Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/08/2006 LDC August 8, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida August 8, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff (Absent) Robert Vigliotti (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Catherine Fabacher, LDC Coordinator Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Meeting will come to order. If you could please rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And welcome to the continuation of the first cycle of LDC amendments. We have a long list of amendments to go through this morning. But before we do we'll need roll call by our secretary. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti and Mr. Tuff are absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Are there any -- well, the agenda today is strictly the LDC amendments. Anybody have any other issues they would like to bring up at the end? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, for those in the audience, which are few and far between -- and I know Clay is here for the helicopter, helispot (sic) or heliport issue -- so this probably won't apply to anybody. But the two items that were going to be on today's agenda, the outdoor seating issue for restaurants and the emergency generator Page 2 August 8, 2007 amendments, will not be heard at this particular meeting. They will be continued to the next meeting that we end up continuing this meeting to. So other than that, hopefully we'll get through all the rest here today. And Catherine, I think the first one on our list is -- you have it as heliports, but I think we really want to call it helispots, but we'll see. MS. FABACHER: Okay, great. And Clay Brooker is going to make his presentation. Mr. Stephen Hruby is here, too, the architect. And this is a private petition so they're making -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will you tell us the page that we'll be-- it starts on? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. Okay, we're on Page G of the summary sheet and Page 97 in the green book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Brooker, go ahead. MR. BROOKER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Clay Brooker. I'm with the law firm of Chefi)', Passidomo, Wilson and Johnson. I am here on behalf of the applicant, E.B. Simmons Electrical, Incorporated, the principal of which is Bernie Simmons. With me is the architect -- our architectural consultant, Stephen Hruby from Architects Unlimited. We have proposed before you an amendment that sets forth some siting locational criteria for heliports. That's a term of art in the state and federal regulatory scheme. And I believe the latest version of that amendment is included in your packets. It has gone through maybe a couple of revisions pursuant to prior public hearings before DSAC and EAC, as well as meetings with staff. The premise of all this, and I think we all should keep in mind, is currently the existing law, which binds us all, allows as of right in the industrial zoning district a category of uses called transportation by Page 3 August 8, 2007 air. That's been in the Land Development Code for a minimum of 17, 18 years; probably more than that, I don't know, I didn't go beyond 1991. But that category of uses, transportation by air, includes a whole host of uses, including: Airports. Full-fledged airports right now are permitted as of right in the industrial zoning district. Flying fields, scheduled and nonscheduled air transportation, air . '. " " couner servIces, aIr cargo carrIers, aIr passenger carrIers, aIr ambulance services, air taxi services, and helicopter carriers, to name a few. All of those fall within the transportation by air category, which is today permitted as of right in the industrial zoning district. My client came along and wanted to move his electrical business to an address I believe on Enterprise Avenue -- Enterprise Avenue in the industrial zone there I guess somewhat northeast of Naples Municipal Airport. In connection with that electrical business, he submitted an SDP to have the building built, and included a helipad on top of one of the buildings. That SDP, with the helipad noted, was initially approved by staff, presumably because transportation by air is already permitted as a right. So what we were proposing through that SDP was just a helipad for use in conjunction with his business. So initially approved by staff, the SDP. Sometime later we were notified that there was some unease or uncomfort with a helipad being proposed. Staff just didn't know what they were getting into, I guess, with that and retracted the SDP approval. We obviously met with staff over that and the staff said well, even though transportation by air is a permitted right in the industrial zoning district, we ask that you propose a Land Development Code amendment, pay the $3,000, go through the whole process and see if you can get it. So that's why we're here. Page 4 August 8, 2007 The proposal before you is very narrowly crafted. And I will freely admit right up front that it may curtail existing private property rights. Again, transportation by air is permitted as a right. And so if we start changing the rules, imposing restrictions, then there's the possibility that some industrial property owners may consider this amendment curtailment of their private property rights. But because of the concerns of staff and because my client simply wanted to have a helipad to use in conjunction with his business, especially during emergency times such as hurricanes or in the aftermath of hurricanes, we have made this proposal as conservative as we could possibly stand. So what it does, the proposal -- what it does is it makes every heliport a conditional use, not a permitted right or a permitted use as of right but a conditional use with one exception. And the one exception is if you are -- if you have a permitted use in the industrial zoning district, such as an electrical contractor business, like my client, you can put in a helipad as an accessory use, as long as you meet a 1,500-foot residential setback. Any residential zones or any PUDs, the residential component of a PUD, you have to be 1,500 feet back away from that residential development. And we were there -- our attempt there was to create a large buffer so -- in terms of a compatibility or a noise or that type of issue, away from residential development, we would be far enough away where it would not be an issue. We've been asked where did you come up with the 1,500 feet? It's a combination of two things: Number one, we looked at other jurisdictions around the State of Florida. The highest we could find was 300 feet. And so we've -- we looked what was frankly around our property, and we imposed the largest setback we could live with. DSAC picked up on that. The questions to us were well, aren't you somewhat cherry picking? What about the other industrial property owners that are within 1,500 feet, aren't you leaving them out Page 5 August 8, 2007 in the cold? Yeah. So DSAC's recommendation was we don't like the 1,500-foot setback because it is an industrial zone. Any residential development, any person who decides to move into a residence across the street from industrial zone, they should be aware of what's across the street from them and live with it. It comes with the territory, so to speak. So we have no objection to playing around with that 1,500 number. But that is our proposal. In conjunction with this, there's been a lot of talk about the compatibility issue. And I'll get -- and there's other questions about heliports versus helistops and helipads and all that sort of thing, all of which are terms of art in the state and federal regulatory scheme. So we have to be careful with how we use those terms. However, there's -- with respect to the compatibility, the -- there's a state airport licensing law, that's Chapter 330 of the Florida Statutes. It expressly states that a local government can't get involved in the operation and design of heliports or airports. Local governments simply don't have the expertise to do so. The Florida Department of Transportation does, and they have preempted that field and reserved that authority to them. But the state airport licensing law says you can impose zoning setback, for example, setback restrictions from a pure locational standpoint. So that's again why we've come up with the 1,500-foot residential setback, to try to address zoning compatibility without encroaching into the authority of the state. And I'd like to try to give you -- the state and federal regulatory scheme is comprehensive. The documents that are involved are very, very thick. They address every facet that you could imagine that would -- that accompanies an airport or a heliport. In order for us to get site approval from the state -- this is the state first, because we also have to get site approval from the FAA, the Page 6 August 8, 2007 F ederal Aviation Administration. But from the state, which is the Florida Department of Transportation, we have to do -- and this is a summary. There's more to it but this is just a summary. The applicant must give notice to all VFR, that means visual flight rules, VFR airports and heliports within three miles of the proposed location, and notice to all IFR, instrument flight rules, airports within 10 miles. Number two, we have to submit a statement of compliance from in this case Collier County that we comply with any Collier County zoning regulations. Number three, we have to give notice to all owners of property located within 300 feet of us. Number four, we have to advertise in a local newspaper our proposed location. Number five, we have to submit memos of understanding from all airports within three miles of the proposed site regarding air traffic pattern separation. We've already talked to Ted Soliday in that regard, the Naples Municipal Airport. Informally he has told us he doesn't have any real problem with this proposal, but it's going to go through the normal process. All of that notice goes out to these surrounding property owners to surrounding airports, to the public in general, solicits their input, and the State Department of Transportation must give adequate -- what they call adequate consideration to that public input before they determine that you have site approval. Finally, they require FAA approval. The FAA approval has its own comprehensive evaluation of a site, elements that we have to meet, documents that we have to submit. And in addition -- well, I would say in particular, I'd like to point out that in regard to the FAA approval, you have to submit what's called an environmental assessment. That environmental assessment must address nOIse, Page 7 August 8, 2007 historic and cultural resources, wildlife, energy conservation, land usage, air quality, water quality, pollution prevention, light emissions, other visual impacts, electromagnetic fields, and other public health and safety issues. In addition, the FAA application must list all schools, churches and residential communities within one mile of the proposed site, and we have to notifY the FAA of all nearby hospitals and wildlife areas that may be impacted. That's just one aspect of the FAA approval process. And the reason why I'm going through a little bit of detail in explaining all of this is, to hear the county say well we're worried about compatibility, the state and federal regulatory scheme is so comprehensive it takes into account everything and more that staff has ever dreamed of mentioning to us in our meetings. So we believe the compatibility is well protected, the compatibility issue is well protected. There's two other things that I'd like to mention with regard to trying to protect -- or trying to ensure compatibility and trying to protect nearby property owners. One is: With regard to that private use heliport or private use helipad that can be permitted as of right as proposed in an industrial section after the 1,500 foot setbacks are applied, we have limited the size of helicopter that can come in. And the reason we do so, in meetings with Joe, Joe's experience in the military, you know, he's thinking of these dual rotor big massive copters that can carry 40 or 50 troops coming in and landing on top of a roof. We don't anticipate that to be happening, so we said fine, we'll impose a limitation. Single-engine helicopters less than 12,000 pounds, and that will protect surrounding property owners, knowing that you're not going to be bringing in overly large helicopters. And also, there's a noise component to that as well. We're expressly subject with regard to noise, we're expressly Page 8 August 8, 2007 subject to the noise control ordinance in the county. Secondly, what we've done is the state and the federal regulations require a safe approach and departure path. So if there are any existing obstructions to air -- to flights, a tower or a building, we may not get site approval. And the buildings around this particular property and probably other properties in the industrial zone are not built up yet. They're not built to the permitted height. I don't know what the permitted height in industrial is, 35 or 50 feet something along those lines. MS. FABACHER: Fifty. MR. BROOKER: Fifty feet. So what we've done is -- and our proposal said for you to get approval from the state and the feds, we don't care -- the county's not going to care what's actually there next to you. Instead you have to get approval from the state and feds by telling them that they have to assume there's a 50-foot building all around you. So in that way we preserved everyone around us their private property rights. Us putting in a helipad is never going to stop someone from putting in a 50-foot building next store if they wish to do so. And in that way we've tried to protect their rights to build at a height that's permitted in the industrial zoning district. With that, I will conclude. Again, what we've done is we've taken an ultra conservative approach, we think. The only heliport that would be permitted as of right without going through the conditional use process is one that's in the industrial zoning district and meets the astringent 1,500 foot setback from residential development. And everything else must go through conditional use process. I guess I should mention, because the issue came up, about heliport versus helistop versus helipad. Can't use the term helipad. That's a term of art. A helipad refers to the exact area that a helicopter actually lands on and takes off from. So there's been talk about well, why not just put a definition in Page 9 August 8, 2007 there, because we don't want fuel facilities coming into the industrial zoning district to fuel up these helicopters, because that creates a whole host of other problems. And by the way, it creates a whole host of other problems with the state and regulatory scheme as well. We're not proposing on our property to do that. But I can understand why that would be a circumstance where the county may want to take a look at that themselves before allowing such fuel type facilities to come in. So what we would propose is in the section that deals with a private use heliport -- in our proposal, a private use heliport is allowed as an accessory use, we can add a sentence there to the end that says however, under these circumstances fuel facilities and such are not permitted,without conditional use approval. So what that would mean is a heliport as -- and we use that term because it's consistently used throughout the state and federal regulatory scheme as a term of art, and we want to make sure all that scheme applies what we're talking to here, that's why we use the term heliport. But if you come in with a heliport that doesn't include fueling facilities, then you are permitted as of right, as an accessory use in the industrial zoning district. If you want fuel facilities, different ballgame. You are now thrown into the conditional use category and you have to come before the county. That issue was raised to us just a couple of days ago. I apologize for it not being in your submittals that you have in front of you, but I think that's a good way of addressing that concern so that the county does have a public hearing process to deal with heliports in the industrial zoning district that want, you know, the complicated fuel and maintenance or whatever a full-blown heliport would entail. But that's not what we -- my client is proposing to do. He's not going to have fuel facilities on-site. Because frankly, the regulatory scheme just gets all that much more complicated and we wants nothing to do with it. Page 10 August 8, 2007 And with that, I'll close for real this time. I'll try to answer any questions you may have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe Joe actually could answer this more effectively. Assuming that this were passed and restrictions on the 16 or 12,000, whatever that is, the number of -- okay, getting back to double rotor planes. What I'm referring to in my question is in the event that we had a hurricane or something else that was devastation, would this prevent -- I mean, would it be a violation to land equipment there on an emergency basis, or would it be physically constrained to not be able to handle such a helicopter, assuming that a violation would be forgiven under those circumstances? Are we constraining ourselves in such a way that we're cutting off any opportunities that we might want to use later on? Did I make myself clear? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. To answer your question, given the local in relation to the airport, I would never see a reason why a pilot, especially if it were a multi-engine helicopter, would choose to land there versus the air field. I mean, we're only talking three miles or less, or probably less than that. So it -- the difficulty in dealing with a helicopter of that size to land, it certainly could land there, but it wouldn't. I mean, he would choose not to. And this is -- the size of helicopter they're talking about is, you know, like a Jet Ranger or a Bell Jet Ranger, whatever, which is certainly more maneuverable. So I answer your question by saying probably never would even choose to land there unless it was absolutely necessary, just because of the difficulty. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, and that's fine, I -- my concern -- Page 11 August 8, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: And they have to ask the tower for permission to land, the tower would advise them that that pad is restricted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, and just to clarifY so you understand the basis for my question -- MR. BROOKER: Do you mind if I throw in a couple -- to answer your question directly, no, it couldn't. Because that size helicopter would weigh too much. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I was wondering. Okay. So it's well thought out. But my scenario was, we have an extreme situation, there's a relatively serious hurricane, and that might be the only pad proximate to an area that needs attention, other places blocked. Okay, that was the basis. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In Immokalee we have two heliports now. Neither one seems to fit into where it says definitions. We have one which is at the EMS headquarters and we have another one beside the Collier Health Services clinic. And it says under hospital heliport that it has to be -- it says has to be adjacent to a hospital or a property occupied by a hospital. Would our two Immokalee facilities fit in or would we have to rewrite the statute, or what? MR. BROOKER: Our original proposal -- I don't know which proposal you're reading from. But our original proposal -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm looking at definitions, B-4, where it defines what a hospital heliport is. Because I don't think either one of those would fit under private use, public use or-- MR. BROOKER: Okay. B-4 has since been eliminated. And the latest version does not even address hospitals at all. And our original proposal did address hospitals, and staff wanted to pull that out. Staff pulled that out so we wouldn't be conflicting with any possible use or prohibition of an emergency medical. I know it's in there, we wrote it. And staff eliminated it. Page 12 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It just got handed to me right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the one we just got handed then is not the version I printed off-line? The one I printed off-line, it says __ Clay is saying it does not have that. So the one we got handed today turns out it's not the most recent version, it's probably the old version. So the one you were e-mailed days ago, you probably didn't get a print-out, was the one you should have been reading from. MR. BROOKER: I can tell you, we met on July 3rd with Joe Schmitt and Catherine Fabacher. And that -- the version you're looking at was a version we had on July 3rd. And there was an objection to placing anything in our proposal about hospital or emergency type use, because it might somehow prohibit an emergency medevac helicopter from landing somewhere or another. It was a little bit loose in their opinion. And we said frankly, fine, we're not here because we're a hospital so we'll let you, you guys are the experts on that, eliminate it altogether. So whatever our current code has in it, whatever is out there existing is fine. So that's how -- that's how it evolved. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Clay, what is the -- you have a final approach and takeoff, FA TO, I guess. What is the size of that? Because in the code we have something for our airport zones. They call it a heliport primary zone. And it does give angles and stuff like that. So what is the size that? Is it the same as the -- what's in our code now? And here's my concern is that -- MR. BROOKER: Okay, well, the minimum -- you're really going to test my ability to read FAA regulations. But for a -- for an FA TO, which is final approach and takeoff area, the minimum length of that area is 1.5 times the overall length of Page 13 August 8, 2007 the planned helicopter that will be using it. And the minimum width is the same, 1.5 times the overall length of the planned helicopter that will be landing and taking off from that. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it seems really small. In other words, a helicopter could be what, 30 feet, it's a big one. So what you're saying is 50 feet is the -- well, why don't you maybe explain how a helicopter is going to come to this thing. I mean, it appears in our code when we discuss it at the airport we have approach zones which are 500 feet wide for 4,000 -- in other words, there's a zone that these helicopters are coming in. MR. BROOKER: The approach and departure surface, what the state and federal regulations will at a minimum require, is an eight-to-one slope. Meaning -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That matches what we have. MR. BROOKER: Right. Because most local localities or local governments have no idea what they're doing in this field, so they just mimic whatever is already in the state and federal regulations. So you go eight to one. Eight units horizontal for one vertical, and you go out and you kind of create a slope out from your property for a distance of 4,000 feet away to make sure you're not running into anything. Now, that path can curve, it can curve, but that's the regulation scheme. Now, the -- we have just informally drawn up some plans for what would possibly go on our property, and it looks like here the F A TO -- well, the actual landing pad would be 40-by-40. And the FA TO would be 50-by-50. That's what we -- we have roughed out what it would look like on our property. And those dimensions meet the requirements of state and federal regulations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. BROOKER: I don't know ifI've answered your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't think so. First of August 8, 2007 all, the approach zone -- in other words, the helicopter is going to have 360-degree access to this pad? Or do you come in in one of these approach zones, the 500 feet wide like they're describing here? MR. BROOKER: No. The FAA would never allow 360 approach and departure from something like this, given the vicinity to Naples Municipal Airport. There's going to have to be a coordinated approach to -- well, I don't want to use the approach -- coordination between the airport, existing airport, the FAA, the Florida Department of Transportation and us looking at prevailing winds and determining the approach and departure path that helicopters using our pad must use. And it will be designed in a way -- but it's going to be a typically taking off to the north and bending east. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I'm not looking at this application just to fit your site, you know, because that's not fair and that's not what we're really here for. That angle eight to one, if you take your 1,500 feet, that would put the helicopter about 200 feet above the residential areas. I mean, I'm not sure that's fair. So couldn't we have a process where we look at a site, we establish these approach zones, we establish them obviously if you're close to the airport, that's important. We can establish how it affects residential areas. Because if we could keep the guy over the industrial, that's better than being 200 feet over somebody's house. MR. BROOKER: Well, I can tell you that the state and federal regulations again reserve the authority to require certain approaches, certain departures, certain altitudes, and everything else. The minimum eight to one is just to make sure there's not an obstruction to your flight path, that possible flight path. Helicopters, as you know, can take off and gain significant altitude very quickly over a short distance. So the state and federal regulations and those agencies would look at that issue, may mandate a certain path and a certain altitude to be reached at a certain distance from our location, or Page 15 August 8, 2007 any location. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how do we then protect the citizens? I mean, what you're saying is forget about it, the state's going to take care of that. But we've obviously had some airport issues with federal and state regulations that we've had to solve locally. So couldn't we have a process where the neighbors would be able to see what the state has proposed and get their input too? MR. BROOKER: That's already part and parcel of the state and federal schemes. We have to give notice in a newspaper, you have to give notice 300 feet around you, you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I take it that's the most recent version? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, my apologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem, just wanted to make sure we got the right one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're only noticing people within 300 feet? MR. BROOKER: That's what the state requires. And then beyond that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't get comfort in that. I mean, you have neighbors -- MR. BROOKER: We're five times -- we looked around the state. The largest -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe just got tired of hearing this, you know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He went to buy helicopter stock. MR. BROOKER: We have gone five times larger than the next largest setback we could find in the State of Florida from a local government. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that also guaranteed you that none of the residences would be notified, because they're 300 feet. MR. BROOKER: Well, we don't have to give them notice, Page 16 August 8, 2007 because they're more than a quarter of a mile away. They're not going to hear this, they're not going to see it. I mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're saying that the approach paths and the takeoff paths are going to be defined and it's multiple paths or -- in other words, because what could we do to have a hearing that would prevent those pads from going over residential areas? MR. BROOKER: The local government, you may say, as a citizen of the State of Florida, you can write in to the state and federal agencies when they are reviewing this and say we would like that they go over -- you know, any required paths are maintained over industrial sections for as long as possible, or, you know, I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who in the local government would know this is happening and would write that letter? MR. BROOKER: We have to submit as part of our applications to the state and feds a letter or some sort of documentation from the local government stating that we comply with the local government's regulations. So a local government, just like a person who writes in, can offer input and say a quarter of a mile away we have a residential zoning district right across the street from industrial. So we would like -- we don't want the residential development impacted any more than is necessary, so please direct traffic away from those areas. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is that the statute which we're writing today, or is that a letter somebody is going to write upon each application? MR. BROOKER: That's a letter someone writes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And who's the person that writes that? MR. BROOKER: Someone in Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, why can't we write local ordinances that establish that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a whole list of proposed Page 17 ~.._-,.._-- ~_._._-_...,.~_.._...,--_.~..__. August 8, 2007 language we could add to this that might solve your problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I bow, I bow. I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I went through the codes in different cities and there are cities that have dealt with this before under different processes. I made notes and got a list of them -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I think it's smart for you to do that then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll read it off to you. Does anybody else have any questions they want to get on the table now? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Clay, I did do some research. I'm the one that brought up to Margie the issues between heliport and helispot (sic). And let me read what the differences are. A heliport/helispot is designed for helicopter take-offs and landings. A heliport has support facilities such as fuel, hangaring and attendants. A helispot is an area that can be multi-use such as a parking lot, athletic field, rest area along the highway and golf course. It has no support facilities such as fuel, hangaring or attendants. When not in use as a helispot, the area can be used for other purposes. You have indicated you wanted to do a heliport without fuel and that should we ever want to have one come in with fuel, then they have to come through another process like a conditional use to add the fuel. Well, first of all, that seems to be kind of backward. Why wouldn't you want to do a helispot? And if you want to do more than that, then you would have to come in and ask for permission under a conditional use process to do a heliport. That was my first comment. And I'm not sure why you reserved it. I'm not sure what other activities you need that are heliport in nature versus helispot in nature. Do you know any? MR. BROOKER: No. And our intention is to have a place to Page 18 August 8, 2007 land and take off from, period. But what we were trying to do is maintain consistency with the definitional scheme employed by the state and federal regulations. If -- I've seen different definitions for helispot. You've read to me one. And if you want to call this a helispot, we can do that. And then you run the risk of now all of a sudden we don't have to abide by some sort of heliport criteria, because we're no longer a heliport, we're a helispot. So what we were trying to do is be very careful. We were trying to ensure that the most comprehensive strict regulations always apply to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a group called Helicopter Association International. That's where I was pulling my information from. They may not be the government, but apparently they're a strong association in the field dealing with helicopters. There are some cities that have dealt with this before. I've pulled some experts from them. And I'm going to read you some of the criteria they have. First of all, a lot of them conditional uses are what they require. And I know you're trying to get away from that process. But first of all, they -- MR. BROOKER: In one limited instance, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're asking for the statement -- if we sent everything through the federal government, you do their package, they get the information, they review it, they make the decision. They're not going to have a hands-on knowledge of a local area like this government does. MR. BROOKER: Sure they will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BROOKER: We have to list everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clay, we could argue-- MR. BROOKER: We have to show a locational map, we have to show an airport diagram. