. I don't feel there is a reason to change or amend the LDC. I have one more. This one is from -- no, I don't have it. I had one from Carl Frye, who's the current president of the Oakes Advisory Group. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have it here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you? Okay. Well, let's -- would you mind reading it -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You could read it in, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Frye said, Mark and fellow Planning Commissioners, this email is not in an official board capacity but is my personal opinion. I see only adverse effects. I'm opposed to change to lateral side backs (sic) in the Estates. This will nearly cut in half the minimum separation between our residences. A two-and-a-half acre lot currently requires 30 on each side. Equals 60 minimum separation. After the change, only 33 would be the minimum separation. This level of separation is a significant differentiator between Estates and gated community zoning. It was the major reason my wife Heidi and I chose Oakes Estates to live and raise our family. Please do not allow this change to occur. IfI have somehow missed some inherent advantage to this change, please let me know; otherwise, it appears only the larger homes that crowd our neighborhood (sic). I believe we can build large enough homes while maintaining the current setbacks. Now, the reason the -- Page 42 July 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Another one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is from Tim Nance, president of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. I am writing to you to express my concern regarding issues coming before you on July 25th. Any proposal to reduce side setbacks on Estates zoned properties has potentially serious implications with significant impacts and certainly deserves full study and discussion. I am most upset that this proposal seemingly came out of left field with no notice whatsoever to any of the residents or civic or neighborhood groups in the Estates. To summarily change a major element in the LDC and our only significant rural community without full discussion and review is unacceptable. Estates properties and the quality of life in rural Collier County are greatly influenced by drainage and surface water management issues, wildfire threat and needed mediation, and a host of related and environmental concerns. Any LDC changes affecting density or access should certainly include a full presentation to all stakeholders and should probably involve South Florida Water Management District, soil and water management, Florida Division of Forestry, Collier County Stormwater and a host of others. This is not a simplistic issue. I hope you will give full consideration of the serious nature and implementations of this proposal, and recommend additional study and public information involvement before any BCC action is taken. Thank you. Now, the reason you don't have the groups taking official action is because from the time I found out to the time they could be notified and to the time of this meeting, they didn't have time to have a meeting to bring it out; otherwise, I would have gone to those meetings and expressed this concern. Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti. Page 43 July 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is it too premature to make a motion of rejection? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to hear our public speakers first. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I would like to make a comment, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I'm going to add a little extra nail on this, is that I remember a presentation made by Stan Tranowski (sic) who very clearly indicated that -- to the board that the problem with getting rid of water was the result of these houses being built and the insufficiency of drainage. And I think we're going absolutely in the wrong direction if we're going to allow this type of structure to be built, and I would be wholeheartedly in favor of a variance procedure on this matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Again, no argument. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if we could get copies of those, I don't think -- none of those were sent to the staff. I'd like to include those in the packet to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They all came through my county website, and the one or two that came inadvertently to my other site, I've already foremailed and I'll re -- forwarded those to my county website, so what I can do is I can reforward all those to you. MR. SCHMITT: If you would, please just forward them to Catherine, because I want to include them in the packet to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if it's appropriate. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't want to deny this speaker speaking, but I think if we all discuss our position on this, they may not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would like to get this speaker on record so that when it goes forward, there's a -- not only do we have Page 44 July 25, 2007 the letters, but any speakers that want to speak for or against it can be fairly representing them. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: If you'd like to speak, I don't want to stop you from speaking by any means. MS. FABACHER: Our speaker is Ms. Humphries, and if you'd like to come up and state your name and address for the record. Thank you. MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries. I live in Golden Gate Estates. I've lived there for -- well, I've lived in Collier County for 30 years. The Estates since '92. I was also on the board of directors for the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association from 1996 till 2006. When I read a brief description of this proposal, red warning lights went off. I can only think of two reasons for such an amendment, and one would be to increase the density in the Estates, the other would be to build over-sized megahomes on existing one-and-a-quarter lots. As far as density goes, we are presently examining how to comply with the 60- to 70,000 residents that are projected for the buildout in the Estates. This is being addressed by the 951 Horizon Advisory Committee at this time. As for megahomes, on five-acre lots, that's fine, but when you get to two-and-a-half and one-and-a-quarter lots, it's not appropriate. There is a problem with drainage in the Estates because of the increased building, so covering land with concrete is not appropriate. I realize that the new building code addresses increased drainage for new homes, but there is no substitute for natural absorption as opposed to man-made absorption. When I was on the board of directors for the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, our motto was to preserve and protect the Estate's way of life. This amendment is a contradiction to that philosophy. Page 45 July 25, 2007 We seem to be always fighting to sustain this unique platted subdivision with its characteristic rural wooded lots. We have plenty of issues. We don't need more. I oppose this amendment CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Pat. Are there any -- any other speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any further comments from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one, Mark, but it's a technicality on the wording. It sounds like it would be a waste of time, then I'll spend it -- so I'll bow out of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion of denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a motion to recommend denial of this particular LDC amendment. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second made by Commissioner Adelstein. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Page 46 July 25, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you all. I think that is a resounding no. Mr. Schmitt, when it goes forward, so -- MR. SCHMITT: I have the minutes of the meeting if anybody wants to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't doubt anything you've said, Mr. Schmitt. I just wish it had been handled differently, but -- are there any other public speakers registered tonight? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll go back into the Gateway Triangle issue. And we'll take a break at seven o'clock for the court reporter and Kady, and at that time of the break, when we come back, we'll decide when we want to quit for this evening. Jean, it's all yours. MS. JOURDAN: Good evening. For the record, again, Jean Jourdan. Now we're moving on to the Gateway Triangle mixed-use district. These changes basically mirror the Bayshore mixed-use district except for map change, and I'm ready for your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on page 41, is the beginning of this, and it goes through page 72 and finishes up. And as Jean says, this is duplicative language of the prior district. So with those changes we made previously already going to be made on this one, are there any additional ones that were unique to this particular section that need to be brought out? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I have a question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You indicate that this is inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. In what way? MS. JOURDAN: The Growth Management Plan has language in it which does not permit properties that are -- that access -- I'm sorry. Page 47 July 25, 2007 I'm getting tongue-tied here. It doesn't permit properties that are south of Davis there to participate in the mixed-use program so, therefore, the coloring of the map actually was a conflict because it showed that they could because it showed that they were mixed use. So what we did was we actually took that off. IfI could try to find that language for you, or I can bring it back for you next time too, but that's why it was actually a conflict because it was saying that, okay, you can't develop mixed use, which is up to -- allows you an additional amount of residential units, and it was -- the compo plan language said that you couldn't do it, but yet the map showed that you could. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Could you bring that language back? MS. JOURDAN: I sure will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For the map when we get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're -- I guess we're there, because if we don't have any other questions, just go through -- I don't want to go page by page. We already did that, so just ask her your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what were you telling us prior to that is that you're picking up the area north of Davis Boulevard. And how is that line determined? For example, on Terrace Avenue, you include some sites, you don't include others, you drop down, you come back up. I mean, how is that determined? MS. JOURDAN: Actually, we're not changing that. That already existed. We're eliminating some of them. David, do you have the history on how the line was determined? And maybe a copy of the -- Page 48 July 25, 2007 MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me. Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir -- ma'am, I'm sorry. MS. F ABACHER: Catherine Fabacher. They're taking it out of the overlay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the -- MS. FABACHER: The yellow at the top is coming out of the GT-MUD overlay because the compo plan does not allow anything north of Davis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this map is the old map because it's showing it -- well, I don't know what it's showing now. What's that dark black line that's the perimeter? Isn't that the perimeter of the -- MS. FABACHER: No, that's CRA. The dotted line is -- the dashed line is the CRA, and then the solid line is the overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the -- MS. F ABACHER: And also the overlay's indicated by not just the underlying zoning, but also what the BMUD or GT -MUD zoning would be, is on that parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. North of that dark line you've reverted back to C-4 and C-5 zoning? MS. FABACHER: Yes, yes, sir. Took it out of the overlay. MS. JOURDAN: Right. I actually misspoke, and that's why I confused you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. JOURDAN: I'm sorry. I apologize. Because what it is is that the portion that is in yellow is what was taken out of the overlay because that was what was in conflict. The comprehensive plan says that anything on the north side of Davis can't qualify as mixed use, and then what we did was just correct it. So it was actually taken out. And the stuff that is south of it is still in there. That didn't change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. Page 49 July 25, 2007 MS. JOURDAN: And I'm very sorry that I confused you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you had a lot of questions on the BMUD district. On this one they're going to take all the concerns of the BMUD and apply them to this one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I heard you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything else that you'd add? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on the Gateway? If none, then we'll just wait till you guys come back. Go ahead, Mr. Jackson. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir, David Jackson. Mr. Kolflat, could you restate your question to Ms. Jourdan just for clarification. I think I heard the question differently than the way she answered it, and we may be able to clear that up at this moment, unless I didn't understand your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, bring your speaker (sic) closer to you, if you could, sir. Thank you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You mentioned that this -- the necessity for this was to eliminate inconsistency with the Growth Management Plan. That's what your statement was. My question was, where was the inconsistency? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wasn't the inconsistency simply that the land north of Davis Boulevard couldn't be part of that district and you reverted it now back to C-4 and C-5? So do we need to follow through any further with that? MS. JOURDAN: That's correct. Unless -- I could provide Mr. Kolflat a copy of that language via email, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, there's nothing you can do to change the document? MS. JOURDAN: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's just a matter of the fact that the C-4 and C-5 -- Page 50 July 25, 2007 MS. JOURDAN: Just a correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- zoning, Tor, that had been put back in place, that makes this plan consistent when it was part of the BMUD or G district it couldn't be because it would then be inconsistent. So to make it consistent they just reverted it back. Ms. Fabacher? MS. FABACHER: I had another comment. Since we were talking about the comprehensive plan and we earlier discussed how the residential uses got less intense, whereas, with the commercial, that was another thing that before Mr. Jackson or anybody came onboard, someone had written that explicitly in the compo plan, which we've asked them to take out because -- so you have to kind of go with what the compo plan said. I think they went into too much detail, but they did establish R-l, R-2, R-3 long before any of us were ever here, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: In reverse order? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the way -- the summary, I think, is that this one's going to get returned to us in a future continuation of this hearing or meeting, and I'll use both words so that nobody can think I don't mean the right thing. So if that's okay, we'll move on to whatever's next on the agenda. Thank you. MS. JOURDAN: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Our next amendment will be on page 77, and that's on page C of your summary sheet, and it's the restrictions on permanent installations of emergency generators. It's pretty self-explanatory. Did you have questions, or should I -- I want to say that it does not apply to, in a hurricane, if you just wheel up a generator. That's fine. But some people have emergency generators permanently installed at their homes, and they kick on when the power goes off. This applies only to those type of Page 51 July 25, 2007 generators. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron does, then Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. We'll do ladies first, if that's okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of course. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm on page 78, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. It's a short one, so we'll just take it all together. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm wondering where you're allowing an encroachment of 36 inches into that setback, into that rear setback. I'm sorry -- MS. FABACHER: -- side setback. COMMISSIONER CARON: Side setbacks. When the side setbacks are only seven and a half feet to begin with. I mean, you're allowing three feet. MS. F ABACHER: Encroachment. And Susan Istenes might have to help me with this, but I believe that's already the policy with the air-conditioning compressors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pool equipment, air-conditioning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Utility. MR. SCHMITT: When you have an air-conditioning unit with a -- usually if they -- some require a wall for sound or -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- aesthetics. The air-conditioning unit is almost 36 inches -- counting the wall, it's probably a few inches less than 36. COMMISSIONER CARON: Not sure that the sound is the same as a generator, but -- MR. SCHMITT: The problem here was in allowing these to be installed kind of after market. There was a huge after market -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: -- push after Wilma, and we tried to figure out Page 52 July 25, 2007 the best way to accommodate these because they do include -- usually include an auxiliary fuel tank or some other type of, you know, of refueling. So it became really difficult. Susan, you have a lot of information on this. You dealt with it. MS. MURRAY: Actually I think you've pretty much covered it. The setback -- the encroachments into the setbacks for things like air-conditioner units and whatnot you stated correctly. It depends on the yard that you're talking about. There's different encroachments allowed for different yards. But in a nutshell, this -- the code just didn't address it. And with the hurricanes and all, we really -- we kind of adopted an interim policy to address it until we could codify something in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On page 78, number 13 at the bottom, and the last sentence reads, all generators must be equipped with sound attenuating housing to reduce noise -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Too fast, Bob, now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I apologize. You know what, I lost -- I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Terri. Let me go again. All generators must be equipped with sound attenuating housing to reduce noise but are not subject to the provisions of ordinance 90-17, the noise ordinance as amended. And I thought the sentence might be better if it read, to reduce noise and are subject to the provisions of the ordinance. I do not understand why you want to exclude the noise. You're going to be -- you're going to allow them to come on for no more than an hour weekly. That's a long time for that sucker to run to do maintenance on it, to make sure that it does run. Says here, in order to reduce noise during required routine testing of the generators, this testing is restricted to operating the generator for no more than one hour biweekly. That's a long period of time, one hour, to have the thing going, especially if it's in the side setback Page 53 July 25, 2007 adjacent to another home. So I thought that I wondered why we wanted to -- why did we want to cut the noise ordinance out? Why did we want to -- is the noise ordinance because it's fixed at 65 decibels? MS.ISTENES: Again, Susan Istenes, for the record. When we were first developing this -- and I'm kind of reaching back because we had many conversations with experts in the industry, the folks that were installing generators and their products and whatnot, and I think the conclusion we came to was, it's going to be almost impossible for generators to comply with the noise ordinance based on information we got from the industry. I'm not the expert. I'm just kind of passing on thirdhand when we were researching the issue. And again, this was some time ago. The idea behind our compatibility analysis was that, first of all, in times of emergency, the generators are going to be running on a regular basis, and pretty much everybody's generator that has one is probably going to be running on a regular basis if they don't have power. And second of all, the testing time was so minimal. And I believe like I said, what we did was we took this from the experts who told us, generally they test biweekly. I don't think they run for an hour. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope not. MS. ISTENES: But we got variations in times, like as little as 15 minutes to as long as, I think it was, 45 minutes, 30 to 45 minutes. Again, I'm reaching back because it's almost been a year since we researched this. And so we weren't really sure how to address that, so we just put an hour time frame in there biweekly. That's the rationale, you know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. I'll just make a comment on that. I do have some knowledge on that. I won't claim expertise, although some might have thought so with years past. Page 54 July 25, 2007 If it were a diesel generator, and these are not likely to be, they are noisier than all get out, okay. If it's a gasoline generator, over a period of time the muffler starts to break down and get noisy no matter what you do. Fifteen minutes is probably more than adequate to make sure that every part is functioning effectively. I'm just thinking, here's the question that came to my mind. Everybody has a different sense of emergency. If I'm wired in so that if the lights go out my generator kicks on, it's my emergency because I'm going to say my food is going to spoil. The next-door neighborhood doesn't have one or it doesn't kick in, you're going to have complaints. So that's in that context. But in the biweekly testing, I would certainly think one hour is a long period to be running a generator to test it. And there are people who go turn it on, go in and have a smoke and look at the TV. I just think we want to be kind to the neighbors, and I just -- if you felt that it was an arbitrary decision, I would suggest a reevaluation of that arbitrary number down some. MR. SCHMITT: Take a suggestion, you want 30 minutes? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fifteen minutes, I think, would be more than adequate to make sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may want to -- I mean, I've got input too. But when everybody gets finished, I'll express my concerns, and they may conflict a little bit with Mr. Murray's. So maybe at the end we'll come to a conclusion. Did you have anything else, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that was it on that page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Do you think we need to define when they would be used? We call them emergency generators. It's obvious when you don't have power, but there are people that use them for times when they do have power. Would we want to define that? Page 55 July 25, 2007 MS. ISTENES: If you wish we -- you know, if that's your recommendation. I don't have an issue with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unless we want a guy to turn it on anytime he wants. MS. ISTENES: Enforcement might be difficult. You know, I think it would necessitate somebody probably knocking on a -- a code enforcement officer pretty much probably knocking on a door to assess whether it was a, quote, true emergency or not. But if that makes you more comfortable, I think we could certainly try to tighten that up a little bit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the only enforcement of this would be the neighbors complained anyway. You don't have to go crawl through the back. Do you think it would being wise though -- we don't maybe have to go with the ordinance we have, which would be what, 55 during the day, or 65 in the day, 55 at night. Could we set some kind of limit? These units can be made really quiet. I mean, I personally have them, plus put them in a lot of buildings. The noise can be controlled. The problem is, is when they start to get old, the bearing goes bad, the guy doesn't put the housing on right, they can really be crazy. So -- and the sad thing is is some poor guy, you know, he doesn't have one and the neighbor does, and we do lose power and he can't sleep because the guy's got this thing out there banging. I would like to see if we could maybe set a decibel rating so we maybe do have some muscle if somebody isn't taking care of theirs properly. And then the other question is, why are we limiting the back to 10 feet? Because I know the wiring isn't the cheapest place to put it, but wouldn't it be better to start sticking these things into the back towards the rear property line rather than the side? MS. ISTENES: We've actually had people wanting to put them in the front, so we've -- Page 56 July 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's another question which obviously I didn't ask because that's not a good idea. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. There's -- there's been quite a variety of situations, and it really depends, I suppose, on how somebody's house is set up and where they may have access to power, where they may have equipment already, or how their house is designed or laid out as to what their desires are. I think that from the staff perspective, we thought that the rear would probably be the most advantageous, but we were finding that many people that were calling us wanted to set them in the side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And obviously they're trying to save money on the main wire. MS. ISTENES: And I guess it depends on access too, if you have to put a fuel tank in the ground. I mean, there's so many different factors. So, you know, ideally we thought rear probably would make it most compatible with adjoining properties, but we couldn't ignore the fact that that might not be practical. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it was up to me I'd put them all in the rear corner of the site, because that's the furthest away from bedroom windows of other people. MR. SCHMITT: Most cases, your drop or your switch is on the side of your house, the electrical connect, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Joe, the only reason the industry would support it not being at the rear is because they don't want to pay the cost of -- I mean, that's -- the most expensive wire is the one leading back and forth to it. But I wondered, could we allow somebody who would rather have it away from his house to put it back there? Why do we restrict them with this? Why don't we let that be less and -- because really the best location the neighborhood would plan out all their generators would be in the rear corner of their properties. MS. ISTENES: We'll certainly -- you know, I think we could Page 57 July 25, 2007 certainly add that if you want or change that. I was going to suggest, if you want to revisit this next time -- I don't know if you're satisfied with this or probably want to talk more -- since it's been such a while, would it be helpful to you if we tried to get an industry expert here to talk about it? Because I'm very uncomfortable trying to recall all the different scenarios and the information I had gotten at the time this was drafted. And this is pretty serious stuff, and I just -- I personally would feel more comfortable with that. Perhaps they would answer your questions a little bit better. I'm kind of going on memory here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more question. Why aren't we going after the emergency portable generator? Because the real nightmare, the real danger, too, is the guys with their Mad Max generator after the storm, you know. We don't want to put any -- the state -- MR. SCHMITT: That would be an ordinance. I mean, that's an ordinance situation. This is the Land Development Code. You're talking about something where they buy one and hook it up temporarily? MS. ISTENES: Yeah, this is for permanent. MR. SCHMITT: All these are more permanent. These are permanent type -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I understand that, but -- so we're going to ignore the regulations on the other? I mean, there's some fire code regulations coming down, but I guess, leave it there then? MS. ISTENES: That wouldn't be relevant here. MR. SCHMITT: That would be an ordinance. That would be something I'd deal with separately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: If the instances of time that this generator will be operating are so short and so infrequent, what is the Page 58 July 25, 2007 danger in leaving the sound regulations in there rather than excluding them? I mean, if it's going to occur so seldom and so infrequently and for such a short time, why can't the sound regulation still remain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but it would apply when the generator runs on a full-time basis, right? MS. F ABACHER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it could be on for weeks, months. MS. F ABACHER: Oh, let's hope not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's hope not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sound attenuation wasn't just to address it when it's starting up and idling or running. It's exercising but it's permanent. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But this precludes the sound attenuation restrictions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Why don't we leave that in rather than -- rather than take it out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'mjust explaining that it isn't -- it doesn't apply to only during the exercise period of the generator. It applies 100 percent during the entire time the generator's running, whether it's for an emergency or whether it's just for the exercise period. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just say something though. If in the testing mode the neighbor hears the crazy bearing noise, you know, he can complain, they can come out and check it so that when he does have an emergency he doesn't have to live with it for months or weeks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't want to keep on going on this because it's really more than it needs to be, but quite frankly, yes, that was my basis for thinking about the noise ordinance. Now, I recognize that in a so-called emergency, a hurricane, after the Page 59 July 25, 2007 hurricane type of thing, it could be literally weeks that we could be operating on that, and that could be pretty challenging. Particularly we should think ahead and think about, as the device starts to break down -- first of all, it's out in the open, and so it's going to wear and so forth. And I think -- and I recognize that, you know, a neighbor may start to complain, then the county's going to be inundated with a bunch of calls on, you know, that kind of thing. So we don't want that to be a manifest. But on the other hand, to simply take it out of the provisions of the noise ordinance leaves it where, you know, that's it and you're stuck with it. If a person -- MS.ISTENES: Would it be helpful -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- doesn't care to maintain it, then we have a problem. MS. ISTENES: I think -- and I'm not speaking as a noise expert either, but the assumption was that during an emergency time, I mean, generally -- or for long periods of time you may have one or two dwelling units that are without electricity, but let's -- generally you're going to have neighborhoods out. And let's say everybody has a generator. I'm not sure collectively you're going to be able to meet the noise ordinance. I don't know. I'm not speaking as a -- I mean, that was just kind of an assumption. But if your guidance is that they should be installed to meet noise ordinance, I'll certainly carry that through forward to the board. I would like to have some input from an expert in the field just to get some idea of how much that would cost somebody, perhaps, or the differences, or collectively of -- what the impact would be with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're getting there, Susan. I'm still trying to get there. MS.ISTENES: You still want to talk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just bought some generators. Go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti. I'm trying to get there. Page 60 July 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Not to confuse this, but if you have no power, you're talking about the health, safety, and welfare of somebody in that house versus noise. I don't think we have a choice. I think health, safety, and welfare comes before the noise. MR. SCHMITT: And that's going to be the last of our worries when the power is out and the generator's running, is enforcing the noise ordinance. Now, they do make silent running generators, or low -- my former career, I dealt with these things. I had enough generators to power half of Naples. So, I mean, they do make generators that are quiet running. They do cost more. I don't know if Mark purchased one that is a silent running, but they do make them and they're quite effective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Bob, the point is, I'm not worried about the guy in the house, I'm worried about the guy next door trying to sleep next to the bedroom window with one of these things next to it. But I think you're going to find you can get all kinds of sound ratings. So the virtue of setting a rating means the person buys the appropriate sound attenuating unit for the location he's putting it. If he's out in the middle of someplace, you can have some wild diesel thing going. If he's next to his neighbor, he's got to buy a quiet unit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, because we don't -- we do not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you want to speak? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm used to discourse in this one, but maybe I'm wrong. And you know what, if people do buy a diesel generator, and there may be some who will want, they have a large house and they want to take -- and a diesel generator -- and I'm very Page 61 July 25, 2007 familiar with those monsters, and they make a heck of a lot of noise. And so if you're not going to -- if we're going to leave them absent -- or subject -- not subject to the noise ordinance, then at least I would hope that we would agree that we could reduce the biweekly testing of the unit to bring it down to something more manageable. I'll compromise at that level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Kolflat, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The answer is nuclear energy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The answer is what? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Nuclear energy. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Nuclear energy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Little reactors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Fabacher? MS. F ABACHER: No, Susan -- Ms. Istenes solved my -- made the comment I was going to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only comment I wanted to make is, I had -- I have a motor home and I had a generator in it, and it was noisy and it reached a high decibel level of 62. That's unacceptable for parks and places that you want to go or it gets too high and people don't like it. I went on the market to see what I could buy. They got all kinds of generators out there, and some are called whisper quiet, some -- they've got all kinds of quiet names. And you know what? They are quiet, but they cost $2,000 more than one that isn't. So the sound issue is not an issue of so much the generator as it is how much you want to pay for a better generator, and then it comes into play with maintenance. And so I would have to agree with Mr. Murray or the others, if we let the sound ordinance go completely out the door for these generators, we could be opening up a lot of noise. But then on the other hand, there might be times when we could regulate it better, and this one doesn't regulate when the exercise period could happen. Page 62 July 25, 2007 And I certainly wouldn't want to see an exercise period starting late at night, all of a sudden my neighbor's generator goes off and whoa, at two o'clock in the morning you hear this thing pounding out there. So as a minimum I think we ought to regulate when they could be exercised, the hours of the day. And Mr. Murray, you're right, they don't need -- necessarily all of them need a certain amount of time. I don't find 15 minutes in the manuals that I purchased. In the manuals that I got, they recommend a half an hour a week as a minimum, and that would be a one-hour biweekly. So I don't know though ifthere are others -- and maybe with Susan coming back to us with someone from the industry, feels a half hour, say, biweekly is enough. Both manuals, the one that was in the motor home and the one that came out said a half hour a week. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I -- ifI may, I will tell you that the huge -- the equipment that I had was for huge generators, and those you had to run weekly at an hour in order to make sure that they performed what they were supposed to perform. So if you bought diesel, I would agree with you. If you're buying gasoline, they want a half hour weekly? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mine are gas. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Gasoline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're in a motor home. They're not in the house. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anyway -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know we need to find a better answer than what we're looking at, and I'm -- MR. SCHMITT: We will come back with more restrictive language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that would be the best consensus. Is that the consensus of everybody here? Page 63 July 25, 2007 And I've got to ask you all, let's -- we can't talk over one another. It's too hard for that lady to do her job, so we've got to try to avoid that during these kind of sessions. It's a lot harder to control than it seems to be during a PUD session. Okay. The staff, I think, you're going to be bringing that one back? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And right now we will take a break until 7:20. When the Planning Commission comes back, I'd like to discuss the first order of business when you want to finish for this evening. Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you 'II all take your seats, we'll see what time we want to quit doing all this fun stuff tonight. Okay. Commissioners, we -- I'm willing to go till midnight. What about the rest of you? We could be done if we went till midnight. COMMISSIONER CARON: We're going to let Mr. Strain stay here until midnight. The rest of us will be leaving, however. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, can I take proxies? MR. KLATZKOW: I've got an 8:30 meeting tomorrow morning, but I could sleep over. We're okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any preference for time? I know Mr. Kolflat, you said you have to leave at eight. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Whenever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Whenever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like eight, if it's possible. Page 64 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll go with whatever, but eight sounds like a good number, if we get that far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti? I'll go with whatever the majority wants to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russ? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I want to be in bed by one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got a few people that would like to leave at eight, and out of courtesy to them, I don't have any problem with that. That's -- we'll get through as far as we can, and then we'll continue this hearing meeting until the 8th at that point. So, okay . We left off on generators. And basically you're going to come back with a rewrite on that. And next is page 81, the landscaping section. I believe, Catherine, we're taking them in order, right? MS. FABACHER: Yes, absolutely. We have Bruce McNall here, the author, to answer any questions you have on the landscaping section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, that was you on that bridge, wasn't it? MR. McNALL: That was it, and my five-year-old looking down at you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I'm glad you didn't throw anything at me as I was kayaking underneath that bridge. MR. McNALL: No, I thought about it, but then I though, no, I better not do that. No, I'm only kidding. I would never. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Put two and two together. MR. McNALL: So you had the kajonies to be out there in the lightning, see. If anything had happened to my five-year-old, my wife would have killed me when I got home. That would have been it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know what that's like. MR. McNALL: For the record, Bruce McNall, landscape Page 65 July 25, 2007 architect. We're on 81 here. This is an amendment to redefine the boundary for the native planting requirement. If you'll take just a second to look at the strikethrough at the bottom of the page, I think you'll understand that it's kind of confusing, and the reason that we're redefining the boundaries is to simplify the native planting requirements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You did a good job. MR. McNALL: So we've got U.S. 41, and south and west of that is the 100 percent native planting requirement. Between 41 and 1-75 is the 75 percent trees, 50 percent native shrub plant requirement, and everything north of75 is the 75 percent trees, 50 (sic) percent shrub. So any questions about that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have only one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- one comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you're not going to make your chart on 83, or that map rather, if you're not going to make it in color, maybe one of the sections might be crosshatched or something to show it a little bit -- they're both gray. There is a subtle difference. MR. McNALL: I agree, I agree. The grays are too close together, the shades -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That was my only comment. MR. McNALL: -- on the graphics. Help us out with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. What's the reason for three different zones that you have there? MR. McNALL: Well, there are three different native planting-- shrub planting requirements, trees and shrubs. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, different percentages as shown for different ones. Page 66 July 25, 2007 MR. McNALL: Correct, correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What dictates that? How do you arrive at that difference? MR. McNALL: Well, it's divided up by salt tolerant. You want the all native or the 100 percent native requirement to be closer to the coastal area and up to the high hazard line, and that's what -- 41 is defining the coastal high hazard line. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's dictated because it's -- MR. McNALL: The salt-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- has higher salt content along the coast? MR. McNALL: Correct, correct. And it's also temperature. You know, the further north and east you go, you know, the colder the temperature so, you know, the less native requirement that -- the more pallet that the landscape designer has to work with for cold tolerant plants -- or I'm sorry, for less cold tolerant plants. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, this represents a percentage of the required landscaping. So if somebody wanted to put in more than the required, there's no limitation on what species they use -- MR. McNALL: Exactly. Anything above code can be native or nonnative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. MR. McNALL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a motion made to recommend approval of this -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and there's a second for section 4.06.05(C)(l ). Any discussion? Page 67 July 25, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're on page 85, another landscaping element, just two pages, 85 and 86. MR. McNALL: Correct. The reason for the proposed amendment is to include the category one invasive exotics plant list as projected by the -- as published and managed by the Florida Native Exotic Plant -- Pest Plant Council. This is a nonprofit council who has a -- which has a website, and the website shows category one and category two plants. And I apologize. Obviously the list is -- there's two -- there's a link, a web link, on the municicode, Unicode website. You've got it. Okay. I didn't know that you've -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I pulled it down. It's not much different than anything we're used to, so I didn't see any problems with it myself. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ijust have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron first had a question, then Mr. Murray. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 86 I was just wondering, at the -- at the end of the list there's a paragraph that's been crossed out Page 68 July 25, 2007 saying, this list shall be subject to revision. I just wondered why that was coming out. MR. McNALL: Because that was the -- all the strikethrough plants are all already on the exotic list as the Pest Plant Council administers. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, but-- MR. McNALL: And so I think that the reason we took that out was so that we could indicate that the Exotic Pest Plant Council manages the list -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Got it. MR. McNALL: -- in the way they see fit. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's fine. And just under four. MR. McNALL: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: The D in development should be capitalized, that was the only thing. And you're right, that paragraph should come out because it is covered under 1 A. MR. McNALL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER CARON: Good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. My quest was probably very much the same as Commissioner Caron's, just for my edification, if nothing else. The -- this organization does it. Does it provide by locality or totality? How does it work? MR. McNALL: It covers the whole state and it covers the state in three regions. The north, central, and the southern region. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So they would be right on target with our particular communities? MR. McNALL: Correct, correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. McNALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) Page 69 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray recommended approval. Is there a second? COMMISSION TUFF: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff seconded. There's been a motion to approve for LDC section 4.06.05E(1 )(A) negative H, whatever that means. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Next is on page 87. MR. McNALL: Okay. We're going to -- I think we're going to hop to 159, ifI'm not mistaken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry. MS. FABACHER: No, wait. No, excuse me. I'm sorry. Catherine Fa -- no, we're on 87. MR. McNALL: I'm sorry. This is the-- MS. FABACHER: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's figure this out. Do you want to do 87 or not? MR. McNALL: Yes. Page 70 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Let's do 87. MR. McNALL: Apologize for that. I missed a page there. Okay. And this proposed amendment is to -- is to make the language more clear as far as root barriers, approved root barrier systems, and to add a graphic making it clear for the applicants and also one that they could -- they can copy and put on their plans for root barrier -- a root barrier detail with notes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions? Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: On page 88, under A, second sentence, it says, large canopy trees are planted closer than 15 feet to a building. Isn't that in contradiction with page 87, 2; at the bottom it says, large canopy trees such as live oak trees, shall be planted a minimum of 15 feet from the buildings. So are those in conflict or are you talking about trees that might have been planted before? MR. McNALL: I think in A there, when you look at the first sentence, and approved root barrier systems shall be installed when the following occurs. And then it says, when a large canopy tree is planted closer than 15 feet to the building. So I think it says the same thing in two different ways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you have something to contribute to that one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, and it's kind of, Donna, the exact same thing I was kind of looking at. In the code language that I'm used to, is they'll give a requirement, then they'll allow exceptions. But in the way you're doing this is you're actually stating an absolute, and then you're stating, as Donna noticed, other things, so you could never do the other things because you've stated the absolute. You've never given the window to do the exceptions. So in other words, there are code ways to write language where I think all of these things -- I think this whole paragraph is a little clumsy. Page 71 July 25, 2007 MR. McNALL: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, in other words, what I think you should state is your intent, and then you should state what the requirement is, and then you should give the exceptions to that requirement, and the exceptions are obviously based on a root barrier being planted. So I definitely think that's -- you know, and there's some other code coming down that has that same problem of an absolute and then some other exceptions, which is useless because you can't deny the absolute, unless you can. But I don't think you'd want a code where you can ignore stuff if you think something else is covering it. So I think I would write that -- I mean, there are different code formats. They're -- you know, some of them say the requirement unless exempted in, and then they give you the thing below. Some of them give you the requirement, you know, with the following exception, and I think you should do that. Other than that though, is that a canopy tree is essentially what we're going to be putting in parking lots and everything all over? MR. McNALL: Correct, that's the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is a new requirement buried in here that all parking lot curbing has to be 18 inches deep, right? MR. McNALL: That is in lieu of the root barrier. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or a root barrier has to be put m. MR. McNALL: Or the root barrier has to be -- correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think the big thing that's maybe missing from the description -- I mean of the truth in advertising concept is that you're totally redefining the parking lot curb one way or the other here, correct? MR. McNALL: Well, engineering-wise, a type D curb is usually 18 inches deep. Page 72 July 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you're not-- MR. McNALL: So we're just identifying that curbing system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is carrying that over into B -- which I think should be better organized -- that -- are we allowed to stick a light pole in a parking lot like that and not -- essentially intruding into the parking lot, the parking requirement? MR. McNALL: Typically -- and this graphic isn't showing it, but typically we have wheel stops which stop the car before it runs into the light post. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is that if you line your parking lot like this, you can stick a pole where it's shown without any problem -- MR. McNALL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- of diminishing the parking lot space? MR. McNALL: Correct. Kind of like when you stick your shopping cart at Publix, you know, between the noses of the cars because the cars are stopped up against wheel stops that are fixed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm surprised at the answer, because I think if you studied the cars, the noses are supposed to be able -- they would crush the cart, two cars parked there. And my point is, if you can do that, that's great. If you can't do that, then maybe we should show that to be what you would have to do, which would be to pull the parking spaces apart a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, did you run this particular detail by transportation to see -- from a -- or whoever -- I mean, I don't know if -- who's reviewing for parking lots right now, but that detail of that light just stuck there between parking spaces, that may really be a problem. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yep. MR. McNALL: You might be right about that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- wondering if you might want to Page 73 July 25, 2007 double check it -- MR. McNALL: -- Mr. Strain, and the fact is, this was -- this was MR. SCHMITT: This is the existing. MR. McNALL: This is the existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it? MR. McNALL: Yes. This is the existing exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. McNALL: And the root barrier one was the proposed exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've had this in here all along. Now we're looking -- now we're thinking twice, huh? MR. SCHMITT: And this was staffed -- staffed to all the other departments for review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I had marked that as an issue, too. Perhaps one way of qualifying, it might be the addition of a statement or a reference to wheel stops. That might be helpful to clarify the issue. But the other one I had, which is at B on page 89, it speaks of a minimum of 12-and-a-half feet from the trunk of a tree. Now, that's -- you're considering the growth of the trunk to the -- MR. McNALL: That's the mature -- a mature canopy is what we consider to be 20 feet in diameter. So if you've got your -- the stem of the plant, your -- I'm sorry, 25 feet, okay. So half of 25 is 12 and a half. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I got that. MR. McNALL: And that's the -- that's the reasoning behind that dimension. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill either, the -- but it has to do with the locations. And I was just wondering relative to when you put the root barrier in, whether that's meaningful. You measure from when you Page 74 July 25, 2007 first plant the trunk, the tree in there. MR. McNALL: Correct, correct, at installation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Typically live oak will grow to what size, from -- MR. McNALL: It depends on the growing conditions, but typically urban live oaks gel to be 20,25,30 feet sometimes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's in the upper surface. I was talking about the trunk basically. MR. McNALL: Okay. The trunk can get to be 12-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it's not meaningful that when you measure it -- the dimension then changes as it gets older, that's not meaningful. That's the only question that came to my mind; is that correct? MR. McNALL: True, but that -- but it's only a matter of inches. MR. MURRAY: Okay. So it's not meaningful. That's all I wanted. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, I think the summary from this is going to be, as Commissioner Schiffer and Caron questioned, maybe we ought to look at a way to restate those -- that beginning paragraph so that the -- it's a little clearer what can be allowed with the exceptions. MR. McNALL: We'll take that back and dust it off and redo that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, one more thing. You know, you mention that 12.5 feet, and Mr. Murray did, that seems really narrow. I mean, you look at your drawing here, you're like 40, 50 feet away. Do you want that to be that small? MR. McNALL: We like to see light poles as far away from planting islands as we can -- as we can get them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Two parking spaces -- MR. McNALL: That's a minimum. We're talking, you know, 12-and-a-halffeet is the minimum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So two parking spaces is, you Page 75 July 25, 2007 know, 18 feet. You know, you might just want to make that 20 or something, and make it really small, because I think you could get too close to the tree at 12 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Enough. I move we see this agam. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, I don't think we need to make a motion for that, just bring it back when -- and by the way, Catherine, the way the returns ought to be, if it's okay -- ifit works with staff, is that they can go on the end, once we finish, they go back in order on the end again. Once we go through all the LDC amendments, ifthere's any coming back, they start up in order again at the end once we hear everything once, is that -- I hope. MS. F ABACHER: Fine, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Okay. So that one's coming back. What's our next page? MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. Ifwe're going to go just till eight, if you don't mind, Bruce, I'd like to go to the one on 91, the annual temporary use permits for outdoor serving areas at this point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That could take a while with questions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How many more does Bruce have? MS. F ABACHER: Well, just because Susan's going to help me with it and she won't be here on the 8th, so I'd like to do -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MS. FABACHER: -- it tonight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Bruce, you got upstaged, whatever you call that, so -- MR. McNALL: I'll see you on the 8th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MS. FABACHER: We may come back to you. Page 76 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on page 91 then? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: The annual temporary use permit for outdoor serving areas, and I'm going to let Susan go ahead and give you a little introduction to this. MS. ISTENES: This is a little bit different, I'll start out by saying this. Susan Istenes. I'm the zoning director, for the record. In a sense the amendment was created to bring to the board to have more of a discussion for this issue because what we're finding is, based on, as you know, the change in the state law regarding smoking, in-door smoking in public places, restaurants, et cetera, what we've seen developing out in the community is kind of an explosion of outdoor eating areas, including bars, especially. Some of the restaurants have chosen, or bars have chosen, to put -- you know, throw 10 or 15 tables out there to accommodate their patrons that smoke and they've become obviously very popular now for the patrons that smoke, and some have actually developed, I mean, what I would call full-blown bars with televisions, serving areas, bars, drinks, and they're becoming quite large outdoor spaces. And, unfortunately, I think we have a lot of PUDs out there that were adopted without regulations as far as locational regulations for some of these uses, some of these restaurant uses. So what we're seeing is some conflicts in uses because of noise and activity. These commercial and outdoor restaurant uses are typically -- especially if they're bars -- are late night or weekend night if they're sporting events and things that draw a lot of people to them watching TV outside and smoking or people that just want to sit outside. It's not necessarily restricted to smokers, obviously. But we're starting to see some incompatibility issues that I think we didn't probably anticipate, especially with some of the older PUDs that may have not built out yet but are -- as you know, we've had quite Page 77 July 25, 2007 a bit of commercial development activity the last few years, and a lot of our PUDs are now becoming built out with their commercial areas. And, unfortunately, what's happening is we're getting, like I said, complaints, so that was another reason. The issue really isn't addressed in our LDC. Like I said, there's a lack of rules, I think, in some of our PUDs that were adopted. Some of the mixed-use PUDs, it's a little bit different story. They tend to be the newer -- newer PUDs where you've got, perhaps, commercial -- or residential over commercial and some mix of uses. I'm talking about some of the older PUDs where you've got a mix of commercial and residential but they aren't necessarily in the same tracts. And so the thought was, kind of after doing some staff research and seeing what other communities were doing out there, I was very surprised to see a lot of communities regulate outdoor seating areas. I was very surprised at the amount. And so in a sense, this amendment is being brought forward as a discussion item to see if the board wants to pursue it, and this is a proposal. And essentially what it does is it requires a temporary use permit for outdoor seating areas that have an excess of 25 seats, and it's an annual permit. It's not necessarily -- it's approved by the Board of County Commissioners, but the idea is just to have it as a consent item agenda item so we aren't going to have, you know, lengthy -- hopefully lengthy public hearings about this. We try to keep cost to a minimum, but it does provide a public hearing opportunity for the public if they have objections to these type of outdoor uses. And that was kind of the idea. So with that introduction, I'd be happy to entertain questions or, you know, have a discussion about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Adelstein. Page 78 July 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Does this only apply to PUDs? MS. ISTENES: No. No, it doesn't. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. We're only having the problem in the PUDs, but this applies to everybody, only 25 -- MS. ISTENES: Yeah, it's --I'm not saying we're only having a problem in the PUDs, but the PUD zoning is the majority zoning in the county where we have a mixture of land uses typically. You've got commercial nodes, you've got residential nodes. And where commercial nodes and residential nodes are in close proximity to each other, usually on the borders, we're finding problems. So, no, it does not apply only to PUDs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm going from a different point of view here, but I want you to understand what I'm talking about, is section 5.04.07, and it is in E what I'm reading right now, is the fact that they do have now all of the things in order for the county to approve outdoor dining and, in fact, on 5th A venue, there are three of them going right now. So the idea of it being here and being here properly is what it should -- what I think should happen in the future for the rest of it. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I'd just like to say that I know that this has become a major problem, and I can cite example after example in the district that I live in, at any rate, where this has become a major issue between residential, excuse me, that backs up to commercial properties. And without some sort of regulation -- and believe me, we've tried to work through the noise regulations alone, and it doesn't -- it doesn't work. These are needed regulations at this point. It's gotten out of control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, and then Mr. Schiffer, then Page 79 July 25, 2007 Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What was the rationale for the 25 persons? MS. ISTENES: I don't think I can cite a specific standard. It was -- like I said, the research revealed that some communities have a specific number and some just doesn't. I mean, if you had an outdoor seating area, you had to have a permit or get some other type of permISSIOn. One thing that I noticed in the community is, for example, some restaurants may have outdoor seating areas that are simply to accommodate patrons that are on a waiting list and aren't necessarily -- but they offer drinks, you know, to individuals who are waiting. And so I was trying to make a dividing line between an actual area where people are going to congregate on a regular basis to be served versus something like that. It's nothing set in stone or -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, what disturbs me is that two 24-person cafes sitting together would generate as much nuisance as one 48-foot cafe but would not require a permit. MS. ISTENES: That's a potential, yeah. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is there any way you can compensate for that thing, limiting its size or anything? MS. ISTENES: We could certainly -- like if there was a cumulative effect within a certain distance, try to -- I don't think you're going to capture every single situation. But I understand, you know, where you're coming from on that, and perhaps we could try to capture some sort of cumulative effect with number of seats or distance, is the first thought that comes to my mind. But I could certainly research it some more too and see if other -- how other communities have addressed it, if they have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. MS. ISTENES: I think it's a good point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Susan, I guess the intent of Page 80 July 25, 2007 this really is, if you have something you could take away from people, then you can kind of control what they're doing better by the ability to take away their right to do it. But one thing I don't think there really is in here is much requirements for it. For example, ifl showed up with my 30 seats, what does that do to my parking count? I mean, is this 30 new seats? What is this really by code essentially? MS. ISTENES: They have to have the parking for -- the seats are counted whether they're inside or out, so they do have to meet parking requirements, and they do show outdoor seating areas on SDPs for brand new buildings or change in use. So yeah, if they're creating seating outside, they have to have the parking to accommodate it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- and if it had gone through the SDP, then would those people still be required to now come in to get this application? MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you're going to have a piece of paper on everybody with outdoor seating so that you can have some control. I mean, because the concern I have is, is really just, you know, what requirements you're going to go by. You have, you know, so many feet from a residential property, but if the seating's on the front of a shopping center and the residential property's on the back of the shopping center, would that be a disturbance or is it going to be, you know, measured like that? And I think why you think there may not be a lot of hearings and it may be something that's going to go on the consent agenda, when you give everybody the paper and you start taking them away, they're going to all want a hearing. So I think you're going to find a lot of hearings on this, and especially if they're -- you're denying them stuff they have already now because of parking, because of maybe blocking egress and stuff Page 81 July 25, 2007 like that, so -- MS. ISTENES: Well, the issue really -- yes, I agree, Commissioner. Ifthere's a controversial issue with outdoor seating for whatever reason -- quite frankly, you might get somebody who just doesn't like the facility, whether it's disturbing to them or not. You know, there's all sorts of reasons people object to things. Yes, you are going to get hearings for those, no doubt. It's kind of hard to measure at this point where -- how many, I think, we may get. I mean, this is just kind of a concept. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing, too, is a thought might be is, why wouldn't you maybe have the planning commissioner take those hearings? The commissioners, I don't think, really want -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's not a planning issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Pardon me? MR. KLA TZKOW: It's not a planning issue, is it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not a planning -- I think it's a planning issue. I think what you're going to have is a lot of people aren't going to come forth because people, when they design their buildings and the ones that are now putting seats out front, they don't have the parking for that. They're right on the edge with their parking to begin with. So you're going to find a lot of projects not coming forth because they can't. But I think if -- it would be better for another commission other than the Board of County Commissioners to hear people fighting over, you know, coffee shop seating. But thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: You know, I just had got it, and I hadn't spoke to anybody or heard anything. I just saw the big fines for taking the smaller businesses, and then there was -- I mean, it's $800 to 1,200 bucks a year, and there was $300, and I had red marks all over it that I -- it affects a lot of people that I'm -- a lot of places that I Page 82 July 25, 2007 just don't know if there's been enough in it, I guess, and maybe that's why we're here is to study it. But I think it may be too generic and wipe out a whole lot of people that are -- it's not intended to hurt, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you ready to proceed into the pages? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was just letting everybody have their general statements first. Did you have any general statement or do you want to work -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I think it's been said by everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The first page is more of an introductory page, so let's move right on to page 92. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, no, on 91 there's a slight error in the money, 800 to 1,200. That's a typo. It's a simple correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- I thought that was the intent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It was Canadian. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's looking for more money. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's Canadian. MS. ISTENES: You caught that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's -- page 92. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- do you have any questions on 92, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a thought on items three and seven, I thought -- and it's a matter of stacking and it's a matter of personal preference perhaps, but three and seven seem to me to be suited to go together, or at least sequentially. No big deal, however. Page 83 July 25, 2007 But looking at six it says, person includes an individual corporation and the heirs, executives, administrators, et cetera. Is that common? Do we commonly relate to a person as a corporation? Because once we're a corporation, does a corporation have heirs? I don't think so. MR. KLATZKOW: No. I mean, commonly you would refer-- when you refer to person, you will include a corporation, you can include a partnership, otherwise every business owner, you'd have to say, individuals and partnerships and corporations and limited liability companies. So once you include all these under the definition of a person, you do away with all that later. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. Just that the way -- the sentence structure looked to me a little odd, that person includes an individual or corporation and the heirs, and it seemed a little odd to have, and the heirs right after corporation. But if you're satisfied, you're the legal beagle, so I'm -- MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, I'm not saying I like this ordinance, but COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, then I'm not happy with the sentence as such. Under A general, in that first statement, no person shall own, et cetera, et cetera. So I said -- which is what already has been said, so if less seats, no permit is required. I know you took a dart board and tried to figure out which way the darts should go, and I know you wanted to get it into the center hole, but I'm not sure that 25 is a good number any more than you are, I think, from what you said. The next one, item three, says, the Board of County Commissioners shall make the final determination as to whether or not to approve, deny, revoke, or approve. Let's see what my comment was here. It's not the -- no, it should be the county manager's designee? That was my comment here. Why did I put that there? Page 84 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only you would know that, Mr. Murray. I certainly can't help you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, even Mr. Murray doesn't necessarily know it after he's written it several weeks ago, seven days ago. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But don't do it. No, maybe we can move on to 93. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We certainly can. Would you like others to ask questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I just wanted to reiterate 25 seats, because it is a number and I can think of, you have three parties with eight people and I just -- if they're waiting in line to get in or things like that, I just thought 25 was -- where did that come from? And the other was the -- paying that $300 in November and it comes due in another month. For the sign on number two it says, they all come due in December 31 st no matter when you sign it. Number two on the bottom. 5.04.07, page 92. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Y eah. Well, I think the staff threw this out to get our initial comments on what bothered us. They'll go back and try to figure out something that doesn't bother us so much, and then we'll re-comment on it, and it may still bother us. So I think -- I can't -- I don't think that any of us -- and three of us have expressed a concern about the 25. Well, maybe staffwill come back with a different number. I think that's the purpose of the discussion. I don't think it's to necessarily provide explicit direction. So your comments, I think, will be -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, to me it's like when we go to somebody like the Estates people, we're just going to shove this down their throat, and now we're doing this to a lot of businesses that it would be nice to air it with people that will be affected by it, because Page 85 July 25, 2007 it is strong, it's drastic. And I guess we'll keep going through the red marks, and I can see the value in it, too, because I know of some specific instances, but I -- we're blanketing a problem, I'm afraid. MS. ISTENES: Could I make just a couple comments? The idea behind the expiration of one time a year, again, it's to simplifY it. Just, you know -- one time a year these come due. I mean, it's kind of like closing on your house. You know, ideally you should, what, close after January 1st to pay your taxes a year later, but sometimes you can't do that. The other thought with the Board of County Commissioners approving these is they already have the authority to approve certain temporary use permits already. So we're not kind of reinventing the wheel beyond a process that already exists with respect to temporary use permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti was next, then Mr. Adelstein and Mr. Murray. We're still on page 92, by the way. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: In general, speaking in general, 25 people is not a lot of people. The fees are very high, and small mom and pop businesses today have a lot of fees, a lot of expenses. And I don't want to, as Commissioner Tuff said, unduly hurt everybody. Twenty-five is not a lot of seating, and the fees are kind of high. That's my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. Basically the 25 number was not a number they expected. It's a number they don't want to go beyond, basically. And basically that will make it work. If there are 15 or 16 people or even numbers, that will work out fine, but they want to make sure that nothing is going to exceed 25 because of the noise and the loud music and the food and getting it straightened out. So basically they have gone to the top to give them the amount they will accept, but they aren't going to do that very easily, and they Page 86 July 25, 2007 do want to keep it below the 25 number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what this is saying is if you want more than 25, then you come under this ordinance. If you want less than 25, you can do it without any ordinance. MS. ISTENES: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think-- MS. ISTENES: Try not to kill the little, small coffee shops that are throwing tables out to -- you know, for people just to sit casually by. But if25 -- if you have a recommendation other than 25, be happy to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're still on page 92. Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Murray, back to Mr. Murray, then we'll -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This would apply to each individual business owner, correct? MS. ISTENES: Each use. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Each individual business owner. MS. ISTENES: Each-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Not one or two next to each other? If he has four tables and you have three tables, that's seven. Now you're going to go over the 25 and you could be 300 feet apart in the same shopping center. MS. ISTENES: I think that's what Mr. Kolflat had referenced, if you had maybe a cumulative effect. I don't know how we would address that, but -- I think that's what he was referring to. But, yes, it's counted right -- as written, it is counted per business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, did you have a comment? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, could I -- I'm going to bring you in a little more focus on this. Here's the real problem, and we've got some sports bars out there that are -- whether it's the Friday night fights or something else, and there's TVs or music or whatever else -- Page 87 July 25, 2007 MS. ISTENES: Music, too. MR. SCHMITT: -- and it's outside, and they're -- some of those are in some of the commercial areas not very far from the back yards of residential communities. Now, to write an ordinance to target that specific issue is very difficult, but that's really what we're targeting. We've got a real problem with 11, 12, one, two o'clock in the morning, whether it's -- what is it now going to be Sunday night football or whatever else it is and -- at these sports bars. And the loud -- and I got to tell you, the real problem with the noise is not the TV. It's more the noise from the people cheering, loud talking. It's not the music. It's just that noise of the folks and the patrons. And there is no way to deal with that. You call code enforcement. Code enforcement takes a sound reading. It's not a code issue because it doesn't exceed the decibel. You call the sheriff, the sheriff says, I can't do anything. So what we're dealing with is a situation in the community that has certainly raised the ire of the community in some locales, and we're just trying to figure out how to deal with that to give somebody an opportunity to petition their government to say, no more. I can't sleep. I can't deal with this. And in actuality, Susan's correct, I think when some of these PUDs were approved or when some of the -- in anticipation, we never anticipated this type of impact between what you would really consider two non-compatible uses right now. I don't want to throw any names on the table, but you all kind of know which ones we're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, we have two members who have to leave here at eight o'clock. I need to find out before we continue this discussion -- because I know Susan, now I heard, is not going to be able to be here on the 8th. I have no problem continuing this discussion while Susan's here to finish up this one tonight. Page 88 July 25, 2007 The other two commissioners may want to -- or may have to leave, but I want to make sure the rest of the commissioners will be willing to stay then until this one's finished. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Stay and resolve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, could you stay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, we've only got two pages to go. Let's just get it done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't get past 92 in half an hour. MR. SCHMITT: All I'm looking for is your guidance, what you think we ought to come back with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you know what? To get there, it's going to take a long -- it's going to take a lot more than 5, 10, 15,20 minutes. We're going to be here for another half an hour for sure. So COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I said earlier I'd stay whenever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can. Ms. Caron, you can stay. I can stay. Mr. Murray, Mr. Vigliotti, Mr. Tuff? Mr. Adelstein, you going to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Till this is finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm going to leave but I only ask that they look into the possibility of making some kind of a compensation for the point I mentioned about two small ones together could be as large a nuisance as one large one by separation or by distance or something else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Kolflat. And we will see you on -- next week. Okay. Let's go back to page 92. And Mr. Murray, you were next. And then we'll go back to the others who still want to talk on page 92. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did remember why I had written that county -- no county manager's designee. The word revoke, Page 89 July 25, 2007 just think about if you had a problem with permitting, and the county commissioners are going away for a prolonged period, revocation could take a long time to occur. And I'm just wondering what actions -- what do you have? You just indicated that the sheriffs office can't effectively respond for you. Code can't effectively do it. So revocation? I understand that they have the ultimate determination as to revocation. But how -- what actions can you take? Do you want to build something in here to help MR. SCHMITT: The county manager is given authority through absentia, but he would never use it for something like that. This would have to be a public hearing. I mean, the -- you have to go through some kind of public hearing for both sides to -- MR. KLATZKOW: But if they expire December 31st, you don't run into your summer problem. MS. ISTENES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Okay. And I'm going to defer to the rest of the troops to ask, because I have numerous -- I had numbers of questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on page 92. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand, but I'm just telling you -- what I'm going to do is I'm going to wait for the others to ask those questions so that I don't hog the evening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's okay, you've just -- but you reasked questions the others already have asked, but is that what you want to do or do you want to ask them first so the others don't ask them? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We can go to the next page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're not ready yet to go to the next page. Mr. Adelstein then Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. I'll make this rather easy. We're talking about sports bars. That's one thing. I've used 5th Page 90 July 25, 2007 A venue and Third A venue for outdoor eating on quite a few occasions. There is no loudness. There is no such a situation as yelling and screaming. It is there because it is eating. It is a good -- it is a well-sponsored restaurant. The costs for those restaurants are expensive, and they act like they're expensive, and they don't do it with the same kind of fizz that comes from a sports bar. That's something altogether different and that's something that could be used on a specialty item to insist on how they must act because they are not just one group or two groups or three groups. There are a whole bunch of them. And with the liquor going and with the noise and with the people, that comes off of what we're talking about on Third Avenue and 5th Avenue. It ain't true. So if you want to make sure of these ---- MR. SCHMITT: I can't legislate behavior. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys can't over talk one another. Please wait till one finishes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If we're going to straighten out the problem, then you have to understand how to handle the actual sports bar situation and get it to work properly. Outside of that, the restaurants that do it in the right areas do not create noise from other people, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Not to oversimplifY this, can't we just disallow televisions and outdoor speakers as a starting point? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. I think, like Joe said, the noise from cumulative people collectively and bands as well, we've gotten complaints about outdoor -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Joe had also said -- MR. SCHMITT: But we -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- the cheering -- the people are cheering because they're watching TV, so one leads into another, Page 91 July 25, 2007 where a restaurant on 5th Avenue is a whole different deal. They're sitting down. They're paying 50, 60 dollars for dinner. They're going to enjoy it, and it's not going to be a sports bar. MR. SCHMITT: If that's the way you wish us to move forward with this, we'll look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page 92? We're still trying to get past page 92. I have one comment, and that is, we talk about restaurants, but I hear you talking about some of the problems with sports bars. Have you ever thought of trying to focus this on -- so that it's a limited type of sit-down restaurants and not sports bars and those other activities that are associated with such? MR. SCHMITT: Most of the sports bars -- and I'm just speaking from a standpoint of, they meet the requirements for liquor licenses, as any other restaurant. They meet the -- serve the food, and they're basically classified as a restaurant. Just at nine o'clock night or whenever the football game's on, whatever it may be, so that's maybe __ I mean, that's a licensing issue. I don't have the answer for that. Susan? MS. ISTENES: It just was generic to apply to outdoor seating areas because you can have the same -- you get a large enough group of people together, no matter what they're doing, if they're talking a lot or there's activity, it just becomes noisy. And so we tried not to split hairs with this use versus that use because I think you probably do get into some legal issues with that. But that was the idea, and that's all I can say at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifa PUD didn't have this as part of their listed use or it wasn't defined, then the definition falls back to the LDC, right? MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if the LDC doesn't specifically address the use, then how can it happen? Page 92 July 25, 2007 MS. ISTENES: Well, your PUD is going to have to allow the use. Your PUD is a zoning district. So let's just say, for example, a restaurant. If a restaurant is not allowed in a PUD, generally you're not going to have the problem because you're not going to have outdoor seating areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if you have a restaurant as a commercial section of a PUD and it doesn't allow out -- does it have to say from a mere perspective of code interpretation that outdoor seating is allowed for a restaurant in their commercial district? MS. ISTENES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And ifit doesn't say that-- MS. ISTENES: They can have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is it allowed? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then if something is silent and falls back in the LDC and the LDC doesn't address it, so then what you're saying is because the LCD (sic) doesn't address it, it is allowed within the PUD? MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why have we got heliports coming up for discussion? MS. ISTENES: Not-- MR. SCHMITT: Private submittal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but I mean, the heliports aren't addressed in the PUD -- in the LDC either. That was the argument why this is being introduced, and if that's the argument, how come we just can't -- I mean, I'm just trying to understand. If you can regulate one industry because of its intensity, which is a heliport, why can't you regulate an industry that is equally as silent in the LDC as a heliport is by simply not allowing it until the language is there that does allow it, and if that language never succeeds, then it doesn't happen? Page 93 July 25, 2007 MS. ISTENES: I think the issue is more of an interpretative one when it comes down to accessory uses or not, and historically, outdoor seating areas -- I mean, not just in Collier County, just in planning principles in general in communities all over, outdoor seating has been just deemed a typical accessory use of a restaurant or a drinking establishment or a food service establishment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if they weren't taken advantage of, like it seems to be in the case that brought this here, maybe that's something to consider. But, boy, if everybody's taking advantage of it through noise and crowds and TVs and sports bars, that's a whole different program. MS. ISTENES: That was kind of the impetus. Things -- we're noticing changes in the community, and I think that's why you didn't see it addressed before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's try to move through this. Ms. Caron, did you have another comment on page -- or any general issues on 92? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, Ijust wanted to go back to the LDC issue, because I think that if it's not mentioned in the LDC that doesn't automatically make it okay. It's just the opposite. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going with my questioning. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But that's not what came out so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what staffwas trying to say is in this case, it's a -- it's been -- it might be considered an accessory use that's acceptable. MS. ISTENES: Yes. I mean, the language in the LDC for any zoning district in all your PUDs basically says uses that are -- accessory uses that are typically found with the permitted uses by right or uses by right. So it then becomes a judgment call. And Page 94 July 25, 2007 typically outdoor seating is a typical accessory use of a restaurant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: It's seating. It just happens to be outside versus inside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's -- I certainly have more questions on this, so that may help. Let's go to page 93. Any questions on page -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, in B2 it says that the application may be distributed to different agencies. I think it's shall be. I would like to make sure that the fire department makes sure they're not putting tables in front of an exit. All of these departments might want to have a quick look at it. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Under number four it says, new permits may be approved by the Board of County Commissioners during any regularly scheduled public hearing. Is the intent to have it an actual public hearing, or would it come under consent or summary agenda? MS. ISTENES: Consent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under consent. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, unless somebody wanted to pull it off of consent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, all right. MS. ISTENES: But, yes, that was considered a public hearing even if it's on consent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Number five where it speaks to the value of the temporary use permit, can you own value? Can the county own the value of something? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: I've told you I don't like this ordinance. I mean, I'm getting feedback from the Planning Commission, and staff Page 95 July 25, 2007 will sit down and react to that feedback, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, that's a question I have because I don't know that you can own the value of something because then if you do arbitrate it, what is the value of something? You'd have to break it into its respective parts. I'll go right down to the other part of it. In 93 again on number two, in here now it says, and in the opinion of the county manager or his designees, shows adequate reason why a temporary use permit should not be granted, that precludes, or it seems to preclude, BCC determination, and I wonder ifthere's an appeal process, and it has relevance to that earlier question that I spoke about, revocation where you might need to revoke. So here you do have the county manager or his designees getting in there and saying, well, you know, we don't think you should have a permit. On the other hand, when you want to revoke it, you have to go to the Board of County Commissioners. So if you get past the point of owning the permit and its value, or no, wait a minute, you can't own the value, you now come into that question. So I think that needs to be looked at. MS. ISTENES: I think all this is saying is that if the staff is recommending disapproval, the person applying's going to get a copy of a report that says so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, do they get a -- I'm not always hearing you because you talk really low. But does that mean that the -- is that final -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- or is a person -- is there an appeal process or can the person -- MS. ISTENES: The board is the final decision maker in this case, so a report would be sent to the board, not unlike the reports we send to you all and to the board now with staffs recommendation. I think all this is saying is -- again, keeping the cost down means we try Page 96 July 25, 2007 to streamline the process. So reports that are sent to the board, if we have to start sending them out to applicants and whatnot -- I'm not sure if I'm making sense, but it starts to cost more, so I think all this is saying is, if the staff is recommending disapproval of your request for temporary use permit, you're going to get a copy of the report. If they're not, you're not going to get a copy. It's just going to go on consent agenda and be part of the public agenda item. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if you are approved you're on the consent. If you're not approved you'll get a copy of a report that is given to the Board of County Commissioners, which is -- I'm ignorant that they get those. So then you would have an appeal -- you know, go then, what, seek -- MS. ISTENES: You would just have the information and have the opportunity to have representation at the public hearing should it be pulled off. The board could choose to disregard staffs recommendation and approve it on consent without ever pulling it off the agenda. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. ISTENES: But you might want to be prepared to come to the meeting just in case they do decide to pull it off and not approve it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I don't mean to belabor it, but I'm not as clear as I'd like to be on it, it's just that my understanding of what you're saying is that even in the event that you don't recommend it, it goes onto the consent agenda? No? As long as MS. ISTENES: I think -- can I make a recommendation? It's not really a regulatory paragraph here. It just basically says what the staff will do in certain -- under certain circumstances. It's not necessarily regulating anything. It's just saying that procedure-wise we're going to send you a report if we have a negative recommendation to go to the board. Page 97 July 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I can accept that. MS. ISTENES: It's more of an advantage to the applicant than it is anybody else to at least know ahead of time and be able to prepare ahead of time for a public hearing where there might be a staff recommendation for disapproval. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But they would have to -- they would have to initiate then a public hearing process, right? MS. ISTENES: It is a -- they are all public hearing processes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. MS. ISTENES: Regardless of whether the recommendation is for denial or approval. It's all approved in the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, did you want to-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, I do. I want to go to page 94 for one moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's finish-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Wait a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This will finish it. The Board of County Commissioners may revoke any outdoor service area permit upon 14 days' notice to other -- or future -- I'm sorry. I don't have my glasses -- future to abide to the county regulations or the actions which endanger of health, safety, or welfare of other members in the public. So in other words, they literally close it by 14-day notice, period. And that does end the idea of how it can end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did we finish with 93? Does anybody have any other questions on 93? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Ninety-four, Mr. Adelstein, did you have any other comments on page 94? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. Page 98 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else got -- Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Just one he just said, number five. I just thought, that's really harsh with no appeals process, and then somebody -- as I understand, that's where it happens, that's where it takes place, and there's been nothing along the way, and I just think that's a little harsh, that's all. MS. ISTENES: Actually I think this is intended really to address immediate health, safety, welfare concerns. And I think the board pretty much has that authority anyway under different circumstances, not necessarily those associated with outdoor seating. So it's just kind of reiterating the power of the board really already has by code. MR. SCHMITT: In fact, the fire marshal has more authority than the board. You can do it immediately. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. That would be good. MR. SCHMITT: If there's a health, safety, welfare deemed associated with a fire issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on 94? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under C it says, predicated on number four without limiting the generality, et cetera, et cetera. It says C, the applicant as a corporation. Is it only covered because it's a corporation, or no partners, no individuals, or do we relate back to what Jeff Klatzkow indicated earlier? I wouldn't think so. MR. KLA TZKOW: No, it says corporation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What happens if it's a partnership? MR. KLATZKOW: It doesn't fall under C. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry? MR. KLATZKOW: Then it doesn't fall under C. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't find at any other location where partners or individuals were considered. Okay. I got you. Might want to look at that. Page 99 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think one of the recommendations, should this continue or at least when we -- ifthere's going -- there's going to have to be a rewrite attempted at least before we could really assess it based on the comments we've had here tonight, and one of those would be that staff would have to at least, legal staff, would have to take a look at it before it comes back to us again. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I've looked at this before. This is a very useful process because, as Susan said, she put something together so that you could review it. Okay. This is just the very, very start of it. So we can get feedback from the Planning Commission so we can then sit down and really start writing the ordinance. MR. SCHMITT: Or you could simply kill it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I was going to suggest is when we get done going through pages, I would certainly kind of like to get an assessment from the panel on an individual basis of whether we even think this is a need in this county or whether we should be drawing up an ordinance that basically prohibits it as a need so it's real clear in the LDC, then we don't have to discuss it anymore. MS. ISTENES: I would like to just take it to the board because it's an opportunity for us as a staff to communicate with the board on concerns that we're seeing and feedback we're getting from the community as well. If you guys don't support it, I mean, I'm certainly okay with that, I just, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Susan -- we're in no position for you not to take this to the board. We're simply going to recommend. MS. ISTENES: Understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you know, our recommendation may be this is not worth it or this may not be needed or it may be needed with changes that you bring back to us on the 8th -- MS. ISTENES: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or whatever day that happens to be. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Page 100 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's go back to -- we're on page 94. Did we finish with our questions on 94? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody? Okay. Page 95? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And no answer required, but whoever wrote four on 94, they should be the one to write that landscape clause that we had all the trouble with. That's a well-written paragraph, okay. Two -- I'm looking at the bottom of95, D2, and trying to get the intent there, is that -- so what this is saying is that no outdoor seating is going to be allowed within a hundred feet -- or a thousand feet of any lands with residential. And then the last thing's kind of weird. Is that residential uses that have certain hours? I don't think that's it. But I'm -- I mean, this is the first time we introduced a concept of less than 25 seats being regulated. MS. ISTENES: I'm not sure I understand ifthere's a question in that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, number two. I'll read it aloud. No owner shall operate or permit the occupancy of any outdoor serving area regardless of the number of seats -- so that means less than 25, in my mind -- on any property which is located within a thousand feet of any lands with a residential or Estates zoning designation. Now, the next thing I'm not sure -- I kind of fall offwith understanding here, or which is used for residential purposes between the hours of 11 p.m. Sunday, through -- I mean, I don't know what the limited residential use is, but -- MS. ISTENES: Okay. I think the sentence probably could be written a lot clearer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So whoever did four before could work on that one too. Page 101 July 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's the same author. No? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at the top of the page, 95B, where it speaks to 2,500 feet. We have rock mining. We notifY people 500 feet. I'm just wondering, I know you wanted to catch all on this one; 2,500 feet is a huge distance, a half a mile. And I just wondered if that might be a little bit excessive. And under C, again, we have that word adjacent to, abuts and abuts, and you might want to look at that to see if that comports with what we've been relating all along. And finally, under 2A, where it references, shall conduct public hearings, I was just thinking, it could be onerous with a whole bunch of hearings twice in October. The folks are just getting back in September. They probably have a backlog. And if they had these hearings, and these hearings, I know they're supposed to be on the consent agenda, but if a number of them are pulled, that might prove to be pulled onerous to the operation of the BCC. Those are my comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other on page 95? Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: The 2,500 feet, I had the same thought, but then they also have to spend the money to go notifY them. And then I can't imagine that a temporary permit would ever be issued if this was the rules. It just wouldn't happen. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a huge distance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we don't have any locational criteria spelled out here, so basically if they have a right by the zoning to have a restaurant, they have a right then to have the outdoor seating the way this could be written, and then they would have the right to do whatever else they would want to do with that. Page 102 July 25, 2007 Being alongside residential communities, to me that's a real serious problem, and maybe we ought to look at some kind of locational criteria that if this were to be allowed, it's limited to intense commercial areas like your intersections ofl-75 and Pine Ridge Road or your major arterial roads. To let this go into PUDs that are bordering residential communities and within residential communities in isolated incidences where they're not buffered by enough other non-residential zoning, I just think, is a serious mistake for the residents that are living there and trying to enjoy their homes. They've got a business that starts up and one day it's a mom and pop breakfast, a shop, and opens in the morning and has a few people come and go, and all of a sudden they sell our to a restauranteur who opens up a sports bar and decides he's going to have back yard noise and music with seating. The next thing you know, the neighborhood's in total disarray. That isn't fair. So my concerns with the locational items in -- like in D2 and stuff like that, and notifications, is strictly, it isn't -- it's too lax. I think you need to have -- we can have very strict locational seating arrangements. Mr. Adelstein keeps bringing up 5th A venue South. That's along the maintain drag. All you've got in that area that could be hurt by this seating along 5th Avenue is the other businesses on 5th Avenue, and that's how it should be. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Or 3rd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It shouldn't be the residences in residential neighborhoods. So, you know, maybe that's how we ought to -- maybe that's the way to look at this a little closer. Mr. Vigliotti, I'm not sure if you're trying to get me. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. We're talking 1,500 feet, we're talking 45, we're talking 1,000. How can this work? I can't see it working in any CRA, 5th and 3rd, 41110, Bayshore, everything is so mixed right there. You have -- on the third floor you have Page 103 July 25, 2007 residences above restaurants. MS. ISTENES: This does exempt those types of situations where you have -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So all CRAs are -- MS. ISTENES: Where it's approved to allow mixed use where you've got residential above commercial. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So anything that's a CRA. MS. ISTENES: That was how-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So all the CRAs are covered? MS. ISTENES: If their zoning-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 41 -- MS. ISTENES: If the underlying zoning allows mixed use. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's impossible to work from these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to point out that-- what Brad had pointed out too under D, number 2, if it's not permanent, if we're not doing this for people for operations with less than 25, why would we -- why would we lock it all in so that then somebody in code is going to say it's -- you're responsible -- you have 23 seats out there, and, no, you're covered under this particular clause? So I don't know if that's -- I know this is hard to do. I understand it's hard to do. You might want to think about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like a question from you, if you possibly can, can you possibly determine for us at the time how much does the county make when they approve one of these? What is the dollars that they are going to pick up on? I want to know whether that would possibly tell us how carefully they're going to handle it. There is a fee that -- they receive a fee to fund the restaurant to hope to have a restaurant open house. I'd like to know the cost of what that fee is. Page 104 July 25, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: It's a license, occupational license. That's the tax collector. I mean, I can't tell you what that -- whatever they call it now. It used to be an occupational license. I can't think. It's now called a fee. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's a fee. Is it a percentage of then? MR. SCHMITT: The tax collector -- that's a tax collector issue. He collects that. I don't have the answer. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I see what you're doing. I didn't mean it that way. I thought that maybe in the situation of your files, you would learn, know what a figure is. It was my idea in this is that it's very expensive for that company to get a permit like this. MS. ISTENES: There's a lot of different ways. You can get liquor licenses and things like that -- liquor licenses and licenses such as that are all administered through the state, and they -- and I understand there's some pretty hefty fees associated with that, but I think you're talking about an occupational license, and I think it's fairly minimal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 96? Let's try to get done with this document. Anybody have any questions on page 96? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you believe it? Under E here I have a question, under number one, the fence permit isn't included in this, and I suspect not, so they'd have to put a translucent or opaque barrier, minimum six foot high along the perimeter? So in addition to the license, they would have to get a fence permit? MS. ISTENES: Yes. If they want to erect a fence, they need to get a fence permit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't hear you. MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry. If they want to -- I can hear myself. Page 105 July 25, 2007 If they want to erect a fence, they would have to get a fence permit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I got the impression when I read this that they had to pretty much do that. MS. ISTENES: There's already requirements in the code with respect to -- a requirement for a wall or fence between residential and commercial, so there could be the opportunity that one exists already that meets this requirement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, there's a lot of variation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand you. Under number two, third line down, an area adjacent. I put the number in, 1,000 feet. Now, we talked about locational criteria, and that does need to be qualified. It's as arbitrary as 2,500 or 1,500, I think. But, you know, which is illuminated -- of course, a lot of it has to do with whether it's -- what kind of illumination, how high the illumination is, the intensity of the illumination. These are all difficult to qualifY. But there ought to be a distance where the question of glare or, you know, ambient light is excessive. I'm not sure -- I mean, this may be one difficult baby to do. And my last comment would be also on number three. And again, it says, establishments are located within 2,500 feet of, and I say to myself here, also see page 99 where it speaks of 1,500 having to do with a helicopter. I would think that a helicopter with the turbulence would be as noisy or noisier, and there only is a 100 feet, so -- you want to -- you want to look at those factors? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page 96? Any other general questions or statements anybody wants to make? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I'll make a statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. Let's start --let's -- Mr. Tuff rarely gets a chance, so let's start with Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, Ijust know that I recognize the Page 106 July 25, 2007 problem, and I think that it should be found a way to solve it. But I would rather, if I'm going to err and make mistakes, I would rather err on passing a new law and ordinance that wouldn't cause more damage or potential damage than what it's intended to fix. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So I don't think it's good as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't like sports bars, I agree. I'd like you to somehow try and figure out how we could regulate them. One suggestion is only address liquor licenses only. A restaurant without a restaurant can't have a sports bar. And I think we are trying to kill a mosquito with a hand grenade. And that's it for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I've done my thing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, I'm going to state one thing that I honestly believe. I do eat in these restaurants, and I've been doing it for years, and I have yet to find any time where we had a problem with that type of restaurant, as long as it was in the areas of like the 3rd Avenue (sic) or 5th Avenue type areas. It's no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've always gotten good food there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The food's excellent. The bill is excellent, too, but that's not the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, the point I think we're trying to say is it's not a matter of eating in the restaurants and attending the restaurants, it's a matter of living next door to them when they have sports bars, alcohol, and crowds watching the television. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the ones you go to may not, but there are ones in other neighborhoods that are having this problem. Page 107 July 25, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what -- the whole point of the discussion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Joe, let me -- just to get this straight is, that what would happen is all these existing bars, essentially there's anarchy out there, and once this regulation passes, they would all have to come into compliance, all stand in line, all get a temporary permit because their use would no longer be allowed until they did. I mean -- and I think the big problem we're going to find out is that they probably don't meet parking and other regulations, so it's really going to put a burden on them. So this is a good start though. But I'd like more into this, more guidance on how to really make this work, not take it away. These people out there are having fun. They're citizens, too. You know, I think it's not our goal to establish a prohibitive code. It's our goal to come up with a way to design it so that they can have fun and the neighbors aren't disturbed. So I'd actually like to see more, you know, interest put in that. I guarantee you, every bar that's a disturbance, the biggest disturbance is when the guy pops the back door, with the music blaring inside, to put the trash out every 15 minutes. And you know, so maybe we'd be smarter doing vestibules on that to help the people in the back yard. We're the ones in our PUD that put them, you know, 60 feet off the back property line. We're the ones that caused that, because you know a restaurant's there, a restaurant -- a restaurant has a back door. But what I'd like to see is that somehow we can use this to -- how to design, how to -- you know, maybe we allow people certain parking tolerance and -- MS. ISTENES: I don't think honestly, unless somebody established an outdoor seating area after the fact and didn't have their SDP reviewed with that in there and there is a parking problem, I don't Page 108 July 25, 2007 -- you're not going to see staff picking apart these uses trying to determine if there's a parking problem. It's not -- it's not the issue here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you said that they're going to have to prove. How many places, when the smoking ordinance came in, threw a bunch of tables out front for the smokers? I know-- you know, there was no review on whether those were additional seats and stuff like that. MS. ISTENES: There are -- the parking ordinance is fairly flexible, and there are a lot of administrative procedures somebody can go through to get some relief in those cases. And unless it is a huge major problem, which you're probably only going to see on older sites -- and I'm not picking on anybody -- but maybe in the Naples Park area where you've got very small sites and older buildings that weren't built to code, you may come across that. But generally speaking, it's not going to be a problem, and there are easy remedies for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But at any rate, then let's stick on the easy remedy. Let's come up with easier remedies where people could design their facilities so that they could -- all people in Collier County could enjoy it and not disturb anybody in the residential area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, any comments? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Obviously I very much want this to come back because I know what the issue and the problem is, and I can cite multiple examples in my particular district. I think that finding a way to make something work as opposed to just trying to find a way to prevent -- and it may be a way to go. But I mean, I think it's certainly something to look at. We also talked a little bit about coming up with some locational criteria and perhaps limits on the fact that bands can't be outside under any circumstance, that televisions can't be outside under any Page 109 July 25, 2007 circumstance. That would certainly help in some of these issues. I think the -- I think I'll go back and try to make a list of ones that I know are issues, and maybe we can eliminate some of the need here if we can take a look at some real life examples and maybe come up with a tighter ordinance, you know. I don't know if that will work or not but-- , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only comments would be location. I think we've got activity centers, we've got heavy commercial areas, we've got industrial parks that are going to have some restaurants in them, and if you're outside of those, you don't get a -- it doesn't happen. And there's no way existing neighborhoods should be disrupted by restaurants. I don't care if they're sitting outside, they've got doors opening. And the tighter we make the code stop that, I think the better we're going to be for our communities, so that's my thoughts on it. Okay. With that, we are at a point where we need to continue this meeting until August 8th at 8:30 in this boardroom, and ifthere's a motion to make that -- this is not a meeting. It's a hearing meeting. Let's continue this hearing meeting until August 8th at 8:30. Is there a motion to do so? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to continue. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Mr. Schmitt, you had a comment? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I wanted to comment on something else completely different than this. What was given -- instructions given to the staff at yesterday's session of the Board of County Commissioner meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can just continue this meeting, which is the LDC meeting, we can hang around. We're still on TV, so we can have our discussion. Page 110 July 25, 2007 So let's vote on the continuance of the LDC meeting. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Mr. Schmitt, you wanted to -- MS. F ABACHER: I just want to -- for 60 seconds, could I just do a little quick recap so we can agree on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we closed the LDC meeting. MS. F ABACHER: All right. It's over. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, go ahead. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: The board directed staff to remand back to the Planning Commission for review the settlement agreement for the Cocohatchee settlement agreement that's the Bert Harris claim. And I emailed you all basically, put you on notice. We're going to do that in August. I am going to provide as much background information as I can. If you need any additional information, please contact me, by that what I mean is I'm going to give you the -- I'm going to provide to you the executive summary, the settlement agreement, we'll provide you the minutes of the meeting when the item was discussed in December when it went before the Board of County Commissioners for guidance on preparing the settlement agreement. Page 111 July 25, 2007 I will also give you the executive summary and backup material if you want it, and I assume you do, for when the original petition came before the Board of County Commissioners a year ago, it's almost a year ago, when -- for the amendment of the Bald Eagle Management Plan. I suspect that this will be -- get into issues dealing with the Site Development Plan as well, but I -- we can discuss that during the meeting. All I can probably offer is, I don't have a packet for everyone for the SDP. If you believe you want that, we'll try and get copies of those out as well. There are SDPs in it, but this is going to come down to a couple of issues in the SDP, the development standards, the building separation and some other things. But basically the board had asked that we bring this back for the Planning Commission to review, I think statutorily, and I can turn to the county attorney basically. For your review, I believe all you can do is comment on its consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. I'm sure the board will take any other comments associated with the settlement agreement, but I think statutorily, we're focussing on is it -- is it consistent or compliant with the Land Development Code, the development standards in the PUD, and frankly, consistent with the GMP. So I don't know what else to tell you. This is going to happen rather quickly because we need to get your input before we bring it back to the board on September 11 tho COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How long-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How long would it take to go -- to have those papers where we could pick them up? MR. SCHMITT: As soon as I -- we just -- give me at least -- at least -- give me at leave five to 10 days. Page 112 July 25,2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, I wasn't trying to give you a -- MR. SCHMITT: I just gave Ray instructions today to put it together. As soon as we get it together -- at least 10 days. I'll get it together and we'll get that out to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, do you expect this to be a long meeting in regards to this issue? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, I'm asking Joe. And please, you can't speak out like that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to be recognized. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: The county attorney -- yes, the county -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- attorney will present the background. It's as long as you're going to make it. I mean, I think it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, please, if that was the case, we would have stopped this meeting two hours ago. So let's not try that. MR. SCHMITT: All right. It's a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement is not that long. It's how much in-depth you're going to go into the issue, and I believe you're all pretty familiar. You've seen this a year ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the reason I asked the question is, if it's going to be something that's going to take a half a day or so, I would suggest to try to fit it in in an in-between Thursday and then give it a day so that we're better prepared to focus on the reading of the material for that meeting instead of being distracted by three or four other larger hearings, if that's possible. I don't know what your timetable is. MR. SCHMITT: I'm not sure what's on -- Susan, do you have any idea what's on the agenda for that hearing? Page 113 July 25, 2007 MS. ISTENES: Our agendas are pretty full. I was concerned when we were going to put it on the 16th, so if you have a cutoff or something you want. Say if we have more than five or six petitions, do you want us to try to find an off day or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think an off day would benefit our review for that because we could focus on that issue the couple of days before instead of having, not only that issue, but five others that are going to -- we'll have a pile of documents that high. So I mean, it doesn't have to be a Thursday, but you might want to look and give us a heads-up early as to when this is coming up. The 16th is not August, is it? MS. ISTENES: Yes. How about ifl find out specifically what's on the agenda, and if I email that to you, would that be satisfactory to the rest of the commission if he just kind of makes the decision as the chairman as to whether or not you have too many items, if you would want a different day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you think, guys? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's your decision, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we try that, and we'll do it that way. MR. SCHMITT: I'll bet this could be at least three hours, at least. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. If we're talking about 10 to 15 days before we get the documents to come to us, how many days we going to have before we get it to go to -- it to come to -- in front of us, five, six days? MS. ISTENES: If you go on the 16th and we give -- and it takes us 10 days, then, yeah, you're going to be about a week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you put your schedule together and send it to me, and we'll do it that way. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Page 114 July 25, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we've survived this meeting with about five days' notice. If we get at least the packages five days ahead and that's the only thing on the day we're going to be working on that, it should be plenty. MR. SCHMITT: All I have to do is compile the data. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I know. I'm not complaining. MR. SCHMITT: If I do that, my target will be to get it out to you -- today's Wednesday. It will be next -- it will be probably Wednesday next week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe, when you're saying SDP, you're talking about all civil drawings, all the architectural drawings. There's a lot of drawings there that there are going to be. So wouldn't it be better for us ifhe has those on file, we can go to there, obviously not together, and we could tag whatever ones we want a copy of and just say that amount. I don't think you want all engineering drawings for the site which are usually in an SDP. We're going to be burdened with a -- we're wasting trees, let's start there and work down, you know. MS. ISTENES: The interest is probably only going to be the site plan -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to suggest that. MR. SCHMITT: Pretty much the site plan and -- that shows the layout of what is proposed, and I will also include the -- it's in for its fifth review, and I will include the rejection notice that's with the fifth review so you know that -- where staff is on the rejections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't youjust plan on distributing the site plan only to each of us. That will take care of 90 percent. Okay. Do we have anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. We're out of Page 115 July 25, 2007 here. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:43 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 116