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clay. Fist of all, you do not talk over Page 19 August 8, 2007 me or anybody on this board. You wait till one of us finishes and then -- you're going to do that with me, too. So you just wait till I finish. In my opinion, the FAA does not do as good of a hands-on job reviewing local documentation as we would. Therefore, in some cases if you're going to submit it to the FAA, I don't know why you couldn't duplicate that information and submit it to us. And those kind of things that they would require would be a statement of proposed hours of operation and frequency of arrivals and departures; a diagram indicating proposed flight paths of arriving and departing helicopters within 1,000 foot radius of the heliport or helispot. If the proposed heliport is to be elevated on a building or other structure, that air turbulence which may be created by rotorcraft landing and taking off there will not cause dust, sand, water or other material to fall on property other than that controlled by the applicant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Slow down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Sorry. We would want to understand the applicant's need to establish the heliport or helispot; the availability of other such facilities that the applicant could use in lieu of the proposed one; the proximity of the proposed one to emergency landing areas in the event of a mechanical malfunction of the helicopter or other rotorcraft using such spot; proximity of the heliport or helispot to fire stations; proximity of the facility to tall buildings, other navigational hazards and existing uses which would present a safety hazard in case of aircraft crash; the proximity of the heliport or helispot to residential areas, nursing homes, assisted living facilities and schools; the proximity of the heliport to airports and to the flight patterns of aircraft using such airports; the benefits to be derived by the public from the establish and operation of the heliport, if any; the nuisance effect if any of the heliport/helispot and its associated operations on vehicular traffic; the environmental impact of the heliport/helispot if any including but not limited to noise pollution; and the proximity of the facility of storage Page 20 August 8, 2007 facilities for combustible or explosive materials or to other hazards. Now, Clay, those are all things which I think our local government would benefit from that knowledge, rather than just submitting stuff to the FAA. I'm not sure how relevant the FAA's going to have of things like combustible and explosive materials to neighboring buildings or where the assisted living facilities are. But we'd have a handle on that. And I don't see why we wouldn't benefit from that information. MR. BROOKER: We have no objection to including in the proposal that whatever we submit to the state and federal agencies we would also submit to Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any objection that the information I just asked for could be used and supplied to evaluate whether or not this would even be permitted as an acceptable use in an industrial park? MR. BROOKER: Wait, can you state that whole question again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If county staff wanted to do an evaluation on whether or not the criteria for a helispot was applicable or could be utilized based on some of the criteria that I just read to you and you were required to submit that to county staff, and county staff then in the case of a helispot in an industrial zone could administratively make a decision based on that submitted material, do you have any problem with that? MR. BROOKER: Administratively? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For a helispot with that submission, yes. MR. BROOKER: I don't think we would have an objection, but I'd have to check with my client. And I also state that if that's going to be the case, then we would want the county to hire someone who's an expert in aviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think reviewing the information I just read you, it doesn't take an expert to know where the assisted living facilities are or the residential areas are or where the fire Page 21 August 8, 2007 stations are. I think the experts that you would hire would supply that information to staff to evaluate to -- MR. BROOKER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- see if you've done it properly and adequately. MR. BROOKER: And that's fine. We can do that. Also, by the way, you mentioned turbulence, you know, wind created from the rotors. The regulations also state, the experts from the FAA state, that if you elevate your helipad on top of a building by six feet or more, that the turbulence is minimized. It's eliminated. And that's what our particular property is looking at doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the language I just read you was from another community's restrictions, just to understand the facts of air turbulence. If there are none, it's going to be very simple to answer that one then. Those are the issues that I found. I think that we'd be well guided to be more involved in the permitting and locating of these than just turning it over to the feds in that criteria alone. So my inclinations would be that if we're going to allow these, and they be helispots, with administrative approval subject to some of the criteria review that I just listed, and anything beyond that becomes a conditional use no matter where it's used. MR. BROOKER: Let me ask you, because I know, Mark, you have mentioned it in the past. If something's vague you're not (sic) uncomfortable with it, because what does it mean in the future. If you asked staff to evaluate a proposed helispot and we have to show that -- we have to show what's all around us, residential, assisted living facilities, whatever it may be in an industrial zoning district, assisted living facility in an industrial zoning district, they say no. Based on what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The review of that criteria. They may feel that the facilities that are within range of that are going to be Page 22 August 8, 2007 disrupted too much by that activity. Noise being one __ MR. BROOKER: So the criteria is disrupted too much? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Clay, I'm not going to sit here today and write the criteria. But I bet if that stuff -- those items were listed as concerns to this community, staff would find a way to address them like they have with the rest of the code that we have. So I think yes, we can talk ambiguous language here today, because we're not writing the code today. But you give me time or someone else on staff who is knowledgeable on these things, they'll write it. MR. BROOKER: Oh, I'm sure they'll write it, but they're not experts in it. And the state and federal agencies are. And that's why we have expressly cited to and incorporated that comprehensive regulatory scheme, in addition to ensuring compatibility by a massive setback, by assuming building heights around us, by limiting the size of a helicopter that can come in and so forth and so on, in the middle of an industrial zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If this is going to be that difficult to do, why don't you just hire somebody who knows how to do it and have them write it for you so that you do have everything you need and that this gentleman knows or woman knows how to do it. MR. BROOKER: It's already been written. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I mean, you're talking about his idea and you're not sure with that and you're not sure with this. Hire somebody that knows how to do it, pay them and get it done and get it done with now. MR. BROOKER: Well, Mark was talking about having a staff evaluate it. We will -- we couldn't do anything better than what the state and feds do. I'm not an expert in this. I'm a pilot, but I'm not an Page 23 August 8, 2007 expert in all this. I couldn't do any better. They regulate the color of the little H that's got to go on the helispot. I mean, it goes into extreme detail. So Mark's wanting someone from staff-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are you stating that some expert couldn't do this and we're going to use staff who how many times have they done that? I mean, it's not something new to them -- I mean it is something new to them. And there are too many people who actually know how to put it together and all you have to do is pay someone to do it. Just take some time out and get it done with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, you had started to get into concerns. What were you -- did any of the information I just provided to you help? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I still have a couple of questions. And I think the issue really is is whether private heliports are permitted, you know, by right or whether they're conditional use. I think that's what we're up to. I think you're probably right, there's probably tons of standards on how to do it. In the approach zone, and what you said, that that's a minimum zone, what is the actual height of the helicopter going to be? And is that something that's established or is that something that's up to the pilot at that moment? MR. BROOKER: The FAA regulations require minimum altitudes over certain areas. And the only reason I know this is because I happen to be a pilot. We didn't look into that because we have such strict setbacks in the middle of an industrial zoning district. For example, amusement parks, you have to be two or 3,000 feet mInImum. Environmentally sensitive areas, two to 3,000 feet minimum. Stadiums during events like football games are off limits. Over very congested, urban centers, minimum altitudes. Air traffic space, there are altitudes that are required. But the general rule in the absence of any of those particulars is Page 24 August 8, 2007 that you must -- a pilot must maintain whatever height is appropriate that they can make a safe landing in the event of a catastrophic engine failure. That has -- and the FAA has left it deliberately vague because they want to have the flexibility to always come back and point to pilot error if someone wrecks, frankly. That's the reason they left it vague. But that has been informally interpreted a number of times to be a minimum of 500 feet above ground level, 500 feet AGL. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so in other words, this __ you will always be 500 feet above a residential? MR. BROOKER: That's certainly a condition. I think so. I don't think -- if you watch the medevac helicopter when it goes over, it is a minimum of 500 feet when you see it going down the coast or whatever. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I grew up near the Sykorski (phonetic) helicopter plant. We used to watch the testing. The height for a helicopter for engine failure to land safely I think is on the ground, zero, because they don't land; they don't come down good. The -- so this approach zone, even though it's going to allow something a little bit shy of 200 feet over -- the approach zone will go over residential area 1,500 feet away, shy 200 feet. There'll never be a helicopter at 200 feet. MR. BROOKER: That's my understanding. And remember, the eight to one is a minimum requirement to even get a site approval. And so the FAA could say as a condition of site approval, and the Florida Department of Transportation could say as a condition of site approval you don't go over "X", "Y" and "Z" spots ever, unless you're at a certain altitude, or this is the path you must take. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's the FAA telling us. I mean -- and the reason I'm asking that is I'm worried about the guy living in the house on the edge of that. I mean, I don't particularly want anything we do here today to ever disturb his ability to, you Page 25 August 8, 2007 know, enjoy his home. So what would be the big problem of having this come through as a conditional use, the private heliport? Because that really does give all the neighbors a chance to be notified, gives them a chance to come out at the local level and discuss it. I know that __ MR. BROOKER: In our opinion, it violates private property rights, given the existence of transportation by air being a permitted use as of right today in the industrial zoning district. Today if my client wanted to, he could have a scheduled on-the-hour passenger helicopter facility lifting off, taking off on the hour from his property, assuming he gets state and federal approval to do so, and the county can't do anything about that. And so we're looking at it in that context. What we are proposing is much less intense of what is already permitted as of right in the industrial zoning district. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And yet we're here. MR. BROOKER: Because the staff retracted our SDP approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so this meeting is proving your point, I think. Mark, I'm done. I mean, I'm kind of in favor of protecting -- you know, I think the 1,500 feet's a good distance. I mean, we kind of keep bars that far away from churches and things. But the __ MR. BROOKER: If! may interrupt, and I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. BROOKER: But a proposal, perhaps 1,500 feet setback is where -- your location, and under no circumstance shall a helicopter taking off or landing from this particular pad maintain an altitude less than 500 feet over existing residential development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're getting close. I mean, I would like to see the approach zone not go over the residential development. But let's see. That's starting to get complicated in this __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Page 26 '....-..-.........-..-.. August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Brooker, Chairman recited a number of perhaps that could be construed as restrictions, but they're certainly a number of points to guide for safety. Do you have any objection to any of them that he recited? MR. BROOKER: No, because everything he's cited we're already going to have to supply to state and federal. And we're not opposed to supplying that information to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Including the use of the word helispot as opposed to heliport. Although you'd make a preference for heliport. In other words, my question to you is if we concluded that it was going to be a helispot, you might not like it but you could live with it? MR. BROOKER: Well, it's not that I don't like it. It's -- my hesitation is purely from a legal perspective. I don't want to get caught in a crossfire of a definitional problem. Mr. Strain seems to think it would be perfectly fine, and he may be 100 percent right. I never put money on that kind of thing when I'm dealing with state and federal regulatory schemes, so I hesitate from a legal perspective. From a practical perspective, that's all it's going to be is a helistop. What everyone -- I guess the layman's view of what a helistop it. It's just for landing and taking off, nothing more. That's what we are here for, my client wants to do. So from a practical standpoint, no objection whatsoever. From a legal definitional standpoint, I hesitate, only because I don't know the unintended consequence of calling something that and seeing what might be triggered or untriggered down the road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand you. You call it a helistop. I thought I heard him say helispot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Spot is the -- there's two terms, heliport and helispot -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He called it -- Page 27 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Helistop. I'm sorry. S-T-O-P. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See, you were using spot, I thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been mixed interchangeably, but it's S-T-O-P, according to the-- MR. BROOKER: And I also might be dyslexic, I don't know, those two. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I think I now appreciate more the definitional conditions that the Chairman has indicated, because a helispot, to me helispot a heliport didn't make -- but a helistop suggests a place of temporary activity. MR. BROOKER: Temporary in a sense that we want to be able to park the helicopter there when it's not in use. Is that prohibited by the definition you read? Because I've seen others that may imply that. So that's again my hesitance. What we want, whatever you want to call it, is the ability to take off and land from this structure on top of a building, and then park it there when it's not in use. Nothing more. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if this board agreed that those conditions were representative in the definition for helispot ( sic), you would be comfortable, I presume? MR. BROOKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've aired a lot of discussion on this at this point, and I'm (sic) certainly think this can be done a little bit . better in regards to a rewrite. And maybe then it would have a better chance of becoming something that's workable for all parties concerned. We're going to have to continue this meeting for two other items. Why don't we add this as a rewrite to come back to us at the next continued meeting, which would be at least a week or more away. Would that work, Clay? MR. BROOKER: We have no objection to that. When is the Page 28 August 8, 2007 next hearing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't know for sure, but I'm suggesting the 16th in the afternoon, because we have a meeting that day that will last -- we have three cases, they should get over fairly __ in the morning or so. And we'll do a time certain in the afternoon to finish up the LDC amendments, if everybody's in agreement when we finish today. MR. BROOKER: The 16th of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be next week. MR. BROOKER: Oh, next week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I can supply today the information to Marjorie or to Catherine that I've recited here. That way you can have it and it can be reverbalized or re-textualized into another amendment that could come back to us. Is that a direction that most of the board would like to see happen? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I would like to see happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, are we going from here with -- to make the private use conditional or to have Clay come up with enough conditions that we'd be comfortable with it as a permitted? Which direction are we taking? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think his suggestion of a heliport without fuel administratively is kind of really a helistop. And that if you want to go anything beyond the helistop level, then you'd be looking at a conditional use. But a helistop with certain criteria to make -- complete the file, and whether he believes staff is capable or not, I think they are, of reviewing the information requested, and that that information be allocated in the form of like the SDP. And I think that would I think provide enough assurances the public's interest may have been looked at. Ms. Caron? Page 29 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: So are you suggesting that if the county administratively reviews these helistops and for some reason decides that it's not appropriate, then what would be the next course of action? Would they come through a conditional use? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: At that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Having rejected administratively by staff, then it would be a conditional use process. MR. BROOKER: Well, if it's an administrative process, then we would have the appeal right to the BZA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the same --1 mean, that gets you into the public process. That's where -- MR. BROOKER: The public hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --I'm trying to go. MR. BROOKER: Sure, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you can't get through staff and staff feels there's a concern, then you should be put into the public process and let the public at least opine on it. MR. BROOKER: We'll be the whipping post again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. There was one other thing I wanted to address as part of the rewrite, and it comes under site limitations and criteria. And I spoke briefly with Mr. Brooker about this at the beginning of the meeting. I just want to make sure we include -- and it may be in 330, but I recall that there are siting restrictions concerning -- that would be if it were under heliport, near landfills, schools and things like that. So if we're going to have a laundry list of statutes, I would prefer -- I guess it's okay to list them specifically, but have a catchall provision so somebody doesn't try to argue, well, it's not listed there and we don't have to do it. Whereas, as a non-charter county anyway, we're bound to be consistent with state law. But I just don't want to have to get into Page 30 August 8, 2007 that argument. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other comments? Mr. Brooker, do you have any -- MR. BROOKER: I had discussed that with Marjorie before, and we have no objection to making -- to placing in there an express requirement to comply with all applicable state and federal regulations, whether they're listed in our actual provision -- our proposal or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the consensus of the panel then, we'd like to see this one come back to us? MR. BROOKER: May I ask, are we absolutely sure it's the 16th, or will I wait to hear from staff in that regard? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to continue it after today's meeting. I'm suggesting the 16th might work if we limit it to the three items that we seem to be limited to right now. But if we can't finish the rest of this today, we may have to pick another full day to go from here. So 1 can't say the 16th for sure, we'll just have to see where this meeting goes, Clay. MR. BROOKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Catherine, next on the list is storm water detention with Stan Chrzanowski. Is that still the order we're going to take them in? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell us the page to start with? 101 ? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Stan Chrzanowski, I'm with the community development department, engineering review section. And actually, this item turned out to be not as contentious as we originally thought it would be. I e-mailed you all copies of a little study we did that Page 31 August 8, 2007 accompanied the item prompted by some earlier questions. I have spare copies, if you want them now. I don't know if you printed them out and brought them along or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have the one that was issued with our packet. Is that -- do you have more than that? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, the one I had Sharon Phillips e-mail to each member of the planning commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Stan, I don't know if I have that one, so I'd sure appreciate it, thank you. I guess we all could use it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A new one? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay, good morning. The purpose of this Land Development Code amendment is that we have in recent times been subjected to house plants coming in. We don't review single-family house plants, we review commercial, industrial. Single-family house plants come in, they get building permits. Nobody looks at how much ground they cover. It occurred to us that some of the drainage problems we're having are because a lot of the houses being built right now are being built bigger than they used to be built. 1 guess the result of a more effluent society. So we're trying to make some requirement that the incremental impact of construction on stormwater cannot be displaced onto neighboring properties. That's an ISO view of a light air topography of a lot. Last development amendment cycle we limited how much fill you can put on a lot before you build your house. We did that because as that dimple rises up, it takes more and more of the lot out of the floodplain. And you can see from the colors on there that he's shedding water onto his neighbor's -- it probably already flowed in that direction, but it probably flows faster now. We want some kind of retention when we have situations like this. Page 32 August 8, 2007 We solved that problem. But the problem that we didn't solve was back in the old days when you came into, say, Golden Gate City or wherever, you built the house on the left, maybe a 2,100 square foot house with a 20-by-20 garage and a 30-by-20 driveway on what, an 80-by-125-foot lot. Now what we see coming in is they build setback to setback. Somebody wants to build as big a house as possible on the lot. And what you end up with -- now, I want to clarifY something here. If you look at those three lots across the bottom, especially the one with the orange arrow, those are three houses along Connor's A venue. And you really can't tell that the one in the middle is that much bigger than the other two. It's probably not. So when you look at this view compared to the other two, you tend to -- and I was specifically told not to use the term mega house. I won't. This is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about monster house? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: This is not a mega house ordinance. The raindrop on its way down sees the roof, and it can't tell the difference between those three buildings, the two on both sides or the one in the middle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, was that permitted as a single-family home? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Or a hotel, I don't know which. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's huge. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's impressive. We don't say huge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The size of it. That's terrible. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, anyway, this is a lot in Naples Park. The two older homes are on the sides, the one in the middle you can tell, just -- they're built according to code, not a problem. They're a little higher. So they picked up some extra area that way. If he had built a little smaller, we'd probably have liked it a little more. That's where we're headed now. Page 33 August 8, 2007 And the way the ordinance is written, we're trying to hit neighborhoods that are not in Water Management District permits. Because those already in Water Management District permits have their rules put down as to how much they can cover. And they do have central storm water management systems that these older neighborhoods don't. These older neighborhoods generally just shed right into canals and it goes downstream. You can see from the list it is a lot of the older neighborhoods of Collier County, not any of the newer PUDs. We did a little study of the existing impervious area of all those subdivisions. And in some cases they do exceed the total impervious area that we're shooting for. Most of the cases don't. But individual homes within there, since this is an average, individual homes do. But the only reason the average is below our suggested percentage is because the vast majority don't. We're trying to truncate the top of that pyramid. And as part of the ordinance, property owners will have the following options: They can build within the impervious restrictions; they can build a higher home, a two or a three-story home, two stories over parking, two stories over a garage; or they can build beyond the impervious restrictions, but they'll have to retain an engineer to retain their increased peak runoff on site. We do give them that option. Now, I can show you some examples. I can keep going on for a while, but I won't, because you've got a long day. I can show you some examples of the homes from those spread sheets that 1 gave you, the ones that show us being out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. But you saw the one in Naples Park. The spread sheets that 1 gave you were part of a study that was done through the graphics department using GIS. They have a way to get in and by hand they try to identifY the impervious areas, parking, whatever. And then they use the appraiser's website. They go through and figure out the total area of the lot. Page 34 August 8, 2007 And we picked, what, about a dozen neighborhoods by whatever neighborhoods we thought would be the most representative of what we were trying to accomplish. And if you look at them, the first one you're looking at -- well, mine might not be in the same order as yours. Naples Manor. The -- we gave you some information, the folio number. A lot of this I don't understand either, the lot and block and parcel size, square footage, and the impervious area that was computed by the graphics department. Next to that the graphics took out to the roof line, which is technically not the footprint. And they also went out into the right-of-way. And most of these driveways are a little larger out in the right-of-way. So it made the impervious areas look bigger than they were. But still making a correction for that, and we used a blanket correction, which is probably a little off, but we wanted an idea of where we were headed for this. So we came up with the minimum allowable by our code and what they had on their lots for already existing impervious. And I'm sorry they carried this out to six decimal places. We should never do that. And on the last column, the overages are how much these homes would be over or under our new ordinance. Now, the ones that are yellow would be okay under the new ordinance. The ones that are white would be not. So in Naples Manor, you can see that most of them would conform to the new ordinance. We'd only take out the few that are larger than what we would allow, which is relatively few compared. In Naples Park we have a few more, the next sheet, my next sheet, I hope it's yours. In Naples Park we have a few more that are white in comparison to the number of yellows. But you saw that one in Naples Park. And a lot of this problem was first noticed in Naples Park. Page 35 August 8, 2007 Because we had people out there buying two lots because they're narrow lots, and building setback to setback across the common line, which makes it even worse. But you can build a nice size house when you do that. Next one, Willoughby Acres. This surprised me. I would have thought most of those would be yellow. But we have not quite 50 percent done higher than the ordinance would allow. Poinciana Village, about the same. Golden Gate City, most of the people there seem to conform to the new ordinance. An older subdivision. The Estates, the larger lots. My next one is the five-acre lots. We would probably -- if you look, very few of them would conform to the new ordinance. We've noticed that -- the way we wrote the ordinance, the smaller lots are limited to 40 percent, but as you get to the larger lots, we add two or three percent to that 40 percent. That was suggested by one of the participants that we had a couple of workshops with all of the local engineering firms and some of the developers. It was suggested by them because we couldn't come up with a number that worked at low area and at high area both. So they suggested some kind of spread based on the size of the lot. You notice it's a little better for the two and a quarter, two and a half-acre lots. And it's a little better still, but not much better for the acre and a quarter lots. Those are a specific problem, because they're so narrow. Golden Gate Estates, I. IS-acre lots are -- I'm sorry, I already did that one. And if you look at the Pine Ridge subdivision, at the very end you'll see very few them would conform to the new ordinance. The only questions that I've received lately -- this ordinance has been workshopped a lot, and the only questions I've received lately are in the ordering of how this thing was done. And a lot of this was done by committee. I came up with the numbers. Page 36 August 8, 2007 But the part about exemptions is at the very end. And you have to read all the way through and then all of a sudden you get to the part that says if you're part of a Water Management District permit, you're exempt. There had been some suggestion that that would be better placed up near the front right after availability -- applicability. But I am not married to either concept. I don't care one way or another. My personal preference would be upfront. But do you have any questions about why we came up with the numbers, why we're doing this? I assume -- like 1 said, I thought this would be contentious, so have at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Stan. On Page 104, just to be absolutely sure, I think I understand, but I want to be certain, under number three, it says at any case, a one-time addition to an existing residence will be allowed after July, 2008. We're talking in that context of adding another portion to an already placed structure, correct? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. How that came about was we had one of the engineers at one of those meetings bring up that he had just moved into a starter home, young engineer, married. He was going to have a child and he wanted to be able to add a room if he had more than one child, and he thought this would limit people from buying starter homes. And as the discussion progressed, people didn't like the fact that we were letting the smaller homes do it and not letting the larger homes do it. So we just made it a blanket one-time -- I would prefer personally if it were just the smaller homes, but I have no problem with this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stan, I guess the one thing to start with, lot coverage by our definition is buildings. Page 37 August 8, 2007 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: New buildings -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- structure any accessory structure. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right, vertical construction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: An impervious area is that plus driveways, anything that doesn't absorb water. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the excluding swimming pools, wouldn't that be better off under impervious? Because your intent there is -- in other words, a swimming pool or a deck would never be part of the lot coverage to begin with. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, in our intent the deck would be. There's been -- the swimming pool tends to hold whatever water falls in it, unless it has some kind of drain. And if it does, it lets it out slowly. I'd have no problem taking the water surface of the swimming pool out of the equation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I think that's what you mean, excluding the swimming pool. But my only question, it's simpler than that, is shouldn't that be under the impervious? Just slide it over to the right. Because you would never calculate the swimming pool or its deck under the lot coverage. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Where am I? MR. SCHMITT: Page 103, Stan. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it's a subtle point, but it's just a point. Anyway, the 25 percent for the building, and I guess you add the impervious, that allows you IS percent, there are a lot of districts that allow 35 percent for ground coverage. This is the first time we really introduce it as a default. I'd kind of -- just the argument, why shouldn't it be 35 percent? I Page 38 August 8, 2007 mean, you've got plenty of studies and -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: During all the hearings, we heard 38 percent, 33 percent, 40 percent. And they all seemed to be, you know, the kind of numbers people were just pulling out of the air. And we decided that the best thing to do was to see how the formula worked in real life with existing subdivisions. If you want, I can come back and show you what these look like at 37 percent or 35 percent or some other percent. But we had some lower percentages, and it throws a whole lot of them into nonconformance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And obviously the person could always engineer. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so that doesn't trap anybody, just makes a default. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is kind of to Catherine. Catherine, the way the thing's written, the applicability and then number two, I mean, I would kind of rather see that as the applicability and then two be the exception to that. Because the way it's written in code, one and two have the same power, but one forbids anything past it, so it kind of -- you know what I mean? Just in terms of code-ese (sic), I think that might be kicked around. The other question is -- and remember, I'm an architect so would it be rude to laugh at this, but could an architect be able to do that drainage analysis? I mean, in our profession we do calculate the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's dangerous, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know. It is dangerous. But I always thought I did my storm drainage calculations better than my engmeer, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but if you're going to do all the planning in Collier County for architects then I'd feel safe but my Page 39 August 8, 2007 God, do you know what you're openmg the door to if you let architects do engineering? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I told you to be kind. In other words, what if we had in there just that the analysis -- 1 mean, the other complaint I could have about engineering is that's a pretty broad license. Essentially what you're saying is that a nuclear engineer could do it, yet an architect couldn't, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you need a civil, don't you? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: By the Florida Board of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics you can't practice in an area that you know about. Like 1 couldn't write a helipad ordinance. You might be able to get somebody else to do it, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't admit that now. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- I couldn't do it. Technically -- but I have heard the argument about architects. Architect's board has claimed the ability to do drainage where it relates to single-family homes like that. I'd just as soon let both boards argue it out. But if I had to put it in the ordinance, most of these calculations will be fairly simple. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. It's volume. And theoretically -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If the calculation is right, it's right. And it's nice to have the seal on there so somebody's responsible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think professionally signed, but I'm just not comfortable -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You guys have a seal, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have a seal. I mean, the-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Legal liability. If the calculation is correct, it's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Brad, I don't see the engineering parties coming in and trying to do architecture, nor do I see -- we have Page 40 August 8, 2007 a good division of professionals right now. Why don't we keep that fine line as distinct as we can leave it? I mean, if -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- someone's building a home of this substantial size to have an engineer come in and certifY the drainage isn't that big of a problem, really . You're talking substantially sized homes that exceed this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, it's just a skill that we're taught. I mean, we architects don't -- maybe by behavior lately we have been, but we don't ignore stormwater. It's part of the process. But anyway, obviously we can move on from that for now. 1 mean, if it's required by this to be a licensed engineer, then the architect has to calculate and he has get an engineer to help, you know, certifY that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The engineer can't just certifY it, he has to double check your calculations. Physically do it himself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Which means you're restraining the trade of an architect. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We have referred to this as the engineer's relief act of 2007. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me see just to make sure. No, I think that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Midney.I'm sorry. Mr. Kolflat, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The problem here is that larger houses, I understand, that's what's creating the problem; is that correct? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Houses that are much larger than the other houses in the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right. Was there any thought Page 41 August 8, 2007 about curtailing the source of the problem, basically the size of the house, ifthere is a problem? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's what this should accomplish. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't say that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, other than the fact that you can hire the engineer if you want to build an overly large house to come up with a drainage scheme that will work, we're telling you that your house can cover the percentage of your lot. We're curtailing the size of the house. We're not curtailing the square footage, we're curtailing the footprint. You can go up. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And that -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You can go three stories. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- to surrounding houses. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, I don't care about vertical construction. It's probably the most efficient way to do things most times. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Brad, did you say that the standard in most communities is 35 percent? Is that a standard? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For single-family homes, that's the lot coverage that I'm used to. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm wondering if we should request that ours also be 35, since that's a community standard in other places. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we don't do anything like any other place, so why start now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, Paul, this isn't saying you can't go above 35 or 40 percent, this is just a threshold in which to insist that an engineer review it and sign off on a calculation. So there may be a difference in the need between applying 35 here and what they Page 42 August 8, 2007 have. Only because it's just a different trigger is what it is. They're not saying you can't do it, you've just got to bring in a professional and get it done. Catherine, you're looking kind of puzzled. Am I stating something wrong? MS. FABACHER: No, no, I'm sorry. I was just wondering, the 35 you were referring to the lot coverage or the impervious area? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Lot coverage. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The lot coverage. MS. FABACHER: Okay, thanks. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If I could say something. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they all want to just in. Let them -- MR. SCHMITT: I think that's -- you need to make that clear again, if I could, for the group. This is not limiting the construction, it's only defining the requirement to deal with the stormwater runoff. So there's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: I don't want to leave this panel with the impression that this is attempting to limit the size of a home. I know Stan showed some rather large homes, but again, it's not attempting to do that. It's attempting just simply to make sure that there's adequate engineering to deal with the runoff. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I can show some rather larger ones, if you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we've seen enough. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The one thing, and I'd be remiss in not bringing this up, that's been brought up a few times, but the 25 percent lot coverage, they think if we -- it was decided that we would put the 25 percent in there to stop people from building too large of a home and then realizing that they can't build a driveway or a patio afterward. To my point of view, the 40 percent is what's important, because Page 43 August 8, 2007 that's where you get your runoff from. I don't much care whether you build a very small house and a very large pool, patio and driveway or a very large house and a sidewalk and park your car somewhere else. I don't care. But if we tell people they got 35 percent and they only have that five percent to deal with till they get to the 40 percent and they come in with this big '01 house and then we tell them, I'm sorry, you can't build a pool, you can't build a patio, you can't build a driveway, you can't do any of this. So I kind of thought there was some wisdom in holding the 25 percent down. And it is, it's a substantial number in most cases. 10,000 square foot lot gets a 2,500 square foot house lot coverage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, though, you wouldn't say they can't build that house or can't build that pool. You would say you have to have an engineer certifY your drainage for this house and that pool can be sufficient. So you're not telling people they can't build a home. You're simply saying at a certain threshold they have to have engineering to prove they can handle this stormwater -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- right? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Two things. First of all, Stan, no one was ever allowed to have water drain over on the neighbor's property. That's always been in the code, correct? I mean, that's always been the standard practice. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, but it's not exactly in code. That's water management law. And what the law says really is that you can't shed water onto your neighbor at a greater rate than it was historically shed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the second thing: One Page 44 August 8, 2007 study that's missing is that if you looked at new permits for residential, I don't think you'll find any house that's being permitted today that would not require -- maybe way out on a big lot, but that would not require this engineering. Don't you agree? I mean, people aren't building small houses on their property. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, but if you looked at that list of subdivisions, the one thing you'll notice is that most of those subdivisions are built out. And the few that aren't are dang close to it. And what we're looking at is redevelopment and people buying two lots, tearing down two houses and putting one very large one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I'm in favor it, I'm just -- you know, the default's low enough where I think it'll just require stormwater engineering on every single single-family house. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, Page 103, number one, the second line. It says a maximum allowable ratio of lot coverage and impervious area coverage to the lot area shall be as follows. In that sentence where it says after total lot area, could we insert the words total lot area without an engineer's analysis or without an engineer's certification of drainage shall be as follows? That makes it clear. You're not saying you can't exceed that, you're saying you can't exceed it without an engineer's certifi -- however you want to word it. But I would suggest that would help clarifY that point. That seems to be the thrust of this whole thing. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Easily done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I say something along that line? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what I would maybe word in there, you know, subject to the exceptions below. Because it's not -- you know, there are other exceptions below. And engineering is just one of them. Page 45 August 8, 2007 And again, I think that that one and two is kind of poorly written in terms of the way we write code. So I think if we rewrite one and two properly, that confusion wouldn't be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not -- if you feel that warrants -- here's where we're going. I mean, if we rewrite all these, we're going to be coming back for another meeting, and that's fine. But we need to discuss that. Because some of these -- myself, it didn't bother me, Brad. But if you think it's that problematic, I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Even what you said, in other words, you said without an engineer's report. But actually there are districts that would allow you not to have to follow that table. So there's more than just the engineer's report that would get you away from one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and 1 agree add the language you just said to clarifY, with the exceptions suggested down below in number two. But you're suggesting to go further and rewrite number two as an exception clause instead of a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think number two should be the exception to one, that's all. I mean, it's just -- I think -- you know, and what you said isn't fully covered either, because it's not just an engineer, you could also live in a district with stormwater management that wouldn't require that, right? So-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- listing all the exceptions in that sentence isn't necessary if we do the code right, I think. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: What did I come out of that with? What am I go to go do? I would just -- not being an English major, I'd just as soon defer to Catherine to rewrite these first two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: She can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would have to come back to us again? MS. F ABACHER: I guess so. Unless you -- Page 46 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I don't know what it's going to say now, so I'd have to see it again. So we'll have to schedule this one for return as well. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, it seems to me in 103-D, in the last statement says, but must be signed and sealed by an engineer. If that's what we started to say and that's what you said was necessary, why hasn't it become a requirement? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, the more times we put it in the ordinance, it can't hurt. Is that what -- did I misunderstand? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're saying, make it a requirement. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what I'm trying to say, why don't we just make it a requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're doing. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's exactly what we're suggesting. We're clarifYing it here and it's already existing there. So if we vote on this, it becomes a requirement. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 104, the top number three, the first three words, in any case. I guess what this is, it's limiting additions to 1,000 square feet. So no matter where they live or whether they're in compliance now or not -- for example, in the yellow areas where they're obviously under the impervious area, even those ones in the yellow areas would be limited to a 1,000 square foot expansion? Wouldn't they be limited to whatever their negative was and then 1,000 square feet? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's probably a good way to do it, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because they're not in trouble till they go from yellow to white. And then they're only not in trouble on Page 47 August 8, 2007 the white if they go 1,000 square feet over. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm trying to think how I would write that without referencing these. You laugh. It's easy for you to laugh, you don't have to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just seeing if it's fair or not, Stan. If you don't think it's fair -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, it's fair. I'm just trying to think how I can word that. But if we're bringing this thing back-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, you've got time to figure it out. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- I'll work on it during the week. You're right, we don't want somebody that's already well in excess to be able to build much more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that 1,000 feet limits that. But if they're already below the threshold, they could go up to the threshold and go 1,000 feet over and still be consistent with what you're providing everybody else. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That wasn't what I was thinking. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I was thinking people that are well in excess of the threshold shouldn't be allowed to do the full thousand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, they'd be allowed then too, so maybe we need to put a -- figure out a way to reverbalize that or rewrite that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, the thing is they could -- I would say you can add 1,000 feet as long as it doesn't exceed -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a suggestion, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think, Stan, if you -- first of all, maybe "in any case" might not be good, Mark's right. But a one-time addition exceeding table -- and whatever the reference to the table is, to an existing -- in other words, if you add after addition, exceeding table let's just call it one, table one, that might -- that's the August 8, 2007 intent of that is that you can exceed that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, the one-time addition that exceeds the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Table one is -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- table one by 1,000 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that's simple. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then maybe kill "in any case", because that's just a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Stan, you're going to bring this back to us then. Why don't we just, with those suggestions from us, come back. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, I just wanted clarification from Brad. He noted the exception, and he was noting paragraph two to start as an exception? But I don't read those as exceptions until I get to four. Do you want four to be labeled exception? Sub-paragraph four. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What number one says, you have to do table -- MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- okay? And then number two says -- gives you other requirements that are not doing the table, and they're not -- they are essentially all exceptions to following the table. Remember at the last hearing that there was -- I think it was section four -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: m your seating thing. Whoever wrote that, hire them to write this. Because that was perfectly written and it was more complicated than -- MR. SCHMITT: I throw it to Catherine and we'll do this. When it comes back you will look at how this is set up again, for ease and understanding, I guess is what I'm hearing. Page 49 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Stan, does that take care of it for you on this one? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, we'll take a break until 10:15. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will their seats, we'll resume our meeting. And as we were asked by our court reporter, especially in my case, and I'm the most guilty party, I need to talk a little slower, and we need to be careful about talking over one another. It seems these meetings that happens a lot, and so we'll try to be more careful. That way it's more recordable. And also we have a lot to go through today, so if there's any way that we can move it forward faster, we certainly will be trying to do that. And the next one, I guess, Stan, is the seawall infiltration trench, which is another one of yours. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Do you want a short presentation or do you know what it's about and you want to vote on it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's a whole front and back of one page. It shouldn't be too hard just to tell us what it is, for the record, and then we'll -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay, generally seawalls, bulkheads and retaining walls are kind of -- MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Page 105. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 105 and 106. Thank you, Stan. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Generally seawalls, bulkheads retaining walls, they're kind of all lumped together. When you do civil engineering design, you somehow toe the bottom in if you're not using a spread footer of some type. You make sure that the wall gets deep Page 50 August 8, 2007 enough into the ground to where it's not going to fall over. You put a cap on, you put ties in there. Sometimes you'll notice the tie penetrates the wall and has some type of plate on the front place of the wall. Sometimes they put the ties into the cap, run them back to dead men. But generally one of the design principles in all these walls is that you put a weephole every so many feet, four feet, whatever, and you back that weephole up with some type of geo-textile bag full of a poorly graded material. That's a material that's all the same grain size, inch and a half stone, three-quarter stone, something that's fairly course, so that the water percolates through the fabric and then through the course material and out the weephole. That stops the hydrostatic pressure behind the wall from rising and staying for long periods of time, which puts stress on the dead man tie, stress on the dead man, stress on the wall itself. In effect, you know, the toe kicking out, whatever. Although we don't really have an ordinance that requires that. It's just standard engineering practice. We want an ordinance that requires it. And this is it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Is this just for new construction, or are you looking to have a review of what is currently out there? I mean, are we going to have a lot of code enforcement issues? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, ma'am. We weren't going to do it for walls that are already there. But if somebody tears out a wall and puts a new one in, we consider that new construction. Not necessarily new house construction, but new wall construction. And that came up at DSAC, and they didn't want to do it for just wall replacements, but we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then -- I'm sorry, go Page 51 August 8, 2007 ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I'd like to finish. They don't want to do it for -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, they thought it would be too much for -- it would discourage people from replacing their walls. But where you're doing the whole house, they would not have a problem with having the wall replaced, too. But we think if you're going to replace the wall, you should do it right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, absolutely. Okay, thank you. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stan, one thing in here, it doesn't discuss the weephole. Is that something that should be in here or -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If it doesn't, we might have missed that very obvious fact. And I don't think it does. I will add that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we do have an old seawall ordinance. We've gotten into that -- we pulled it out when we were fighting over the cap heights and stuff. This doesn't conflict with that? I'm trying to -- I can see the images in my head of the sections through and it doesn't have this trench. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, I don't see how it could conflict with it. It doesn't change any other thing about the wall, other than forcing you to put -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, then stick to weeps. You wanted an abbreviation, BMP, yet you really never use it in here other than D, you started and then put a BMP. Do we really need it? Unless it's used somewhere else in the code. MS. F ABACHER: I think -- Catherine Fabacher. I think it would be better to have it in there in general, because a Page 52 August 8, 2007 lot of disciplines use BMPs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this is the start of something big? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- wondered whether the weepholes would be in the Best Management Practices. But that's fine, include it. But I just wondered about that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And generally most of those sheets come with weepholes already formed into them. But Mr. Schiffer is right, it should be in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. From that our consensus is it should go forward with -- as it is? Okay. Catherine, do we typically do a recommendation approval on each LDC section? MS. F ABACHER: That's what we started doing now at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- LDC Sections 1.08.01, 1.08.02 and 6.05.02 for approval? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Brad had said it first. Okay, Mr. Schiffer made the motion, second by Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 53 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Kuck, good morning. MR. KUCK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record Tom Kuck, Engineering Director. The first one that I want to address is on Page 107. And I'm recommending a change to the way it's written. The way it's written is if you get a plat approved by the board you're required, according to this, to record it within 90 days. And after reading it over, I think that's too short a time. I'm recommending either a year and a half or two years. The reason for it is oftentimes in the past developers would decide to put some of the infrastructure in prior to recording the plat. Because if you record the plat, you have to post 110 percent bond. And this gives you a little bit more freedom on that. And going back to our SDPs, once we approve an SDP, they have two years to start construction. So I think the 90 days is too short, and I'm recommending that we go along with it and change it to either 18 months or two years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions or comments from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When does he want, the 18 months or two years? You seem to be happy with 18 months. MR. KUCK: I'd be happy with 18 months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's written as 18, so -- isn't it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have 90 days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on B on Page 108, prior to the 18-month construction -- plat shall be completed within 18 months. Page 54 August 8, 2007 MR. KUCK: And this would also affect the LDC -- proposed LDC amendment on Page 109, which also has the 90 days. And I'm recommending that that be changed to 18 months for the same reason. And again, another reason for my recommendation to give a longer time is right now with the way the economy and the building is, there's a lot of developers might want to come in and get their plat approved and go through all the red tape to get that done, and they may not want to start construction in 90 days. This would give them more of a window when they could start their construction. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you've got on those two amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, but I just make a comment. I just qualifY, the predicate for the one on Page 109 is in fact the one on Page 107, if I understand it correctly. Eighteen months sounds good to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The reason for these revisions to the code to begin with said that changes were becoming problematic after the fact. How does -- MR. KUCK: There's a possibility -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- increasing-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. MR. KUCK: There's a possibility in that 18-month time frame there may be some changes to the LDC code. But I'm saying if it's approved by the board it's grandfathered in, for lack of a better term, for the next 18 months, and not subject to any revisions to the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Mr. Murray originally asked about the 18 months. And B on Page 108 addresses the 18 months, but C seems to contradict, Tom, in what you said. Once approved by the board, the applicant shall submit the final plat for recordation within 90 days. Page 55 August 8, 2007 MR. KUCK: Under the reason, you say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 108, under C. MR. KUCK: Oh, I'm on the wrong page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The underlined sentence. And maybe I'm not understanding the process properly. MR. KUCK: I think there's -- no, it's the same thing. It says once approved by the board the developer shall record it within 90 days. And I'm saying the same thing there, that it would be 18 months. Is that cleared up or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, actually it makes it even more confusing. Because the language that we're approving today would be that underlined language in C. And you're saying that's not the right language? MR. KUCK: What I'm proposing the change to be is wherever they show 90 days, that would be changed to 18 months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then the whole reason for this LDC amendment is -- the reason portion's got to change then too; is that right? MR. KUCK: That what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 107 in the middle of the page where it says reason. MR. KUCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You see the last sentence? MR. KUCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're saying that 90 days should be 18 months; is that correct? MR. KUCK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm a little puzzled, why did we have this brought to us if it was for 90 days? What are we changing? MS. FABACHER: Apparently -- that's the first I've heard of the change, to be honest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Page 56 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and I think -- let me wait till he's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, you can't -- Tom and Joe, you guys -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tom, just for clarification, isn't B discussing the construction of the improvements, which they're given 18 months to do after approval, correct? Isn't that what's happening up in B? And C is just referring to the finalizing of the plat, essentially the recording of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, Tom, 1 think we're going in the direction you want to go in. I just think we're confusing how we're getting there. MR. KUCK: Yes, because the way it's written right here is if you take the plat and get the board's approval, you have 90 days to record it. And what I'm saying, you get board approval, you've got 18 months to record it. So if you want to start putting infrastructure in, you've got an approved plat that's not been recorded, that's been approved by the board, and that gives you 18 months to put the infrastructure in. And then at the time you do record it, whatever part hasn't been completed, you wouldn't have to post 110 percent bond for that. So to me it's a plus. But maybe -- maybe I'm overlooking something on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we're all trying to get to the right spot. I just maybe think we need to have the paperwork updated to the right time frame and brought -- MR. KUCK: What I recommend is that with these others coming back, we would bring these two back also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be good so it's real-- MR. KUCK: ClarifY it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- clear for all of us. MR. KUCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Page 107, 108, 109 and 110, if Page 57 August 8, 2007 there's no objections from the rest of the panel, it's going to be revisited by staff and come back to us; is that okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have one more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Up above in B you've added, by the Board of County Commissioners. And down in C you've added approval by the board. Do you think we should add of county commissioners there also? MR. KUCK: To be consistent? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. KUCK: That can be done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next one I think we have to discuss, Tom, is the Page III? MR. KUCK: Yes. And what we're saying in this is, and it's to be consistent with the SDPs, that once we approve an SD -- no, I'm misstating that. Once we -- on an SDP and it's this way, but on a plat, once we give our comments, we're saying that they have to come back within 270 days. Right now it's open, we can give them a reject and they've got, you know, an unlimited time till they have to come back. This shortens the time frame. If it's rejected, they're going to have to come back with their revisions within 270 days, and that again would be consistent with what we require on site development plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to just back up for one minute. On Page 110, the bottom line says 36 months there. Is that different from the 18 you want? Page 110, third line from the bottom. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Lindy, that one's going to come back for a rewrite, come back to us. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We're talking about 18, 18, is this going to be different than 18 and B 36? Page 58 August 8, 2007 MR. KUCK: What that 36 month I believe is saying is that once the plat is recorded they have 36 months to complete construction. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now back to Pages 111 and 112. Are there any questions on those two pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a recommendation to approve LDC Section 10.02.05(E)(2)(s)? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Tom, we're on to Page 113. MR. KUCK: 113 is actually a repeat of the other one. It's just another section of it where -- the code where we're addressing it to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That same thing appears-- MR. KUCK: Same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- twice in the code. MR. KUCK: Yes, it just -- another section of the code that needs to be changed so they're consistent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any questions on that Page 59 August 8, 2007 one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a recommendation to approve LDC Section 10.02.05(A)(2)? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved by Commissioner Midney. Seconded by? Somebody. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. Wouldn't that have been something, Paul, if finally you made a motion and nobody seconded it. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Tom, I think we're on Page 115 now. MR. KUCK: 115. This proposed LDC amendment is dealing with off-site drainage. And what we are proposing to add is a subsection requiring off-site drainage improvements be constructed prior to anyon-site infrastructure construction. And the reason is to prevent the development of new projects from creating drainage and erosion problems to the surrounding neighbors and lots. It's something that has to be done, and oftentimes some of the developers put it off. And they -- so they're really creating a problem. And I'm saying I think that it needs to be put in Page 60 August 8, 2007 first before they do the major infrastructure construction to protect the neighborhoods. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you do, if nobody has any questions, I've just got two. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just had one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Real simple. In doing this, this would not impede in any way their access to the sites and construction in any way, correct? MR. KUCK: No, what we're trying to prevent is when they come in and put a lot of fill in and buildup and they're creating more of a runoff to the neighborhood. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. MR. KUCK: And they are obligated by the approved plans to put perimeter drainage in and sometimes some off-site drainage improvements. We want to make sure that that's basically in place prior to the major development. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. And I think that's a worthy cause, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, on Page 117, which is the last page of this one, item "X" -- it's 10, I guess, Roman numeral "X" -- it refers to that the plan shall include a general note stating all off-site drainage improvements, including perimeter berms, swales, et cetera, shall be completed and operational prior to the commencement of construction of on-site improvements. I've got two questions. The word "all" in front of off-site drainage where it says all off-site drainage, there are some projects that are large, thousands of acres, yet the development in the project is limited to phases in the very, very say far end of the project that doesn't take in the full 4,000 acres. So when you say all off-site drainage, aren't we limiting it to all Page 61 August 8, 2007 within the South Florida -- MR. KUCK: That's a good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Water Management. MR. KUCK: I think we'd have to define something in the particular phase of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I'm a little concerned that if you use all off-site drainage, someone's going to take that wrong and we're going to end up having projects completing -- MR. KUCK: It's a point well taken, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the word construction in the last part of that. Commencement of construction of on-site improvements. Well, the excavation needed to run the drainage to these off-site drainage berms and swales is on-site improvements. So do we mean in reference to construction that it's vertical construction or something like that, or road construction? I'm wondering how we can build the facilities that are going to be receiving the water without having first built the complex basins and piping that takes it to those facilities. And I want to make sure that we're not prohibiting them. MR. KUCK: I'm just trying to protect the surrounding neighborhood. I'm not saying that they have to have the drainage complete within it. I'm trying to provide the protection of the surrounding subdivisions, neighborhood, so the developer doesn't come in and omit putting the silk screens in, putting the perimeter swales in. And in some cases, there's a few developments where they've had to put the storm drainage in to a positive outfall system. And I think those improvements like that have to be completed prior to doing the major development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you. In fact, I like -- the whole idea is great. I'm not disagreeing with you. I just want to make sure that if someone were to read this and want to interpret it in a way that maybe it wasn't intended, that it doesn't get that direction. Page 62 August 8, 2007 And when you talk about all the stormwater outfall systems, on-site perimeter swales shall be complete and operational prior to the commencement of construction of on-site improvements, I'm just saying maybe we could put a better word in there defining what type of construction we're referring to. You mean impervious surfaces, for example. Prior to the construction of any impervious surfaces on site or something like that, so we're not saying you can't construct -- MR. KUCK: It's a little bit difficult to describe, because some of the cases where we've had problems is that they've come in and filled the site right off the bat with fill material. And that's what's creating the problem, primarily. And I'll look at it and see if I can clear it up. And your point's well taken on phases, because if we've got a, you know, 3,000-acre subdivision or -- I wouldn't expect all that drainage. But for that individual plat that came in or that phase of it, it would apply to that. And I'll get that changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A thought, maybe. And I understand what you're talking about, I believe. Could the use of the word "the" be appropriate in there to make it more specific to help? Prior to commencement of construction of the on-site improvement? Meaning the vertical structure, as opposed to the other portions. Does that help in any way? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 don't know if that -- MR. KUCK: I'm not looking at the vertical construction, I'm really looking at -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You're only looking at the improvement that is the support structure. MR. KUCK: What I call the infrastructure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if Tom takes a stab at it and brings it back -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, thank you. Page 63 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'd be able to find it. And 1 have one more comment on the next paragraph A, second sentence. Failure to comply will result in the project being halted until such time as the project is brought into compliance with this requirement. And since you're going to look at some language, being halted is maybe not a term that we have in our abilities. Maybe it's -- I don't know what Margie, what you legally use, but -- MS. F ABACHER: Stop work order. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Stop work order is what comes to mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, maybe we ought to-- MR. KUCK: Stop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- say stop work order. Maybe failure to comply will result in the project being issued a stop work order until such time the project is brought into compliance. So Ms. Caron -- or Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Fabacher. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, one thought -- and this is on A -- is that the word addressed, if we replaced that with the word established, that meant at the pre-conference they could see the large side and they could establish how they're going to go about, you know, taking this on a site-by-site-basis I think would be better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, did you see the reference he's talking to? It's-- MR. KUCK: What word? You say cross out addressed and use what? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Established. In other words at that pre-conference you'll look at the project. If it has phases and stuff, you'll establish how you're going to do that. MR. KUCK: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Fabacher? MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. Page 64 August 8, 2007 I had some suggested language here in "X" to address your issue of whether it's a bigger project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. F ABACHER: So I'm on one, two, three, four, line five, improvements in the approved phase of development, including berms, yada, yada, yada. What do you think about that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it might be a start. I'm just -- when you go in for your water management permits, the county requires you to have a South Florida Water Management District permit. At which time you're creating your South Florida Water basin for the area that you're permitting. That basin has to have an outfall into an approved discharge point in order to be permitted. So it would seem to me that if you limited your discussion to the phasing established by the South Florida permit basin that this is applying to, and that basin has an outfall and the outfall is installed, anything upstream of that is going to flow down and be able to utilize that outfall. So I understand what you just said, but it might be easier to reference the South Florida water basins or something like that. So let's just give it some thought and maybe we could bring this one back next time and just finalize that one paragraph and some clarifications or two of them. Does that work for everybody? MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more little thing. You know that sentence you read, failure to comply? Because-- and this is code-ese again. Because it's in parenthesis A, it's really referring to failure to comply with the mandatory preconstruction conference. I think that should be a paren. B, that sentence that starts with failure. Because that's -- your intent is failure to comply with the improvements, not the meetings, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that will get done. I think Page 65 August 8, 2007 Joe just acknowledged that, too. Did you take some kind of code writing class or something? You're always coming up with these little paragraphs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm starting to feel weird doing stuff like this all the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. No, that's helpful. I just was curious where you picked it all up. Okay. So Tom, I guess this one will come back. Thank you. The last one for you, sir? MS. F ABACHER: That's it for him. Now we're going to proceed to Page 119, and it's Section 10.03.05, notice ofrequirements for public hearing. And I think Mr. Weeks is going to handle this one. It came out of his shop. And it's requiring signage for Growth Management Plan amendments that are either site specific or small scale. On Page 119. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, David Weeks, comprehensive planning department. Catherine has adequately described what is being proposed, and that is to add a requirement for posting of signs for site specific comprehensive plan amendment. However, you will notice there are far more changes reflected within these pages of the amendment, and that is because we've also reorganized the text somewhat and we also had to add text to make it clear that the plan amendments were only subject to this sign posting requirement. And as previously had been added to this section, a requirement to what some of the advertising requirements are. What we need to do is make it clear that the comprehensive plan amendments are not subject to the property owner notification that occurs with rezones and other types of petitions. I hope that helps explain why there are so many other apparent changes throughout. And there's three additional revisions that I need to present with you today, in reviewing this a few moments ago I noticed. The first Page 66 August 8, 2007 two of which are extremely minor. The first is on Page 120. This would be new Section B-3. On the second line it begins, plan amendments. A sign must be posted 15 days prior to, et cetera. We need to insert the phrase "at least". So a sign must be posted at least 15 days. That is to be consistent with the language elsewhere in this section, that it should be at least 15, as opposed to exactly 15 days. On Page 121 at the very top of the page, after the words comprehensive plan, we should remove the colon. And on Page 123, this section is walking through different notice requirements. Sub-paragraph eight refers to a property owner letter, which is not applicable for plan amendments. Sub-paragraph nine refers to a legal ad, which again is not applicable to plan amendments. Sub-paragraph 10 and 11 also pertain to property owner letters that's not applicable to plan amendments. Those are all in the context of planning commission hearing. And then when you jump over to Page 124, re-numbered sub-paragraphs 12, and 13 pertain to the Board of County Commissioners' hearing. I'm getting to my point, if you'll stay with me. You'll see that we've added sub-paragraph 14 that provides that the notice requirement, the legal ad requirement is per Chapter 163 of Florida Statutes. Because the legal ad requirements for plan amendments is different from the requirement for rezonings, variances and so forth, as reflected over on Page 123. But you'll notice this new sub-paragraph 14 specifically refers to Board of County Commissioners. What is missing is reference to the legal ad for the planning commission. And so I am proposing that we take the language from new sub-paragraph 14 and make it a new sub-paragraph 12 on this Page 124 and renumber the subsequent items. It would read just the same as sub-paragraph 14 presently reads, Page 67 August 8, 2007 except we would simply replace Board of County Commissioners with the phrase planning commission, (local planning agencies). Because that's how that's referred to in state law, not planning commission. And I would presume that you might want to see this again. I apologize, I just caught this today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think that's a problem, David. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: David, on Page 119. MR. WEEKS : Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we always hold two hearings when we do a GMP amendment? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. The exception -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My question then relates to the -- each sign costs eight and $1,200. The signs must be posted prior to both hearings. Do we -- we can't know whether or not we're going to have a second hearing. I presume that's the basis for charging for in both cases? What I'm driving at, is there any reason why -- or any relief we can give anybody on fees, if we know that we normally will not have a process in place? But I guess I'm answering my own question, am I not? MR. WEEKS: Well, the way it works is the fees that are paid to the county covers of course our review cost. The applicant has to pay their own advertising fees. And specific to your question, the applicant has to pay for the posting of the sign, not the county. So that we know, additional fee to be paid to the county, but certainly the applicant would incur that additional expense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what Mr. Murray is -- I think, Mr. Murray, you're saying that you think the 800, $1,200 is the fee the applicant pays to the county for the posted sign? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now I see that it's not, obviously. Page 68 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, it's not. That's what -- the applicant has to go out and buy a sign. And if it cost him 500 bucks, 800, staffs trying to put in a rough ballpark figure, just so we know what we're talking about. And that was the extent of that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that would -- you're right about that. And I thought to myself, look, we don't have the second hearing, it's a shame to have to pay it. So if they weren't going to have a second hearing, the $1,200 doesn't apply because they wouldn't do it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this one is going to come back for the clarification language involving the CCPC hearing. So we'll just catch it when it comes back. And the next one, David, is yours as well, or -- no. MS. FABACHER: No, that's Linda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Linda Billington. That's the Commissioner Adelstein amendment, if I'm not mistaken. Okay, anything else, David, of yours? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. I actually would like to comment on this next one. I've had some involvement in it, because it -- because any of these changes to notice requirements, we want to make sure that they don't impact comprehensive plan amendments, because the two are very different in the notice requirements. And in this case, specific to the neighborhood information meeting. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to have this come back. I just -- I'm uncomfortable with it. I'm thinking that we've missed something here. MS. FABACHER: We're not -- excuse me, Catherine Fabacher here. We're not working out of the book on this one. We're working out of the last revision they got. This one's been revised from what's in the book, based on your comments prior to now. So I don't know if you want to look at the revised one, David, and see if you have the same problems. Page 69 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the same time, if David needs time with it, I certainly would feel a whole lot more comfortable if he had whatever time he needs to get it looked at. MS. F ABACHER: That's fine. I just want to make sure he's looking at the correct version. It's not the book, it's revised based on your revisions, David. MR. WEEKS: How about this, Commissioners, if you'll allow me, I'll -- if Catherine has another revised copy, I'll be taking a look at that in the back of the room and maybe we could come back with this later in the meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds fine with me. Is that-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Me, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather you had a close look at it as well, if you haven't already. So that's fine, David. MR. WEEKS: That way if everything's okay, you don't delay it and take up your time and other staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to Page 129. MS. FABACHER: I guess that's me. The Board of County Commissioners had directed at -- based on the fact that they had approved the first mixed use project -- as you know, the mixed use project is kind of an abbreviated approval process that was created for the Bayshore and the Gateway Triangle overlays, to help facilitate redevelopment of the area. And if you recall, originally, the way the process works now, is that you -- the applicant provides a conceptual plan to the board, which is purely for purposes of identifYing the intensity of uses and the density, the number of residential units. And it's basically just a conceptual plan approval. The board had wanted to have the planning commission take a look at it before they did. There were a lot of problems with that particular application. I don't know that that would happen all the time in a regular MUP, but staff comments that that would really add Page 70 August 8, 2007 to the review time and add to the expense to the applicant when the whole intent of the abbreviated process was to have that approval so a person could go forward and know that they were going to be allowed to have the bonus density, which being a redistribution of resources has to be done by an elected body. Meaning the distribution of the 388 bonus units that are allowed in that overlay area, or the CRA over there from the Botanical Gardens. And then the second one was to just look at the compatibility or the intensity of the commercial uses that were going to be mixed. This is all for mixed use projects in the overlay. So, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the way I look at it, Catherine, if the board directed it and they wanted to see us review it, I certainly think we should oblige them. And I would like to review it anyway. I think it should be part of this board. So that's my thoughts. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, the only thing that bothers me is the statement that says this would give them additional -- they were losing approximately three months, by the way of we're doing it now. And it seems to me that at least 20 percent or 25 percent of them on the day that the meeting is actually ready to have, they're passing it on for another reason. So it doesn't seem to make sense if we're trying to rush it through. Because if we try to rush it through, we're going to have more problems with them saying, well, we're not ready for that yet or we've got to do this yet. This one doesn't give me any justice of how it should be happening or how it should be done. MS. F ABACHER: Well, this is -- there are specific criteria for the approval of conceptual plans and specific criteria for this approval within that Section 10.030.5(G), I believe, and 2.03.07 in the overlays. But there aren't really any other reviewers, because it's just a conceptual plan. It's like the line drawings of the footprint. And it's Page 71 August 8, 2007 not drainage improvements, so it's not that level of review. That level of review would go on in the SDP process. This is just -- purely the two things that the board is supposed to do is, like I said, if you want to redistrict a resource, such as these bonus units, then you really can't do that administratively or through an advisory board, you kind of -- you need an elected body to redistribute these units. And the other thing was is to look at the intensity of use for the commercial use to be appropriate for the mixed use. But you certainly can review it on that basis yourselves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So basically this brings those projects into this board for review as well -- MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the BCC. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any comments or objections to that? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Catherine, one thing that happened, and I watched that hearing, is the intent was is obviously to get the bonus units, the Commission would decide to do that. The problem also was, is to go from conventional zoning to the mixed use zoning. That was the instrument to allow that. MS. FABACHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The problem was, is in that hearing there was variances from the actual overlay, the deviations, and that's the weird thing. In other words, somebody took that process to essentially get a site plan approval that didn't meet the requirements of the -- in this case the BMUD. And I don't know how that could ever have even been allowed at that hearing. MS. FABACHER: Well, it's kind of written in to the BMUD language -- Page 72 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what it is -- MS. F ABACHER: -- to be allowed deviations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this is a way totally -- you know, and obviously this patches it. But the one that went through, I mean, we really -- they were allowed to take a line drawing that would essentially show the commission the scale of the project to get approval to do a mixed use project and use that to alter the requirements of the BMUD. And that's allowed in the ordinance as it is? MS. F ABACHER: The deviation -- the administrative deviation process takes place under the -- during the SDP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MS. F ABACHER: It's not really supposed to take place in front of the board. The conceptual plan, it says -- it states that unless stated otherwise, a conceptual plan will follow the LDC requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when that project goes into the SDP process, that's going to be administratively reviewed -- MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- to see if these deviations are allowed. MS. F ABACHER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine and Brad, you guys, that's not the issue we're discussing here in this LDC amendment. I know it's a good issue to talk about, but we're basically trying to determine here by this approval if these are going to come back to the -- come to the planning commission before it goes to the board. MS. F ABACHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm getting-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're getting to that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Where that trail's going to lead me is that would this now, now that it's going to come before Page 73 August 8, 2007 the planning commission before it goes to the board -- because there's no reason to go through the planning commission unless there is the approval of deviations. Because the BMUD is pretty straight forward. You know, if someone's working within those requirements, essentially it's the same as working with conventional zoning. So would that be part of the process then that we'll be reviewing, deviations and making recommendations on them? MS. FABACHER: Well, if that's your direction to change it that way. Currently, no. It's still an administration deviation process within limits identified in the overlays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? I'm sorry. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, Brad, what -- if you recall the timing of this, the BMUD was approved and then it was months later that they went through and amended the LDC to allow for the deviation process. So it was kind of two different things. There is a deviation process. And when that hearing went before the board, the deviation process really hadn't -- it wasn't in place yet. And then when we came back to the board to discuss that project, that's when the board directed that this panel -- that we present these projects before this panel. And I agree with Commissioner Strain, I mean, that clearly was the direction of the board. And that's the way this was written. I think the three months only identifies it, it doesn't lengthen the process. Originally with the BMUD process was developed, it was to allow for some expeditious development standards in the CRA. All we're pointing out here is it does add another public meeting. But the board was very clear. I think that's somewhat non-negotiable from staff. You certainly can comment as to whether you want to review it. And I think it was clear that you do want to review it, and I think it was clear from the board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I want to review it, so my Page 74 August 8, 2007 concern isn't this. I accept everything here. My concern is that would it not be wise now to pull the deviation process into the planning review process? Because that would put deviations in the public hearing, where now they're administrative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, that would be a separate public LDC cycle amendment, and I don't -- MR. SCHMITT: Separate LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- think you could do that today because it's not been -- there were parties who were very interested in that process, and to be fair, they'd have to be notified and we'd certainly have to discuss that publicly. We're only discussing today this one process that's in front of us, not one that opens a broader range. And if that's something that the board wants to change, we certainly can listen to it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then Catherine, to summarize it, the planning commission will be making what decisions in this process? MS. F ABACHER: Reviewing the conceptual site plan, the same as the board. And looking at the -- well, the distribution of these bonus units. And the intensity of the commercial uses to be used in a mixed use project. MR. SCHMITT: And I believe -- and I apologize for jumping in, but I believe as a planning commission it's certainly within your realm of authority to ask if there are going to be any deviations in the application process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We can review those during the same time. MR. SCHMITT: I mean, they're administrative in nature. But I kind of want to say that this is a growing process. This is something we've never done before. We've only have had one. And as you recall, when that one came in it didn't fit the round hole that they wanted it to fit. And then there was an applicant who came in Page 75 August 8, 2007 and proposed a deviation process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, I think we're kind of beating a dead horse here. We got direction from the board, board wants us to do this, it's a good thing to do it, it helps the public, so let's just get on with it. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made to approve LDC-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Section 2.03.07. Seconded by Commissioner Murray. And that includes 10.03.05, notice requirements for public hearings for the BCC. All those in favor of the motion as made and seconded, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody denied? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, now we're on Page 139, and we have Joe Thompson with compo planning. And they're changing the requirement for a title opinion to a GAP affidavit for a TDR severance application. On Page 139. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, Mr. Weeks, did you finish your review? Just nod yes or no. Okay, I was going to get you back up next, but that's fine. Thank you. Page 76 August 8, 2007 Go ahead, sir. MR. THOMPSON: Good mormng. For the record, Joe Thompson, compo planning. Essentially there's two changes taking place here. One is to replace the existing code reference to a title search, and the recommendation is to replace that with a title opinion. Because the title opinion has the legal backing, but the title search does not. Further, the GAP affidavit requirement would essentially be implemented in terms of a severance applicant submitting their application to us. Staff review taking place subsequent to the reviews obviously would get the application back and we would record the severance instrument. And what would happen there is we have that GAP affidavit that would be in place which would allow us to look at the time period between the initial title opinion and the time that the instrument was recorded. So that time period, there was no development restrictions or conservation restrictions recorded on the property that we would be aware of. So it really closes a hole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question, before we go too far. MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on Page 139; is that correct? MR. THOMPSON: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry, I gave you the wrong page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, why did we skip 1317 MS. FABACHER: We've already voted on that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1317 MS. F ABACHER: Isn't that the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't recall that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. My notes don't reflect-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, we never got that-- MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, I got confused with the other Page 77 August 8, 2007 Estates. Right. I'm sorry, this is just a citation. My apologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll continue 139, but then we're going to go back to 137 when we finish this discussion. Thank you. Any questions on Pages 139 through 142 concerning the GAP information? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, IS there a recommendation to approve 2.03.017 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation made by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Caron. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. MS. F ABACHER: My apologies. Stay there, because there's one for you. But let's go back to the one that we skipped, Commissioner. Page 137. And this is to replace an incorrect reference in the text under Estate district. And I have to say too that instead of -- at the bottom of Page 138 where it says one, number one, that should really be five. Page 78 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number one should be the number five. MS. F ABACHER: Should be the number five. Beyond that it's simply -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a text change to the-- MS. F ABACHER: Yeah, it wasn't Chapter 207 anymore, it's Subsection 4.02.01. That's just some language from the old code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation to approve 2.03.01 (B)? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, I'll make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the recommendation. Second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney seconded it. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, we're on to page -- MS. FABACHER: 145. MR. THOMPSON: 143. MS. FABACHER: Oh, sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: She wants to get done early. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Thompson, it's all yours. Page 79 August 8, 2007 MR. THOMPSON: This basically deals with the TDR program as well, specifically with respect to the environmental restoration and maintenance bonus. Typically if there's a private restoration maintenance plan implemented, the county requires financial surety. And the code reference is now a performance surety bond or similar financial instrument. And given that we had never actually had one of these presented to us until about a year ago, came to the conclusion that it would be best to use an instrument that the board is actually familiar with, like a letter of credit, which was approved by the board and actually just recently released on their consent agenda. So it's really just a matter of using something that's more recognizable, and it's used on a regular basis. And I want to leave the word similar financial surety in there just in case there's some extenuating circumstance down the road where someone wants to use something other than a letter of credit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation for approval of Section 2.03.07.DA.C.II(A)(3)? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney made a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. All those -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I heard Mr. Thompson say something, and it doesn't seem to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you pull your mic closer to you? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm sorry, I apologize. Page 80 August 8, 2007 On Page 144 where on number three, that's at the bottom, you said -- I thought you said that you wanted to retain the bond. MR. THOMPSON: No, eliminate the bond but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, you did say eliminate. MR. THOMPSON: Yes. But just retain the similar financial surety . COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate it. I misheard you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's a motion been made and seconded. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, thank you. MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, on Page 145, it's a simple clarification to the Goodland zoning overlay. It discusses storage sheds and parcels located off of the current -- text says Bayshore Drive, but actually there's no Bayshore Drive in Goodland, it's -- the road is Bayshore Way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this whole two pages just changes the word Drive to Way. MS. F ABACHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we -- there's not much discussion we can go on that one. COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, do you make a motion? Page 81 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Section 2.03.07. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Caron. All those in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, on Page 147, it's another clarification. It's to Section 2.03.07(K). And that is the section that outlines the activity center number nine overlay. And what we're doing is just cross-referencing or changing the -- we're cross-referencing the supplemental design standards located in the LDC at Section 4.02.23, which has never been cross-referenced. So just so the people know when they're going to develop in that activity center, they need to look at the supplemental standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, IS there a recommendation to approve 2.03.017 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Page 82 August 8, 2007 All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIONEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MS. FABACHER: The next one is going to be on Page 149, and it's another cross-reference that was incorrectly cited. And I'm on Page 150, and we're changing Section 2.03.08(D) to (C). And while we're at it, we might as well say subsection. Because when you add that letter you become then a subsection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, IS there a recommendation to approve 2.03.08? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Adelstein seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 83 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MS. FABACHER: Okay, I'm going to ask Mr. Weeks to join us again. This is something that was done out of comprehensive planning. We're making one small change on the density table. And then when they were in front of DSAC, DSAC asked them to completely rearrange the table, because -- not rearrange it, but make it clearer. So they made a lot of -- that's about the only change. 1 think on the left-hand side, I'm on Page 152, there are some areas you can see where they added additional VR and RT, where it was blank before. So people weren't quite sure what that applied to, that whole row. And then as you can see in the right-hand column there, the maximum density, they've taken out all the units per gross acre and put it at the top and just listed just simply a number instead of saying DRS up to so much GA. Any questions? (No response.) MS. F ABACHER: The original change was to take out the motel use, isn't that right, David, in the R T? They were -- accidentally had given residential density to a commercial use. Didn't that precipitate the whole amendment? MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, comprehensive planning. That's correct. It started out extremely simple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now it's a lot less simpler. MR. WEEKS: I think this is much more user friendly, and it's much more clear in explaining what densities are allowed for what types of uses. I'll briefly expound on what Catherine has said. Another couple of examples, the RT zoning district allows multiple land uses, it allows multi-family, it allows motel. Page 84 August 8, 2007 The VR zoning district is the same way in that it allows single-family, it allows mobile home and it allows multi-family. Yet this table did not clearly identifY that. And so as an example, with the VR zoning district we now have three entries on the table to identifY the allowed density for the different unit types that are allowed. So I think that makes it clear to the reader now, there's no longer a guessing, if you will, trying to figure out what numerical figure goes with what unit type. Now I think it's clear. The footnotes we've also added clarity to. And added several. And that's where you'll note in the table itself, you'll see the number of footnotes has greatly increased. And then the corresponding explanation of those on Page 153 and 154 ties things together. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Page 152 on that table, about midway, it's RT with a small 3. Twenty-six units per acre, that's residential tourist, right? Page 152, about midway up, RT, small 3. MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We just took away 26 from a hotel that I guess 16 was the max. This is not applicable here? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. Existing RT zoning is allowed for 26. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Twenty-six. I just wanted to be sure that we didn't have any issue. I didn't think so, but I wanted to be sure. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, this -- oh, I'm sorry, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This table doesn't change any densities, it just clarifies how they're applied. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. Page 85 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, a couple questions. In the RMF-6 and the RMF-12 you don't allow multi-family units. Is that right? Don't we build -- to get a density of 12 units an acre without a multi-family building would be -- MR. WEEKS: That's definitely an error. You're absolutely correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I think join in the same error, go down to C-l, C-2, C-3, which allows up to 16 units per acre in a mixed use. I think we want to also include that as multi use. Because we really don't want people to be getting that density with single-family or townhouses or anything else. Don't you agree? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Brad, why would we care if they got the density? If the density is the density and they got it under any COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's just that I would consider a mixed use project, that that's multi-family housing as the component of the house residential within it. MR. WEEKS: But the comprehensive plan does not limit it to the single-family -- excuse me, limit it to multi-family. Now, the LDC can be more restrictive. And if that's this body's recommendation, then certainly that will go forward. But the comprehensive plan would allow mixed use development as in residential units over commercial in the same building, or would allow in separate buildings. Therefore, there is the potential for individual single-family homes within a project that also includes commercial. So it's a type of mixed use, but it's not what we usually think of, and that is within one building. My point is, there could be different unit types. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So don't check anything in there like you have it. MR. WEEKS: That's my recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And isn't it allowed in C-4, that Page 86 August 8, 2007 16? MR. WEEKS: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's exempted from -- MR. WEEKS: C-l, 2 and 3 are the only commercial districts that allow resident -- or components of a PUD that allow residential. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on that section? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- need to come back to that same issue 1 raised before. I'm still having a little struggle here. I notice in the table that it appears, if I'm reading it correctly, three was stricken. Although it's very hard to be certain on the little number. I think that's stricken. MR. WEEKS: If I may, Mr. Murray, in the right-hand column labeled maximum density, that footnote was number two, and it is stricken, and it's replaced by a footnote number three in the far left-hand column by the initials RT. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then I was looking at -- okay, now I finally saw it. I have not looked at this in a little while, so I finally saw it again. I've got it now, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, IS there a recommendation with the couple of corrections that Mr. Schiffer noted, to approve Section -- recommend for approval 2.05.0l? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Murray. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. Page 87 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Weeks, have you finished reviewing the other amendment? MR. WEEKS: No. The change -- there are a couple of changes that are necessary. I'd say they're both minor in nature. But I was trying to come up with the actual wordsmithing in hopes that the planning commission could approve it today. MS. FABACHER: Great. Thanks. We'll wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 155 then? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir, we're on 155 and looking at 3.03.02, and Stephen Lenberger with environmental services is going to describe the change. Thank you. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger, community development and environmental services division, and environmental services department. This is just a deletion of the reference to the coastal zone management plan from the LDC. Basically items from the coastal zone management plan were already incorporated into the LDC in 1993, and the reference to the plan is outdated, needs to be deleted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approvalof3.03.02? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. Page 88 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. That was a tough one, Steve. MS. F ABACHER: Steve's got another tough one. That would be Section 3.05.10. The littoral shelf planting area. And I think it's just a change in an incorrect reference. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He gets all the hard ones. MR. LENBERGER: A simple one, basically just correcting the code citation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation for approval of 3.05.10? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Made. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 89 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. MS. F ABACHER: Now, Commissioners, we're going to move on to buffers, one of our favorite topics. On Page 159. And Bruce McNall, with zoning and land development review is going to discuss the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, good morning. MR. McNALL: Good morning. Thank you. Bruce McNall, landscape architect. This is just a simple addition of a graphic that visually describes the LDC requirements, to help the applicant through the process. If you'll look at the buffer table on Page 161, it basically just simply shows buffers A, B, C and D, and then has appropriate notations for -- to follow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, I think the presentation is very clear and illustrative, very helpful. I had a little question, though, just in general background. This type C buffer, which I think is a very attractive buffer, I don't recall that being used anyplace. Has that been used? And if so, in what applications? MR. McNALL: It is not used very often. It's used -- if you look at the buffer table, and I don't have it in front of me here, but you're correct in saying that you don't see it very often. It's generally used when you have an industrial use against another use that's going to be really highly impacted. It's one of the heaviest buffers we have. It's a type B buffer, basically a type B buffer with five-foot shrubs four feet on center with trees alternating Page 90 August 8, 2007 25 feet on center. So-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's got to be a very costly buffer compared to the others, I would think, with the larger trees. MR. McNALL: Sir? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's a very costly buffer compared to the other -- MR. McNALL: You're doubling up the trees on that buffer, sir, yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: If it's not used very often, why do we include it in our code? MR. McNALL: It was there before. And, you know, all I can say is that it's -- it's a not very commonly used buffer. So, you know, we just don't use it very often. It's there for certain situations where -- you know, where we have, you know, high impact between uses. So I think it should stay there. I mean, I think it's a good buffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Do we ever stipulate where it should be used on any petitions? Or is it up to the petitioner to come forward and offer that? MR. McNALL: No, no, this is a requirement. Depending on, you know, what land use is adjacent to another land use when an applicant comes in for a perimeter buffer required project for landscape. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Could you give me an illustration of where that might appear in a petition, what type of application? MR. McNALL: Well, any time, for instance, a site development plan comes in there's an industrial use adjacent to a residential use. That's a very high impact. So that's where this buffer would be used, in that situation. And it doesn't happen very often. You don't get industrial next to residential very often, sir. But that's one of the instances where this buffer is implemented. And it should stay in there like this, because it's a heavy impact use. Page 91 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. MR. McNALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I note it's a very mce presentation. Doesn't a D type buffer also require a wall? MR. McNALL: Not in all situations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not in all situations. MR. McNALL: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That answers my question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, last or two weeks ago when you talked to us, or a week, whenever it was, you introduced a new program for vegetation that was native in certain locations, and then north of those locations it didn't have to be all native. MR. McNALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would these buffer applications apply to that as well, meaning that if you're south or west of 41 you basically would have to use these buffers in all native material? MR. McNALL: Oh, yes, yes. Yeah, all the geographical designations apply to the, you know, the required buffers, where they occur. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I got to thinking about that after we had discussed that. You have perimeter landscape plantings around buildings that are required now. MR. McNALL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In those areas where the last time when we approved only native material being used, would that limit what you could plant in the fronts around buildings up tight against the building? Would they all then have to be all native? MR. McNALL: It would as far as just the code required material. Anything above code can be exotic or -- tropical. 1 don't Page 92 August 8, 2007 want to call it exotic. But any other kind of material that's not 100 percent native. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of those planting areas are only five feet wide, so you can't really fit a lot in them. But now you'd be limited in those five-foot areas. The landscape architects would all have to put in purely native materials, even up against the perimeter -- MR. McNALL: It gives them a chance to be creative. Limiting them to an all native pallet, that's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe they would be less creative, since they're limited. You might look at it that way. Okay, is there any other discussion on 4.06.02(C)(4)? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, IS there a recommendation for approval? Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made the recommendation. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, moving on to Section 4.06.05 on Page 163. And this is the slope treatment chart. If you'll Page 93 August 8, 2007 look on Page 164, down at the very -- on that page, the very bottom row or section where it says -- this is all for slopes, steeper than one-to-one. And you'll see that vertical retaining walls. See BC and D below. See also alternatives. It used to say alternative B below. But also, if you look at the pictures, alternative A also applies for stabilizing a one-to-one slope. So that was just an oversight when it was originally written. We want to go back and correct that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we have four pages. Really the only change is a capital A with a plus sign, basically is the only change to the four pages. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir, we didn't have that many pages, but the DSAC said please put in these diagrams so the board can see what you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They don't know how to get the Muni. code, huh? Okay, is there any questions on the capital A? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Is there a recommendation to approve 4.06.05? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein seconded. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 94 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 7-0. Page 167. MS. FABACHER: Okay. No, I think we're-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 168. MS. F ABACHER: 168. I apologize. We're looking at another minor correction to the citation within the architectural and site design standards. Section 5.05.08. And we're changing -- if you'll look on Page 169, we're changing Section 5.05.08(D) to 5.05.08(C)(l3). COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there -- no discussion, Mr. Murray made a motion to approve 5.05.08(D)(l3) to 5.05.08(C)(l3). Is there a second to his motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Midney. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're on to Page 16 -- MS. FABACHER: 169. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 170. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, 170. Page 95 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your pages are off, it looks like, by one point. Sorry. MS. F ABACHER: On Page 170, this is another -- this is a cross-reference. There's language in the preserve area that talks about signs. I'm going first with Y on Page 171. There's language in preserve areas that talk about signs, but it was never cross-referenced in the sign code. Same thing for the one above, "X", the littoral shelf planting area signs are in that section, 3.05.10 of the code, but they are not cross-referenced in the sign code, so we're just cross-referencing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion for recommendation on 5.06.05, recommendation of approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're on to Page 172. MS. F ABACHER: 172, more housekeeping. Another incorrect citation on Page 173. I'm looking at minimum setback, and it's talking about signs that are noted or provided for in Section 1.04.04. We want Page 96 August 8, 2007 to make it (B), rather than (C). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation to approve 5 .06.02(A)( I)? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Midney. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. MS. F ABACHER: Okay, Commissioners, I'm on Page 174, 175, and it's the same citation that had to be corrected in another section of the code. It's 1.04.04 where it was written as (C), it means to be (B). If you'll recall, 1.04.04 are those exceptions to takes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Catherine, 176 is a similar reference to a corrected code section; is that right? MS. F ABACHER: Correct. But I've spoken with the amendment writer, and now we've decided to have no letters, just reference 5.06.04. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was attempting to take two at once, but that's too much of a bold step, so let's just go to -- okay, is there a recommendation to approve 5.06.04(C)(3)(b)? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Midney. Seconded by? Page 97 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Murray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Murray. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 176. MS. F ABACHER: Now we can go back to 176. And in this one it's requirements of Section 5.06.04 and it said (A). We thought it was going to say (B) or (C), but now we've decided just to cite 5.06.04. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the (B) is coming off; is that right? MS. F ABACHER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the (C) is going back in? MS. F ABACHER: No, nothing's going back in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Simply the (B) is coming off at the end. It's just going to be 5.06.04. MS. F ABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No (A), no (B). Okay, is there a recommendation to approve 5 .06.06(C)( 14)( a)( I)? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moved. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Midney. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. Page 98 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. We're on Page 178. MS. F ABACHER: We're on Page 178. And what we're talking about is another reference that has to be corrected. And if you look on Page 179, throughout section -- subsection (2), (3) and (4), they kept citing definitions as defined in Article 6. Well, that's from the old code, so now it's Section 1.08.02, and so we've made that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation to approve 10.02.02? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have one-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get a second first, then we'll go into discussion. Do you want to second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yeah, I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion. Commissioner Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 1 77(A), and the word is farm? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're already done with that one. We're on Page 178, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry, but I just caught it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we'll have -- let's finish this Page 99 August 8, 2007 discussion, this motion and we'll have to go back to that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on Page 178 there's been a motion made and seconded. All those for approval, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Now, Mr. Adelstein has a question on Page 177, which we already vote on, so we'll have to see what we're doing with that one. Go ahead, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is the word farm or firm? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, the only question we have on this one is this here. Now, that's existing language. We're not proposing to change that. The only question right here is this. We're suggesting strike A and B both and leave it 5.06.04. That's the only issue up for discussion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That leaves that there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not changing. That is existing language. We're not proposing to change that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I think the answer is it's organization of agricultural. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, I'm sorry. Page 100 August 8, 2007 MS. FABACHER: 181 is going to be -- yeah, this is going to be Steve Lenberger. It's another minor correction. It's another -- it's changing the name of Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission to the correct title now is Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation for approval of 10.02.03 made by Mr. Murray -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- seconded by Mr. Adelstein. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, next is on -- let's see, on Page 183, and this is Sharon Dantini with code enforcement. And it's to change -- right now if you have to mitigate a preserve area because the native vegetation was destroyed, you have to mitigate it according to a plan. And right now the code enforcement holds that plan and monitors it for five years. But what they're requesting is to change it because they've got a huge backlog of these plans that they have to keep track of for five years. They're proposing to monitor it for two years, but the language says unless they decide that it needs to be looked at in five years. Page 101 August 8, 2007 Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good summary and very quickly said. I'm sure that -- MS. FABACHER: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question is, how do you -- when you monitor these, just how do you do that? Do you have to physically go out and check to make sure the planting's in; is that how you do it? MS. DANTINI: Yes. Good morning, Sharon Dantini with code enforcement, for the record. Our staff goes out on a yearly basis and actually monitors. They make an appointment with the developer and go on-site and look at the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A little labor intensive, isn't it? MS. DANTINI: It is. It's very time consuming for the public, for the developer and for our staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions concerning this one? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate fully that it is labor intensive. But I ask myself the question, what was the original purpose? And the original purpose, I would surmise, was so that they conform and they provide adequate landscaping and the littoral -- but in any event, in respects all plantings. And so what happens here if as is the case with some of the older code situations where they apply under the older code, we let those plants, they die, it gets thinned out, it looks like the devil. What do we do here? Are we going to just basically after five years we just let it go? MS. DANTINI: No, actually we could get a complaint at a later time on a particular property. Horticulturally a plant is sound after two years. And so the whole intent is once it hits that sound stage, you know, we think that we shouldn't penalize that person and have them Page 102 August 8, 2007 continue to report. But at a later date, just should the property run down again, we could get a complaint and start the process over again. So it's not that it just stops forever, because there are requirements in the code for the landscape to be healthy. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm glad you explained that. But 1 will tell you that in the area -- some areas of East Naples, there are places where we've complained about it, the statement was, well, that's under the old code. And that's most unfortunate because it looks like a -- it looks terrible. All right, I understand the intent here. And we're trying to become more effective and save money and probably reduce jobs. MS. DANTINI: I'm not sure we want to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just kidding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, IS there a recommendation to approve 1 0.02.06(E)(3)( e )(i)? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Midney. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 103 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're on to Page 186. MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Chair, I think that staff is ready to go back to the revised amendment that you got today, 10.03.05, notice requirements for public hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are we on? MS. FABACHER: Well, it's a hand-out that I gave you the hard copy today. It was sent to you a week ago. It's revisions to the NIM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but we do have a page in our book. MS. FABACHER: The original page? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 125. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 125? MS. FABACHER: Right. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 125. And-- MS. F ABACHER: The revision was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page J of our summary, in case you're trying to follow it through that document. Okay, David, did you have time to review it? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. David Weeks, comprehensive planning department. And these are just wordsmithing changes, Commissioners. Starting with -- on the handouts, Page 1, it's paragraph F of Section 10.03.05. The title itself does not include reference to the mixed use project process, yet that's being added to the body. So to start with will be a change to the title. On the second line of the title, after the term PUD amendments, would insert a comma and remove the added word "and". And on the third line after the word "uses" and prior to the period, insert the phrase "and mixed use projects." MR. WEEKS: And then on Page 2 of the handout, which would Page 1 04 August 8, 2007 be Section 10.03 .5(F)(2), handful of wordsmithing changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A handful? MR. WEEKS: A few, yes, a handful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, David, is there going to be more as we go on to this document? MR. WEEKS: This will be it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Because 1 was going to say, we might want to just hear our comments and come back with a rewrite, but go ahead if they're minor. MR. WEEKS: On the third line, beginning with the new words that are underlined, after "shall be sent," insert "by maiL" Then it goes on "to alL" Then insert "owners of." And then later on that same line, remove the word "owners". On the next line that starts with 500 feet, remove the last three words, D amendment two. And on the next line, fifth line, also remove the word "zoning", and insert the words "an approvaL" If I may, then that first sentence would read, written notice the meeting shall be sent by mail to all owners of property within 500 feet of the property lines of the land for which an approval is sought. Dropping down to -- 1 won't count the lines, but it begins with the word "except". Close to the right-hand side, remove the word property. After the word "owners", insert "of property." Last -- wait, two more changes. Near the bottom of this number two, beginning with the word "applicant", after the term -- the words applicant shall, insert the word "also". And then on the -- the last change on the next line that begins with the word "meeting", after the parenthetical NIM, remove the word "request". CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, are there questions from this section? It would be pages -- up to Page 128. 125 through 128. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?' Page 105 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- one. Why are we -- why are we now calling -- why are we now citing the community planning coordinator, as opposed to what I thought we had established as a standard, county manager or designee? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, I spoke with Susan Istenes, the zoning director. And this information does go to the community planning coordinator, and the zoning does not go to the zoning department, so we wanted to make it clear for applicants who needed to get it in this case. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine with me, as long as it's not a violation of anything. I just thought that was a standard that we had. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, if! may, I think the point as well is the fact that that particular person does not work in the zoning department. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, David. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, can I make the motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not done yet with questions. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, I thought you were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I thought you had a question. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? And then I've got some questions as well. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, the reason we're not doing the requirement on the comprehensive plan is? The requirement, I'm sorry -- you know, if it expired within a year the requirement to have a second NIM. MR. WEEKS: Two rationales. First, we already require a NIM, a second NIM to be held for a plan amendment ifthere is a significant change between the transmittal hearing and adoption hearing. Secondly, from my perspective, I didn't think it was necessary. Page 106 August 8, 2007 The comprehensive plan amendments, with a few exceptions, are done as a cycle of amendments. It has never happened in my time here that a plan amendment has lingered for are that period of time. They go as a cycle. They're either heard or they're withdrawn and newly submitted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if a plan amendment was withdrawn, then they would have to come back again and have another neighborhood meeting. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. They'd be starting from scratch as a new petition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they would expire probably before a year if there was no action on them? If they submitted and then just went limp after the NIM, what would happen, it would expire over what period of time? MR. WEEKS: There's no set time limit. The action that staff takes is if a petition is not ready for -- and it's never happened, but if a petition is not ready to go to hearing with the rest of the cycle, we would tell that applicant that we view their petition as withdrawn and they'll need to resubmit next year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple, David, on Page 127, but it's the new Page 3. It would be item 2 -- well, it's former 2, so now it would be -- yes, 2(D). It's a new paragraph. It says in cases where the applicant's petition activity extends beyond one year. How do we define what their activity is? I mean, since somebody will be hanging their hat on this one, I'm wondering what you're going to say is activity. MR. WEEKS: I'll have to defer to zoning staff. I jumped in with some wordsmithing here, but this is not my proposal. MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry, in Section 2? Page 107 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's 2(D). It's on Page 3 or former Page 127. MS. F ABACHER: I'm just conducting -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the same one I think Commissioner Schiffer was asking about the last sentence on. MS. FABACHER: You mean why doesn't it apply to site specific? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. MS. FABACHER: The applicant's petition activity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. What is -- how do you define what activity is? He could say that anything's activity. So where do you get that definition from? MS. F ABACHER: Let me defer to Linda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're down to the third person this has been passed to. MS. BEDTEL YON: Hi, good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator for community development/environmental services. Activity, meaning the petition has to be active in that it is under review, and that changes are being made. If the applicant lets the petition sit past a certain point in time it's deemed inactive and, therefore, needs to be either withdrawn or resubmitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, maybe we should reword that, though. In cases where the applicant's petition is under review or petition's review extends beyond one year, something like that, so we have something semi-defined so we know what it is that we're talking about instead of just activity. Mr. Weeks, you're trying to -- MR. WEEKS: Yes, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why can't we just delete the word activity? MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, one thing I am aware of is that Page 108 August 8, 2007 the zoning staff does send a letter to an applicant when there's been a lack of activity within a certain time period. I don't know what that specified time period is, but I know their protocol is to send a letter to the applicant saying we've not heard from you within six months or whatever the time period's been. If you do not resubmit by such and such a date, we will consider the petition withdrawn. I think it's in the same vein here that if there's been no activity __ again, an undefined term -- but if there's been no activity on the petition and it's dragged out for a period of a year, that the requirement for a second NIM would apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray just hit on something that may work. If you take out the word activity, then it's a petition until such time it's withdrawn. So therefore, as long as it's a petition, it applies. And maybe that's the best solution, just take out the word activity . MR. SCHMITT: That works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's do that. Is that okay with everybody? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I kind of have another suggestion. And it's kind of based on -- I think this is really derived from Lindy being concerned about the length of time. What if we made it in the cases where the meeting before the planning commission extends one year of the date? Because I think that's what Lindy really wanted is that he didn't want l8-month, two-year-old NIMS in front of the planning commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, Brad, I think the same -- we're not here to protect the planning commission's interest in having it done as much as the public's. And if there -- for example, there was a conditional use that came through here and it was supposed to go to the BCC. And it was delayed, it was continued, and they continued it for almost up to I think two years. And then they had another Page 109 August 8, 2007 neighborhood informational meeting as required. So I'd rather it stick to the BCC level as well, if that's what you're getting at. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what I'm getting -- I mean, the important thing is that, you know, the public forum -- the first public forum is the planning commission, and that's why 1 chose that. And in other words, if you get too far away from the NIM, the planning commission hearing, the people are going to lose track of what's going on. MR. SCHMITT: What Mark said did in fact happen, and we would want to have the strength in order to send it back. You already had heard the petition, it was almost a year later -- or almost a year to the date that it then finally went to the board. And the language here that required another NIM -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Didn't say the same thing, in case where, you know, it's a year before the meeting of the planning commission or the BCC. Then that way they get both covered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why don't -- Brad, if you leave it just where it's the applicant's petition extends one year, it doesn't matter whether it's before either board, it's automatically going to have to happen with another meeting -- MR. SCHMITT: Either one is referred to as an advertised public, you know -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But some of these take three or four years, so in other words, they would have a couple of NIMS before they get to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When we really want a current NIM. But anyway, I'm okay with that. MS. BEDTEL YON: If I may, Commissioners, just to clarifY Page 110 August 8, 2007 something. The requirement for the applicant to hold the neighborhood information meeting is not deemed a public meeting. In other words, their first public meeting is before you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. BEDTEL YON: What we're trying to get at with this, and what I understood to be direction was if the application hangs out there and so many revisions have been made back and forth between staff and the applicant, then the public has lost sight of the initial application, basically. So then we would have to require -- or we would be asking to require our applicants to come back after all these revisions have been made and hold another neighborhood information meeting simply to keep the public up to speed, to keep the stakeholders out there informed of changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't the intent I thought. But go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the way this is worded, you only do two of them. So if they essentially went another year, they wouldn't be required a third. MS. BEDTEL YON: Well, the original language says they must hold at least one neighborhood information meeting. I don't know if that would speak to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way we're leaving this, if it extends beyond one year, they have a second. Two years -- MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, Commissioner, I think you can read it that you could start the clock again at the second NIM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just drop the word "second"? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Drop the word second. Because contrary to what I just heard, part of the reason I thought these NIMs were being redone is because the staff loses -- I mean the public loses Page III August 8, 2007 track of a petition. I don't care whether there was one or none or 100 changes. But when the public isn't able to see it happen within a reasonable amount of time and it goes on beyond a year, I think it's good that they be renoticed that they buy a public information __ notice NIM, a neighborhood information meeting that hey this is still alive, it's still going on, you need to pay attention to it because people are forgetting them. More than I see the changes. I think that's a big concern I had. So anyway, it works both ways. MS. BED TEL YON: Yeah, I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if we drop the word second and we drop the word activity, that paragraph works a lot better. Is that in agreement with everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think so. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I think one other minor change to go along with that. On the second line, instead of saying one year from the date that the neighborhood information meeting, change that to "A", to account for possible multiple. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or add the word "last". CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wordsmithing these LDC amendments. Oh, my God. Okay, is there any others? What do you want to do, "last" or "a"? MR. SCHMITT: I like the way he reads it, because it does allow for multiple. The date of the last neighborhood information meeting. Because then you could apply it in multiple applications. Does that work? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: We're going to -- you want to see this rewritten? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think we're --1 think we've walked through everything very carefully. I'm content with it. And hopefully everybody else is. Page 112 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is the last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last time. Mr. Adelstein, did you have a motion for Section 10.03.05? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I certainly do. I so move. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's made for recommendation of approval. And the second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MS. BEDTEL YON: Thank for your patience, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now we're back to Page 186. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, at this point I think we had agreed when we looked at the order of the amendments to here that we were going to look at the revisions next before we hit the omissions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we go into anything else, we've got the revision to go through and the book to go through. We've probably got another hour's worth of work, maybe a little bit more. Do you guys want to take a lunch break or 15 minute break? Page 113 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Lunch break. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Lunch break. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Lunch break. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, if we can just hear this one small one from Bruce, then I can send him back to review plans for the rest of the afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or he can stay here, have lunch, relax for the rest of the day. MS. F ABACHER: You're right, Susan's not here. But I think she'd prefer that we get this out of the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which page are we-- MS. FABACHER: 87. And you got a revised copy today. This is the root barrier amendment. Eighty-seven. That you asked certain sections be rewritten, so I guess we'll see now how Bruce did. You have a revision that got handed out today. It was originally on Page 87. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, we're looking for the revisions. MR. McNALL: Okay, there should be a hand-out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was handed out today, Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, it's the one that I e-mailed to you last week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, then I have it, okay. I've got it already. I didn't know it was e-mailed as well. MR. McNALL: Real simple rewrite. Putting it into the LDC standard format. For the record, Bruce McNall, landscape architect. This is on Page 88. It's rewritten to make the language more clear. An approved root barrier system shall be installed when the following occurs, i, large canopy trees are planted closer than 15 feet to a building, and double ii, large canopy trees are planted closer than 10 feet to a sidewalk, underground utility or paved area with no curbing, or curbing which extends less than 18 inches below grade. Page 114 August 8, 2007 And then see the figure below. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, I think we can read them. MR. McNALL: That's pretty simple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just tell us what -- and then the section page, on 89, you just got the changes up on top? MS. F ABACHER: Correct. MR. McNALL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, I think most of this came back as a suggestion from you as far as how to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- work. Any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I seem to have a note here that says -- on Page 89 I had crossed out 12.5 feet. And then I have 20 feet with a question mark. What you want is 12.5, correct? MR. McNALL: Yes, ma'am, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, IS there a recommendation for approval -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Page 90, the new handout, the item number seven, in instances where an act of God. Is it usually pos majeure? MR. McNALL: Sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not an underlined. That's-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY : You're right, it's not -- never mind. Page 115 August 8, 2007 MR. McNALL: It's existing code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a recommendation for approval of 4.06.05(G)(2)? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Midney, second by? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you, Bruce. MR. McNALL: Thank you, Commissioners, for hearing this before lunch. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, let me just -- Bruce, I'm sorry, you did double cross out small canopy trees? And the reason you did that is they can be planted anywhere essentially, right? MR. McNALL: The reference is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Look on the top of Page 88. MR. McNALL: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's because by default there's no requirement where they can be planted; is that correct? Page 116 August 8, 2007 MR. McNALL: Correct, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we will take a break and come back here at 1 :00 from lunch to finish up. Is that okay with everyone? See you all at 1 :00. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody if you want to take your seats. Actually, everybody, it's basically Brad. Welcome back from our lunch. And we were in the middle of intense discussion on Land Development Code amendments. And we left off on Page 186. And Catherine, I guess this is Stan Chrzanowski and John Houldsworth. Are they going to come in to talk about this, or -- MS. F ABACHER: Which one was that, Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think 186 is where we left off. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yep. MS. F ABACHER: No, nobody's going to talk about that. But actually, I had -- remember, we're going through the revisions right now. I know I left that one out of clarifications. You can do whichever you want, but the next on the agenda is BMUD GTMUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's finish with 186, because there's only one line through two words and it should not take that long to resolve. Anybody have any questions on Pages 186 or 189? Yes, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 187, anyway. And just a question, and probably no one is going to be able to answer this. Where in that chart it shows on the right-hand side, applicant may submit revised application limited to "X" resubmittals. Is "X" intended to be there, or is it in place of a number that we're going to finally decide? MS. F ABACHER: No, I think it's intended to be there. I can Page 117 August 8, 2007 check the current -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Because resubmittals can be any number? MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Answers my questions. That's all, I just wanted clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. You know, one thing that's the obvious question is should the planning board have been looking at final plats? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no. You don't want to get into that again. We talk about this every couple of years. You know how many final plats go through this county? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we could do a summary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why look at them? Summary judgment doesn't look at anything, it just passes it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the question is, since it's in there are we taking out something more than just words? That's all. MS. F ABACHER: Yeah, I think we're just updating it to what actually occurs now. The things that got scratched out don't go through this process anymore. Actually, we don't even do preliminary plats anymore. I mean, you could if you wanted, but people just do finals. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But when it's in the code and it says, you know, when things happen, a type two review, final plat is always in there, up until today when we scratch it out because we don't do it anymore. So was there a wrong turn in the past or a right turn in the past to have us not do it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we -- has this board ever done plats? MS. F ABACHER: I think the language is -- Page 118 August 8, 2007 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Years ago. It wasn't plats, it was called a PSP. I think it stood for preliminary subdivision plat. And it probably was -- went away in '95. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So as the county attorney, you're comfortable with the removal of this from the review type two? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation to approve Sections 10.04.03 and 10.04.03(A)? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moved -- seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commission Midney made the motion, Commissioner Murray seconded it. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All against. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. MS. F ABACHER: Now we're going to go to the BMUD revisions, if that's okay. They originally started on Page 3, and unfortunately I see I did -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back up a minute. This is a resubmittal of the BMUD? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. Based on the changes you asked for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was from last time. MS. F ABACHER: Correct. Page 119 August 8, 2007 And Jean Jourdan with the CRA is going to walk us through this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we're going all the way back in our packet to Page 3. And we got a new grouping of these from staff not too long ago for both the BMUD and the Gateway. So those changes that they sent us were in conformity with the request that we had made last time we reviewed it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead. MS. JOURDAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Jean Jourdan with the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Agency. I'm back before you with the revisions that we discussed at the July 25th meeting. However you guys want to proceed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you made -- I went through and physically checked to see some of the changes. I think I have one or two questions. But I think we can go through and ask questions that we may have had. And I guess the simplest way is to take it a section at a time. Does that work for everybody on the panel? Well, let's take five pages at a time. We'll start on Page 3, we'll go to Page 3 through 8. Anybody have any questions on those pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 8 through 13. Now, these are the revised pages. We've already been through this once, and the corrections were made by staff and sent back to us. So that would be 8 through 13. And we have 13 through 18. (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question on Page 7 of the new doc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 7. Okay, Mr. Murray. Page 120 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Motor homes is stricken -- are stricken from this now? MS. JOURDAN: Yes. One of the things that -- I'm sorry, was that you, Commissioner Murray? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. JOURDAN: I was looking down. Yes, you had discussed that with us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know. MS. JOURDAN: And what we did was went through, and on the map, the R-2, the underlining zoning did not permit for motor homes, so we made it consistent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Got it, got it. This is that craziness where -- MS. JOURDAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- backwards. Okay. MS. JOURDAN: But we're very glad you brought that to our attention, because it was an oversight on our part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions through Page 18? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's go to 23; 18 to 23. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These are mostly all tables, so -- then 23 through 28? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will take you to the end of the BMUD tables. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, 28 on the new handout or on the original? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're all in the new, because the new was the one that was revised. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I have a 28 question -- no, Page 121 August 8, 2007 I don't. It's a 29. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 29, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jean, you've gone through and taken C-4 and C-5 out and locked their setbacks to be that of the conventional zoning? MS. JOURDAN: Yes. That came about with conversations with Ms. Fabacher and Mr. Jackson pertaining to actually what you could fit, and so that you didn't have a very, very large building in the wrong -- what do I want to say -- situated on the lot where it wasn't compatible with other properties. Unfortunately Mr. Jackson isn't here, but Mrs. Fabacher and -- unfortunately I wasn't privy to the conversation either, so maybe Catherine can help expound on that. MS. F ABACHER: Sure. When we were reviewing the corrections, the changes to this, we noted that the C-4 and C-5, if you leave the permitted height under the underlying zoning but you use the setback from the BMUD, you could have a 50-foot building five feet off the street. And so we realized that we needed to keep for that __ and it would be incompatible with the little one and two stories next to it. So to keep the thing consistent we said well, we'll just add not only can you have the height of C-4 and C-5, but you can stay -- you have to stay with the setback requirements under the LDC. Just to keep people from pushing -- making those buildings incompatible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if they went to mixed use, then they would be able to be built by these standards? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. MS. JOURDAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so your concern is somebody that stays in the C-4 zoning -- MS. F ABACHER: It allows taller buildings. C-4 and C-5 is 75 feet. Page 122 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Somewhere it said in here that a new building would have to meet the BMUD standards. That was something we discussed -- MS. F ABACHER: Right, that's why we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in the beginning. So there's no way they somebody could build -- they couldn't cherry pick from conventional to BMUD, they would have to be BMUD. MS. JOURDAN: Well, if you see in here, we changed it from-- the C-l through C-5 zoning districts underlay the BMUD to the C-l through C-3. And then we added the C-4, C-5 over here on the right column. So look in the left column and you'll see C-l through C-5. The C-5 is struck through and now it's only C-3. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, I know that. But, I mean, I'm not worried about how we did it, I'm worried about the concept. In other words, up front here we have the -- any new building would have to meet the BMUD requirement. That's the thing that __ MS. JOURDAN: Yeah, I understand, it's saying that it would have to meet the -- MS. F ABACHER: Now that we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys can only talk one at a time, so wait till the other finishes. Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Now, what we're saying is if you retain your C-4 and C-5, you'll have to meet all of the other BMUD criteria, but you're exempted for height and setback. You have to follow LDC height and setback. Because one of the major concerns of property owners in the area was that they not lose that -- if they had C-4 and C-5, they didn't want to lose that ability to build that height. And then we talked to our redevelopment specialist at the county and we decided that -- actually, it was Sue brought it up and said well, what keeps these tall buildings -- what makes these tall buildings not Page 123 August 8, 2007 incompatible with a building next to it that's going to be one or two stories? She said well, that's why you have those increased setbacks. And we were like, oh, my God, well, we'd better fix that. That's not to say that they can't pull some sort of facade or pavilion type thing up to the streetscape if they want, but the actual tall building would have to follow the LDC setbacks as they are now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're going to have to go back to five. I'm sorry, Jean, 5-D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5-D. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says here, however, BMUD site development standards are applicable to all new development. MS. F ABACHER: As provided for in Section 2.03.07(1) -- oh, I see what you're saying. You're correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the point is that you're preventing something that can't happen anyway. Or I don't understand something. MS. JOURDAN: So would you recommend if we put "except as" after this, then it would be consistent? But it says on -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know what you're saying, a C-4 could be a 75-foot high building. MS. JOURDAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A C-5 can't. I think that's in the MS. JOURDAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- thirties or something. So that's not a problem. Yet we are able to build buildings 56 feet high, so we're a couple of feet away. But I honestly think that in any new building, there are some C-4 vacant lots in there, I know. But they would have to be built to the BMUD standards. There's no way they could avoid it. MS. FABACHER: Well, no, they get to keep their height. And when you say the BMUD standards, that's in the table. Now the table Page 124 August 8, 2007 now says that C-4 and C-5, if you keep your C-4 and C-5 zoning, you not only go by their height, but you have to follow their setbacks, as provided for in the standards. They've altered the standards themselves. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're saying this phrase, C-4, C-5 zoning restricted to the building height per 4.02(A). 4.02(A) is the new table? MS. F ABACHER: No, that's the old LDC table for dimensions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, let's just let it go. It doesn't -- if I'm right, it's a moot thing, if I'm wrong it's a moot thing, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting point, though. When you reference back to Page 5, it says to all new development as provided for in Section 2.03.07(l)(6)(h) of this code. Where is that? I mean, the code that you're speaking of, this is Bayshore overlay, correct? MS. FABACHER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I can't -- I've got that in front of me, which is what you gave us. Is it complete? MS. FABACHER: Well, no, it's not. I mean, we didn't put in Section H. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section H is not here. MS. F ABACHER: Yeah, we didn't anticipate -- when we originally put the thing together, we just didn't anticipate this problem. This came up towards the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MS. F ABACHER: But I believe H does direct you to these standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Which are the BMUD standards. MS. F ABACHER: Right. But the standards themselves now tell you that C-4 and C-5 have to follow the LDC setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you choose C-4, C-5 you'll revert Page 125 August 8, 2007 back to the LDC for the setbacks. MS. F ABACHER: Right. And you'll recall, too, for architectural standards and so forth, it merely suggests that you use the Florida cracker style. But it does require you to have, what, six of eight elements, six of 10 elements and, you know, what was it, a certain percent of glass, modulation of the facades, that sort of thing. Breaking up of space. It's just concepts that aren't restricted to Florida cracker or Mediterranean or anything. MS. JOURDAN: Right. That's only encouraged. MS. F ABACHER: Encouraged. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just make sure. So projects that are vacant land of C-4 and C-5, when a developer comes to develop them they will be developing them to what standard? What opportunities do they have? MS. JOURDAN: If they're not going under the MUP, then they would be developing it. If they chose to exceed that height, then they would revert to the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the phrase up on 5, that D where it states that -- okay, you're saying that that bounces you down to the standards. And these standards have non-BMUD setbacks and heights in them. MS. FABACHER: If you choose to develop under C-4 and C-5, you'll have to stick by the height and the setbacks ofC-4 and C-5. If you go BMUD, then you have the BMUD setbacks, but you have the BMUD heights. If you develop a mixed use project, then you go totally BMUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, isn't the intent of this overlay to make everything, the standards that we saw, consultants and pretty images? I'm not sure what's driving this, and I'm not sure why we just don't make everything in that neighborhood the BMUD. MS. JOURDAN: Well, from people coming in -- for instance, Page 126 August 8, 2007 there's a property owner on Bayshore that had actually put in a plan to build a commercial type building some time ago. He has said that this creates hardships in what he wants to do. So we'd like to give the people the option where that they can elect -- even though we want to encourage this type of development, this type of theme, we don't want to cause a hardship for someone who's already decided what they want to do for their property, if it's going to be better for the neighborhood. You look at the plan, yes, this building looks nice the way you're proposing it. And he didn't -- for instance, the one thing about changing the build-to line, he was going to actually have a little fishing lake and stuff, because it's going to be -- I don't know if I should -- I guess it's -- I can go into what he intends to put there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the build-to line's gone, so MS. JOURDAN: Right. So these are things that we were taking into consideration when we were making these changes is people who's actually come to us and they want to build in there, what they're proposing is great for the area, but some of these standards were causing hardships for them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is a custom coding then. Did that person want to go higher than the 54 feet, four stories? MS. JOURDAN: No, no. That was a discussion more with Catherine and David and their staff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this discussion occurred since our last meeting, obviously. MS. JOURDAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Margie, since the BMUD district is a new zoning overlay district and the underlining zonings, we wouldn't want to be taking away someone's right to remove the ability that they had through the underlying zoning, wouldn't we have to want to refer back to the underlying zoning as being applicable in some manner so that their rights are preserved or vested? Page 127 August 8, 2007 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, I thought that that was the whole idea of the mixed use process, so that would be a way of determining which standards that they were going to use. And we could use that process and denote it as such on the zoning map. I never have a problem with clarity in stating, you know, what the intent is. I mean, that can only help. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, that's my intent. I mean, I thought it was an either/or. You're either underlying zoning, which you have all the requirements you had prior to this, or you're BMUD. You get to vote which way you go. But now we're mixing them all together. Now underlying zoning are part of the BMUD standards. MS. JOURDAN: Well, the only way that the underlying zoning would be applicable is if they opted out of the BMUD. If they said I want to develop under C-5, then everything's applicable under C-5. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's funny because, you know, I had a client that was -- the BMUD came along, he had C-4 zoning, he happily wanted to do BMUD. He couldn't because you had to opt in. Now we have to opt out. I mean, this is -- the poor guy. He's got to -- you have a choice one -- MS. JOURDAN: Yeah, you have a choice. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- way or the other. And when you pick one way, all the rules of that way apply . When you pick the other way, all the rules of that other way apply. Why don't we do that? Why are we doing-- MS. F ABACHER: If I -- Catherine Fabacher. If I could give a little history. In the very beginning when I first came to work here, this was the first thing that I was familiar with. And I went to some of the -- to one of the neighborhood meetings, which was with mostly the commercial property owners. And their chief concern was is that they did not want to lose the height that they had by right in their underlying zoning. Page 128 August 8, 2007 So when this thing was crafted, it was written to leave them that option to use that height. Well, upon looking at it at this time with David, we discovered that when we -- the build-to line or even the five-foot setback wouldn't be appropriate if you went ahead with C-4 or C-5 and you had a 75-foot building and you could put it within five feet of the sidewalk. So it was kind of a mistake in writing the thing. And it finally occurred to us -- it hasn't happened, but it occurred to us that someone could come five feet from the sidewalk and go up with a 75-foot building, which wouldn't be compatible with the other smaller buildings. So all we did -- it's always had the height in there. You could always keep your height because of the concerns of the property owners. Then we realized when we talked to the redevelopment specialists that we really needed to leave those -- if you're going to use the C-4 height, then you have to use the C-4 setbacks so you won't have this 75-foot building right there off the sidewalk. It was never the intent of the overlay to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Back to the way I described it, one way or the other way, how could you choose conventional zoning, yet run in and try to grab that five-foot setback? You can't. You're either BMUD or you're not BMUD. But my problem is, why are we referring people to these -- the BMUD standards for conventional zoning, that's all. MS. F ABACHER: Because the architectural design standards you have to take either way. I mean, we recommend that you use the architectural design standards, which parallel the LDC. You know what I'm saying? It's not necessarily has (sic) to be Georgia cracker, but it's got the six of 10 elements that you need to use, which is the same as the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unconventional, right? MS. F ABACHER: Unconventional? Page 129 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, you have to use the architectural standards of the conventional when you're using the conventional underlying zoning. MS. FABACHER: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you want them to use the BMUD architectural standards? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why don't we say that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, didn't they say it by saying that if you go C-4, C-5, you're -- you're restricted to building setbacks. They're not saying anything else, they're just saying building setbacks. That's why they said it that way, I think, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know. I mean, I'm again back to that paragraph D. Move on, let me look up that one section of the code. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. Maybe also, Catherine, you have the LDC there, it has those standards, that you can let him look at that. Because a piece is missing for him, I think. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have it, don't worry. MS. JOURDAN: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that was your question on 29, do you have -- anybody have any questions through Page 35? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just had a question on Page 30 where it says maximum height of structures. It says the third line. It says classifications are restricted to maximum building height. Does that mean that I have to -- you know, the underlying maximum is 50 feet do I have to build to 50 feet, I can't build to 35? Am I reading it -- MS. JOURDAN: No. I'm sorry, Catherine. What Catherine says is correct. MS. FABACHER: What I'm understanding you saying, are you Page 130 August 8, 2007 forced to build to 75 feet? No. Perhaps it could be worded better, as required by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I mean, I just didn't want that to be -- MS. FABACHER: We could change restricted to "as required by." "The" instead of restricted to, if that would clear up that confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As required by, right? MS. F ABACHER: Right, um-hum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else between -- up to Page 35? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 35 through the rest of that BMUD section, which takes you past the -- through the Il-by-17 map that's attached. That's the rest of the BMUD document. Is there any other questions on the BMUD document? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you want to finish up your questions on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, I'm just making myself car sick through these tables here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can go on to the Gateway-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, go ahead, and come back. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the Gateway Triangle goes, it's a similar correction as was made for the BMUD. MS. F ABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same kind of layout, same program. Why don't we just take it as one document. Does anybody have any questions, and it starts on Page 41 and goes to Page 72. It's the Gateway Triangle mixed use district overlay. Any questions on that? Page 131 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: I think just the same one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron would have the same suggestion in the same section of that one that she had on the BMUD. MS. JOURDAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad, did you want to-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I haven't found it yet. Sorry, sorry . Catherine, you do have that 2.03.07(1)(6)(h)? MS. FABACHER: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll hop down there and look at it. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. MS. JOURDAN: If you don't mind, while we're having this little pause, I'd like to thank Catherine for putting these together. Because I know just in trying to do mine, any time you make a little change, the pagination goes off, the formatting, the numbers change. It's a nightmare. So Catherine really had her work cut out for her putting these together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She did. This is one of the better LDC packages we've received, so -- MS. F ABACHER: Here, it is. Here's the H. It should be subject to site development standards. And then we amended these. If you follow the conventional height, you have to -- the conventional setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On Page 59 we have crossed out churches and places of worship and substituted just churches. MS. F ABACHER: I think I can answer that. Churches is a defined term. And if you read the definition, it just says other places of worship. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, what I'm thinking is churches, I think of that as Christian. What about if you wanted to Page 132 August 8, 2007 have a Muslim mosque? MS. F ABACHER: It is not -- what's the word, denomination specific. It is not. You can have whatever you want. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I read a commentary recently about this. And one of the -- in the zoning article. And one of the suggestions they used was to say assembly uses. That would encompass churches and private clubs and all kind of things. So it's just a recommendation on how to deal with this issue from a zoning article I read. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So mosque would fall under churches then? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, no, the suggestion would be to say assembly uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As with the Ku Klux Klan. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Which means, you know, you could assemble. And you don't talk about churches, mosques, synagogues, private clubs or anything. That was just a suggestion in this article I read in a zoning publication about how to deal with this Issue now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Assembly seems too broad. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, could I read the definition? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, please. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Church: A building or group of buildings and/or structures providing a place of assembly for worship, ceremonies or rituals pertaining to a particular system of beliefs. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's pretty good. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have anything you wanted to finish up? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not totally comfortable. Let's move on, because this is stuff we just got today. I think it's fine, but just give me the caveat that next meeting if I freak on it I can bring it back. Page 133 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There won't be a next meeting, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Next Thursday we're not going to meet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this would be done today. Do you want -- you're saying you're not ready to finish? We're going to keep this thing open for that issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, after that compliment for Catherine, I'll trust this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll tell you what: If you find something seriously wrong between now and the next meeting, why don't we bring it back for discussion. But only if you find something wrong with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm not shy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's just do it that way. And maybe by then, though, if you do have a question prior to the meeting, you could give this young lady, Ms. Jourdan, a tip-off-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and you guys can communicate. With that then, on the premise that we're not going to have anything next week and we go forward, is there a motion to recommend approval for 1.08.02, 2.03.07, 4.06.16-4.02.21, and that's the Bayshore mixed use overlay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, second by Commissioner Adelstein to recommend approval. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 134 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed, same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Is there a motion to recommend approval for 1.08.02, 2.03.07, 4.02.35,4.02.36 for the Gateway Triangle mixed use district overlay? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. MS. JOURDAN: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Jean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we're moving forward-- MS. FABACHER: I think we're back to the omissions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're back to 191. MS. FABACHER: 191, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, it's -- is it 191 ? Yeah, Page 191. Okay. Page 135 August 8, 2007 MS. F ABACHER: Okay, for staff, we're trying to return the old definition of the method of measuring lot widths from the old code and return it back into this code. Because we don't have that definition. It's an omission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 191? COMMISSIONER CARON: You're on the wrong-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're on page-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 191. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's 191. COMMISSIONER CARON: This is deleting references to preliminary plats? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a type three application. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, we're on the second Page 191. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, now that's a curve that's going to be -- the only 191 I have in my book, Catherine -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, no, she's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're on the first Page 191. MS. F ABACHER: The second Page 191. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on the second page. MS. F ABACHER: I'm on the second page for the lot -- oh, okay. Well, I thought we already did that one. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, we did not. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, this is the-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, this is the one. This is another one we missed with Stan. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We didn't do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This corrects I think the prior Page 1. It's consistent with Page 186, I would think. MS. F ABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It looks like it reduces or removes the -- Page 136 August 8, 2007 MS. FABACHER: Preliminary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- plat language review by the planning commission is all it does. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it also looks like it takes the planning commission out of variances or conditional uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do you see that? MS. F ABACHER: You're correct. You're correct on that. I didn't see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I see, the little arrow. COMMISSIONER CARON: We're not in the loop any longer. MS. FABACHER: You're right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Not in that one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't see that, Donna. Say that again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I didn't see it at first either. Page 192, the left-hand side. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Page 192 now. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're preliminary plats. But what else did you say, variances? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it doesn't allow us to be involved in any of the above. Because they've taken us out completely. Nowhere does it say that variances or conditional uses have to go before the planning commission on this chart. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unless in the code it refers the planning commission type three. MS. F ABACHER: It does. It was very interesting when it went before DSAC. They said I don't know why you're modifying this, nobody uses this anymore. And it came from the county attorney's office to modify these charts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you need to come back Page 13 7 August 8, 2007 with a better modification. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, I'm confused. MS. FABACHER: Well, it's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to bring these back? First Page 191 is coming back to us; is that fair to say? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. MS. FABACHER: Yes. Yes, because I don't think it happened in type two. Okay, yes, we'll have to amend it to show the planning commission in the loop on all these other processes. I think it should go right under the petition type, or the case type. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, want to go to the second 191? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll bring that one back? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, I'll bring that one back. Thank you. Good catch, Commissioner. Okay, this is the one I began to describe about bringing back the method of measuring lot width per the definition from the old code. And I think if you look on page -- the second Page 192, some figures that Commissioner Schiffer wrote. And I think it explains the difference about where you measure your width. You take it from the cord, which is that straight line between the dashed line and the figure nine. That dashed line between the two end points of the cul-de-sac lot. Obviously the dash line is going to occur in the county's right-of-way. And you measure back from that to find your setback, as opposed to measuring from the radius of the property line. Staff has said that this is the way that it's been done for 30 years. And it was not clear when the code -- when we recodified and lost these definitions. We lost a lot. In fact, that's most of what's in this last piece for you is returning all these old definitions. The alternative would be another method of measurement, which means you would measure the front yard setback from the actual Page 138 August 8, 2007 property line, the curved property line, rather than the cord. But the problem with that is it would put -- since the county's been doing it this way for 30 years, it would throw so many front yards into noncompliance that it's just not going to work for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you show us on Page 194, you have some language involving basically cul-de-sac lots? MS. F ABACHER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this would be probably like a corner lot or lot on a cul-de-sac. Do you have a diagram that represents what you're trying to say there? MS. FABACHER: Well, the one in figure nine does. If you see the curved front end of the property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What ifit's curved out instead of in? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you know how to work this? One thing while we're waiting, before we get into it, I'd like to reverse the lettering. In the text of this it's wrong. Figure 9 should be -- is the wrong figure. So I think the illustrations Figure 10 should be renumbered Figure 9. And Figure 9 should be renumbered Figure 10. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We need somebody that knows how. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think to summarize what Catherine's saying, this illustration shows the setback matching what I think the definition of setback is. Catherine is measuring it off of a cord. If you read it, what it says to do that on a cul-de-sac you draw a cord, and that would be the line near the word "street". And then you take that line and make a line parallel to it at the setback. Where Catherine and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye is where is the setback. If you look at the illustration -- and Catherine, what I suggest we do, renumber Figure 10 to be 9 and 9 to be 10, because that's the correct order, I think -- is she's measuring the setback from the cord. Now, remember the controversy we had with -- the controversy Page 139 August 8, 2007 that Naples had with cord measurements. There's a couple of -- and there's one other problem I think with this particular one, is on the last page there's a revision for setback piggybacking this. It was never really advertised. This was the thing that angered me the last time. MS. FABACHER: Well, it's advertised now, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, by me saying it? Advertised now. But the point is that I think this -- to me this thing is the thing we could get in trouble with. The problem we have, I mean, it's easy to offset lines, it's easy to figure a dimension from a property line, from a curve, straight, whatever. It's difficult to do it this way, because, for example, if you have inverse curves, where is the cord going to be then? I can show you a study I made that in an RSF-3 cul-de-sac with a 60-foot radius cul-de-sac, it could bring the building as close as in the low twenties. And the reason I can't give you a precise answer -- that if you measure by cord, there is no precise answer -- is that, you know, you could bring a building that should have a 30-foot setback less than 25 feet in. And I know my commissioner lives in that district, and I don't want to explain to him why that -- maybe they don't use the word, but I will -- mega house is sitting on the street. So -- but, you know, what staffs been measuring, staffs been measuring. And I don't know what the legacy of this problem is. I do know that if you look at the definition of setback, we reviewed that not too many cycles ago, and there was no need to put it in then. But anyway, enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Kolflat, go ahead. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I don't think Brad even goes far enough. This might have been done all these years, but this is totally Page 140 August 8, 2007 wrong. I also looked at a specific lot and that lot, as far as the cul-de-sac circle, it exceeded 90 degrees as far as on an arc. And if you go past 90 degrees and you draw the cord line, you end up that your setback doesn't even get back on the property line, it's short of the property line. Yes, he's made a lot of turning degrees. But if you make this 100 degrees arc that you're looking at here and you draw cords and then you draw a setback line of 25 feet for front yard setback, you don't even get off your property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner makes a very good point. And that is why we're asking for this language on Page 194 to setbacks, saying in any case you shall have at least 18 feet, the length of a car, for just the case that you mentioned. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I would think it would be better to restrict it to the arc, that you would only go so far on the arc so you would never get to that position. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what that's saying is that you could go into -- and, Donna, you and I live in an area with a lot of R-3. Can you imagine those buildings like the one he showed. Remember that one the guy showed today? That's one of our neighbors. And that thing, 18 feet off of the street setback? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it might be better if staff came back with this one with some -- a variety of diagrams to show us how it applies in various cases that we're talking about. Because I've got another case, and I'm going to put it on the overhead. Great, I didn't know this thing bled through like this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, there may be children watching. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem I have, is Catherine -- and I can try to draw it on this one. If you've got a cul-de-sac coming in Page 141 August 8, 2007 like this, you've got typical lots over here, and this lot right here becomes a corner lot because of the cul-de-sac, how do you measure this particular front yard if you're going from end to end? You're going to be going across here. How does this apply in regards to that definition on Page 194? And I think that's some of the clarification that would be helpful to understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, that's the inverse curve. Once you do that, the whole thing falls down. I mean, a cord really makes sense only on one curve. But the thing that I don't understand, what the problem is of just -- you know, what's the problem of just offsetting the expected setback? MS. FABACHER: You mean changing the 18 feet on Page 194 to 25? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I don't think we need to do the revision to the setback. I think that's what I'm actually saying. And I think if we really want to change the word setback, let's retitle this and readvertise it as, you know, adding a -- you know, revising the definition for setback. That's the most drastic thing. The writer to this is the one that could cause problems. And you only have to think back to that Naples situation where these people had the garage 14 feet measuring off a cord. And now the legacy -- I don't know what's been going on in the building department. I do know that if you measure the width of the site the way I show it, the existing -- it's a smaller site than the existing site. So people could actually get tighter sites. But you're concerned about making something nonconforming, could happen. MS. F ABACHER: The setback. The front yard setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not the setback, actually using the width, sticking to the width. MS. FABACHER: Oh, if you use the curve to denote where the Page 142 August 8, 2007 setback is instead of a straight line, then these buildings will be encroaching in their front yard. Then when they go to get another building permit, they're a nonconforming structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- actually, the way I'm doing it, you could actually make a smaller site than a bigger site. MS. F ABACHER: No, I understand that. It's not the size, it's the setback that will throw the other buildings into nonconformity. If they were built based on this 18 feet from the cord and in their zoning district they have to have a 25-foot front setback, then you make these buildings nonconforming. So that when they want to go forward, they have a problem with a nonconforming structure. You know how they try to clear up that for everybody before they transfer the title. It would be kind of a nightmare. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean, we have to be smart enough to be able to grandfather things in. I mean, if we make a change -- if we make a lot of changes and we can grandfather something prior to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you're a nonconforming structure, don't you have limitations on future expansions, additions and things like that that come into play that you wouldn't have expected, had this code not changed. MS. FABACHER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to be hooking a whole pile of people -- MS. FABACHER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: that are gOIng to be caught blindsighted. MS. F ABACHER: That's what staffs problem is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But who is the one measuring it this way? I mean, what -- MS. F ABACHER: The building reviewer, zoning, building. They tell me it goes back for 30 years. They've been doing it this way Page 143 August 8, 2007 for 30 years. So just about all the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm not -- you know, the definition, it was never in setback. I think there might be a confusion, there was a definition of yard that had something similar to this. But a yard and a setback aren't necessarily the same thing. For example, where I come from up north, the building had to have a setback, which is what we have, but you had to maintain a certain yard, which meant your porches and steps and stuff like that could come forward of the setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, who in the county staff deals with these kind of geometry -- this geometry, this kind of stuff? MS. F ABACHER: Ross and Stan. I mean Ross Gochenaur and Stan. And I wish Stan were still here, because he originally gave me a drawing of how to measure those inverse curves that you're talking about, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you, rather than us sit here and jaw on this thing for the next hour, because I'm sure that we can, because I still am not understanding what you're trying to accomplish versus what we may want to accomplish. Could you get with them and come back here next Thursday or whenever we continue to -- MS. FABACHER: Okay, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and address this particular -- and have them be prepared for a variety of scenarios -- MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we can iron something out. And if there's better language that needs to be suggested yet still protects things, let's just refine the language a little bit. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Does that work for, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It does. But I think if the intent of this is also to revise the definition of setback, that should be more publicly promoted. Page 144 August 8, 2007 MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, when we advertise, all we do is advertise the general section number. We don't say exactly what's going in. So this was advertised as changing -- amending Section 1.08.02, definition. That's the only advertisement it received. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it was intended to change the setback. If it evolves to that then yeah, we may have to withdraw and redo this at another time. But this is just defining how to measure the existing cases in which setbacks were already applied. Is that an accurate statement, or not? MS. F ABACHER: You mean if we found another way to differentiate between the things that were designed or built prior to this change, if we're going to change it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This was an omission from the prior code. MS. F ABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And apparently pursuant to that prior code is how we've been doing things; is that right? MS. F ABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all we're trying to do is make this code the same as the prior code. MS. F ABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're not changing anything, we're just bringing the old language forward. MS. F ABACHER: Trying to codify what is actual practice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now what I'm saying is if we change the language the next time around, that changes the prior code to result in a different front yard setback measurement. Then we're doing what Brad suggested, that we're changing people's setbacks, we need to readvertise, possibly. Because from what I've heard you say, we're not changing anything, we're just bringing old language forward. Page 145 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my concern is this is called add a definition for lot width. Behind it is revise a definition of setback. And maybe we're right to do that. I just don't like it sneaking in -- or riding along behind the other thing, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we're changing something, we should notify it a little more clearly to the property owners. I know you ran a full-page ad with all this big bold print. It's hard to follow. But I think Brad's concern is we'd be making a lot of people nonconforming. If that happens, I think we have a problem. MS. FABACHER: Well, that's why we wanted to just put back this existing language, to not have -- create nonconformities for everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I'm saying is when you come back next Thursday, we're not trying to undo what you're trying to do, we're trying to understand it better. And if we all understand it and it works, fine. But if we have to go beyond that to a point we are physically making the lots nonconforming, then that's a different ballgame. I think that's what I think the consensus might be. MS. F ABACHER: Okay . Well, I'll bring Stan and all his illustrations next time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be very helpful. Then we can all understand it. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you send those out ahead of time? E-mail or something? MS. FABACHER: What now -- oh, yes, I can. I'll try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So pages 191 through 194 are coming back. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: If we, in discussing this thing the next time around, come up that this setback -- result that the Page 146 August 8, 2007 setback result is not rational or should not be used, don't we want to address that issue too? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can address it during discussion. But if we -- I don't know if we can make a decision like that. It's either we accept the language or not. If we -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I mean, view a plot of the natural lot that exists in Collier County in which when you draw the setback it doesn't reach the property line because so much of the arc is taken. We said about 100 degrees around. It goes past the 90-degree cut of the circle. So if you have something like that, it results in a setback that doesn't even reach the property, there's something flawed with that kind of direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's what I hope the diagrams and the discussion next week will show. And if that's the case, then we need -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And so if we have any diagrams, anything that might assist in that discussion, we should bring it with us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have some, sure. I'm sure staffs going to have some, too. But anything that helps trying to -- if you have a question and we need clarification, it would be the time to get it so this doesn't get put through twice wrong. Yes, Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And it would probably be good to share that with Stan ahead of time, too, so that he's prepared to talk about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan Chrzanowski, the engineer. So if you get it to Catherine, Tor, she'll see that Stan gets it and can digest it a bit before the next meeting to help discuss it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 195? Return of another Page 147 August 8, 2007 definition, dwelling, two-family. Catherine, is that one that was just left out? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. And the code still talks about two-family dwellings. And essentially townhouse is defined as three or more. So if you wanted two townhouses next to each other, you couldn't have it. So that evolved as the two-family dwelling. But then the definition was dropped and yet the code still refers to two-family dwellings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody got any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason we need that instead of the definition of duplex? Because this isn't the same thing? MS. F ABACHER: It's different. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's different? MS. F ABACHER: If it's a townhouse, it's fee simple. It's not on the -- same ownership on both sides. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Duplex. Okay, she's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing. Is there a motion to recommend approval for 1.08.02, definitions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein seconded it. All in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 148 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Okay, Page 197. MS. F ABACHER: Same thing. Returning it -- the definition of subdivision minor, verbatim to the code engineering services asked that we do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation to approve 1.08.02, definitions for subdivision minor. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Murray. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Now we're on to the -- MS. F ABACHER: Pink book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the pink book. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, Mr. Chairman? Page 149 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before we go, there was a John Kelly lot corner, lot interior. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Commissioner, I forgot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's the same kind of thing. MS. F ABACHER: It's the same. You're right, I transmitted that at the last meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And the question, Catherine, is that I guess when we went and threw the old code up in the air and not everything came down, did anybody leave behind any reasons why these definitions were taken out? So there's -- MS. F ABACHER: No, Commissioner, there's no strike through or underlined. It's just the new code born from the head of Zeus. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I actually do have -- I saved the box at that time, because I thought that was a scary event. Maybe I should donate that for the staff. It's a strike-through underlined version. Because I was -- MS. FABACHER: Sure, a library, that would be great. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- really scared, because to do this properly you'd have to have the collective knowledge of everybody before us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What -- now you've another document? I must not have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Lot corner, lot interior and lot through. I mean, they kind of seem self-evident. I can understand where somebody might not need them. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Can I see it? MS. F ABACHER: Distributed at the July 25th meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Remember John Kelly came? This was his first one. Come on, guys, let's be easy on him. MS. F ABACHER: He's at Disneyland, so -- Page 150 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I got an e-mail that said you actually requested this thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I did -- I found through a discovery that there was some definition missing and another brought forward definition for a corner lot. And I simply suggested to staff, because they told me it was what they were using over at development services to determine setbacks from corner lots. And I said, well, you ought to bring it forward in the code. So that's why it's here. So-- MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's how it happened. It was just a-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I see no problem. I mean, they're all self-evident descriptions. But if they're needed, they're needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, well, that was one that was in the old code and it just somehow got dropped, just like the others they described, so -- and I don't have my copy of that with me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can put it on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER CARON: We should vote on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Is there any further discussion on this particular one? There's no page number, but it's the one on corner lots. We're bringing the old conversion back over to the -- old language back to the new code. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, is there a motion to approve 1.08.02, definition for lot corner? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. Page 151 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 7-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioner Schiffer, for remembering that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Catherine, remind me to find that. Because I think somewhere in the staff they have to have that stuff. MS. FABACHER: We'd love to have that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have to find a new place to put the lamp, but other than that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Catherine, we have your pink book up next. MS. FABACHER: Exactly. Okay. Let me just -- briefly, I don't think I need to beat a dead horse about how hard it is for staff and applicants alike and developers to use the tables, the current land use tables. And in fact, in going from the land use list to the tables, a lot of things were lost such as square footage restrictions and so forth. Because all of these -- many of these uses were heavily conditioned. And we try to go and address all of the conditions and footnotes and it just left a lot to be desired. So what we did is we went back to the old code, and that was 109 -- no, 91-102, supplement 17, and we tried to recapture the intent of the code, the fullness of it, the conditioning, and put all that stuff back that we'd lost with the tables. So that was that. Page 152 August 8, 2007 And another reason is the on-line tables can't be viewed on-line. So all right, now what we did was we went back to that code. And then as you know, our zoning classifications are cumulative, which means they carry forward. Meaning what is allowed in C-l is automatically permitted in C-2. And what's allowed in C-2 is automatically allowed -- and so instead of saying that, we went ahead and carried the uses themselves so that there were -- because a lot of times things were overlooked because people weren't familiar with that cumulative thing, or they forgot to look at the C-l to see what else was applied. So we did that. And then, let's see. That's what we tried to do and organize it better so it was more user friendly. So if you have some questions, I'm happy to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question -- well, I don't know if anybody does on three. I have one on four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we start right like we did -- yeah, let's just go in five-page increments again. Pages 1 through 5. Ms. Caron, you have the first question. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, on Page 4-C, there's a whole list of A, B, C under there. Wildlife management, plant and wildlife conservancies, conservation uses, oil and gas. A, B, C doesn't seem to relate to what's above. MS. FABACHER: You're right. Thank you. You're right. Starting at A, we needed to pull it back out to A, Band C belong under a C, D, E, F. They belong D, E, F. Thank you for catching that. They got intended under conditions, but you're right, in their own right they're uses. So we'll correct that and renumber accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 1 through 5? COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 5. Page 153 August 8, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Ko lfl at. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just had a question on C-I, Roman numeral, I guess it is. Am I reading this correctly, so you can have a packing plant across the street from residential PUDs or R T zoning? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. But this is in the agricultural zoning district, so they don't -- I don't think it intermingles very much, those other -- it's in A district. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, since most of our county is -- has been left in A designation -- MS. F ABACHER: Okay, but it says that you cannot be located on a collector or arterial street that abuts property. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, that's what I'm saying. So for example, if I have -- the further out you go on Immokalee, for example, on one side of Immokalee I could have a packing plant, and on the opposite side of the street I could have a PUD? MS. F ABACHER: You're talking about in Immokalee, the town, or on Immokalee Road? COMMISSIONER CARON: On the road. MS. FABACHER: On the road. Well, not if the road abuts any RSF-l, RSF-6 or any of those districts. I mean, this is language from the old code. We can absolutely clarify it, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, that's an accessory use. So you forgot the farm that's there, too. This has to be an accessory use to -- MS. F ABACHER: Right, it's not a principal. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: It does not abut. That's all right. I was reading it incorrectly, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The things you've crossed out, Page 154 August 8, 2007 these are decisions staff has made to remove. Obviously it's a prohibitive use if it doesn't exist and it's not allowed. For example, on Page 4, you know, we're not going to get any big football stars moving into the neighborhood. MS. FABACHER: Yeah. Well, no, number three became a prohibitive use, that's why we took it out. It's prohibited. It's the Michael Vick amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anything that's scratched off here is -- MS. F ABACHER: Accounted for somewhere else. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- something that you've made a decision as staff that it should be scratched off. In other words, it's not carryover forward from the legacy codes. MS. F ABACHER: That's true, that's true. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You've colored everything and then there's also strike through, strike through -- MS. FABACHER: Right, those are ours. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't need this, okay. MS. F ABACHER: Not that we don't need it, we moved it. It's prohibited use. We moved it to prohibited uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, on Page 3 under B as in Baker, you list various activities in the agricultural activities that are included. Then down below that in green you list some of the same ones again, reiterating, you say that they are permitted uses. However, beekeeping is in the one at the top but is not down under the permitted use. What is the reason for not have beekeeping as a permitted use in -- MS. F ABACHER: Because you don't need 20 acres. There's no restriction on the required size on beekeeping. But the rest, dairying, ranching, poultry and egg production, milk production, livestock, it has to be on parcels 20 acres or greater. Page 155 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So it's the size limitation. MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Then over on the next page, Page 4, under item C, like in Charlie, it says wholesale reptile breeding, et cetera is all right. Why not retail? What's the distinction between retail and wholesale there? MS. F ABACHER: That's a good question, Commissioner. I guess you can't be sitting -- I guess so that you can't set there at your house in agricultural zoning and have people come back to buy a snake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you'd be basically running a commercial pet store then. That's not what agricultural property -- that's a retail use. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the wholesale activities is all right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. It doesn't have the traffic generation that retail does. MS. FABACHER: It's like a wholesale plant nursery. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I was just curious for the reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions through Page 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how about through Page 10? Anybody through Page 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's go to page -- through Page 15. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 13. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: F-3. I think the word should be addiction, not addition. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. Page 156 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: And then I just had a question about this category. This group care II. When and where would you want people who constitute a direct threat to the health, safety and welfare of others? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: North Naples or Pelican Bay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think this -- you know, there are -- we go further here where these are not delineated. And I'm not sure that in this county -- MS. FABACHER: Well, go ahead, Margie. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That whole system was set up back in 1990, I want to say, because of the Fair Housing Act amendments. And a lot of conditions are treated as disabilities under the law. So we have to be very careful. And the whole thing was researched and set up in the land code to make sure we were not running afoul of the Fair Housing Act amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't that same language -- it looks like it appears under regular residential categories, too, so, I mean, they could be anywhere, in essence, by the way the code's written. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm not -- the way it was set -- and this is the basic idea, that you don't determine housing type based upon the emotional or psychological or physical characteristics of the people that live in there. In other words, if it's multi-family, you have to permit it in a multi-family district. If it was a smaller home where there's like six or less people and it's more akin to single-family, and you might have a family that size, then you have to have it as a permitted use in single-family. And that's the basic gist of the Fair Housing Act amendments. So the whole code was set up in response to that years ago. And I think now we're trying to fix problems that were associated between -- you know, when we did the new code. Isn't that correct, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: No, it's just the table. We're just bringing back the old code language. Page 157 August 8, 2007 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Oh, so you're bringing -- okay. So what's happening is we're bringing back I guess instead of the table, the list of uses. MS. F ABACHER: Right. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And I would not want to touch that, because that was very carefully researched years ago to meet the requirements of the Fair Housing Act. COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 15 up at the top of the page under C, the next to the last line says golf courses. And this is under accessory uses. And then if you drop down to conditional uses, golf courses are listed again. MS. F ABACHER: That's a good question. But C is associated with a primary development. It's part of a subdivision or something. Whereas E, the conditional use is a standalone golf course. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else through Page 15? I have one, Catherine, on Page 11. The Estates paragraph B. MS. F ABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last line, it says Collier County GMP, or as provided under the Golden Gate Master Plan. And I'm just questioning the word "or". How do you -- how do you determine which one dominates? MS. F ABACHER: They're one in the same, aren't they? It's an element. The Golden Gate Master Plan is an element of the GMP, so CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Of the -- we can say of the Collier County GMP, comma, as provided under the Golden Gate area master plan. How about that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're not making a choice between two codes. Okay, Page 16 up to Page 20, any questions? Page 158 August 8, 2007 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 17-G, under non -- it says noncommercial boat launching facilities. Do you need to put in multiple docking facilities there, or -- MS. FABACHER: Let's see. Well, I think a boat launch is different from a dock. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But if you go back to-- MS. F ABACHER: Boat launch is just the ramp. And you have docks and dock facilities, which is regulated under supplemental standards. And I think it's 5.03.03. COMMISSIONER CARON: It just seemed to be inconsistent. In one place you were combining the two, and then it just seemed to drop out. I'm trying to find a site to send you back to here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 14, 2-A, that one says private docks and boathouses, is that -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, this is separate. I'll find it, Catherine, and bring it up to you. That's all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else up to Page 20? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, anything up to Page 25? Yes, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Page 20. It's just a formatting change. We'd been saying permitted uses, accessory uses, and now number two says uses accessory to permitted uses. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. We missed that. COMMISSIONER CARON: No big deal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, up to Page 25, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, up to Page 30? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up to Page 35? Catherine, I have a question on page -- kind of on Page 34. It Page 159 August 8, 2007 starts there, but it finishes on Page 36. Let me start there. Number 72. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you read that language, then turn to Page 36 and look at number eight. So what I'm asking about is they're both within the same residential district. One is talking about a comparable use under a principal use category, and the other is talking about a comparable use under a conditional use category. So if I was coming in and wanted to do a comparable use, I'd certainly want to talk about it under the principal use category, wouldn't I? I mean, how do you make the choice as to where distinguishing features are between where you're going to ask for it to go under? MS. FABACHER: Well, I think that's the call of the -- as the process points out, it's the call of the zoning director gets the first cut at it and then the applicant can appeal that decision to the board of zoning adjustment, which is what the process refers to. As far as the -- you they're going to come in -- an applicant will come in and they'll say, well, I have a permitted use for travel agencies, therefore can I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, you don't have -- that's okay. I understand what you're saying. So the zoning director gets -- MS. F ABACHER: First cut. And then you appeal through the BZA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, back to my comment on Page 72 -- on item 72, Page 34, the third line from the bottom. To the operational functions of a business and are purely associated. How do we decide if something is purely associated? MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, that's old language. We can strike purely, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be better, just leave the word and associated. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, I need to go back to Page 160 August 8, 2007 Page 30 under B. And down at the bottom of that paragraph it starts out five sentences from the bottom of paragraph B, it starts maximum density permissible in the C-2 district. MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's maximum density permissible in the C-2 district as long as it's a mixed use project, correct? Because MS. FABACHER: Well, no, the only way it could get to be a mixed use in a C-2 would be to go through that -- I think it's a conditional use. If you want to do mixed use in a straight commercial zoning, you're allowed in C-l to C-3 a conditional use to do mixed use. You're not allowed any mixed use by right in those districts. But we have an element -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, but there's also not technically density assigned to commercial unless it is combined with a mixed use project. MS. F ABACHER: Correct. Perhaps we should say under the urban mixed use, maybe, instead of and. You're correct on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Although -- yeah, right. If you have some mixed use, then you get -- you're allowed residential. So we should say under instead of and. Thank you. I'll check that on all of the districts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions through Page 35? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through page 40? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through Page 45? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through Page 50? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My God, I think we're actually Page 161 August 8, 2007 going to make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through Page 55? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through Page 60? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through Page 65? By the way, Catherine, that word purely appears in every zoning category . MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm assumIng if you're going to correct it in one, you'll do it in them all. MS. F ABACHER: I will. Will do it. I'll do a search and replace. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 70? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Catherine -- actually it's on Page 65, sorry. The accessory uses. A detached caretaker's residence? And I just looked in the zoning. In C-4 it's not detached. Why is it detached in C-5? MS. F ABACHER: You looked at the table? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And it didn't have any footnote or anything. So can you just double check that? MS. F ABACHER: Certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because essentially what that is, that's where you find your mini-storage where people really are living within them. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Which one was that, please? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's on Page 65-2, accessory use, attached caretaker's residence. I think it should be the same as C-4, which is just a caretaker's residence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others through Page 70? Page 162 August 8, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through Page 75? Catherine, on Page 73 where you got to the end of your typical industrial zoning permitted uses, you didn't have that catchall phrase, the one with purely in it. Do you want to add that there for comparable uses? MS. F ABACHER: Sure, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Takes us through Page 75. Do we have anything through Page 80? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through Page 85? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, through Page 90? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through Page 95? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we're up to Page 100. We're getting to the end. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, through Page 105? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 110? Catherine, I have one on Page 110. It's (l)(A) (iii). It talks about passive parks and other passive recreational uses. And do we have a definition for what passive uses are? MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how would we know if we have passive parks? MS. F ABACHER: The problem, you recall, if it wasn't last cycle, it was the cycle before. We tried to get together with Conservation Collier and Parks and Rec and some third department and they could not all agree on the definition of passive parks. Page 163 August 8, 2007 In fact, when we did research through other ordinances around the state and other places, it was very hard to have it defined because of that problem. It means different things to different people. Now, I think they set out the uses specifically in the Conservation Collier ordinance. But to make it -- you know, the thing that we have in the code is that a definition should apply universally. No more of this in section such and such contiguous shall mean. Contiguous is contiguous throughout. So I think the problem was is we couldn't get everybody together who had some input on passive park or passive recreation to agree on that what that was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did remember it came up. I didn't remember the results. Because I don't think we knew that the results are what you just said. So because three groups of bureaucrats couldn't come to a decision, the citizens now have an undefined term that they have to fight and deal with, should they come through, and could be subject to putting in recreational facilities that may not be passive in some neighbors eyes but are in others. I mean, that's a pretty ambiguous way to leave it. MS. F ABACHER: But the problem is is some things that are considered passive by the recreation department are not permitted in Conservation Collier lands and not considered passive by them. It's a different kind of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's more of a reason why we need it defined, wouldn't you think? MS. FABACHER: Well, the problem is is I don't think Parks and Rec will go with Conservation Collier's determination of it, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is used, though, in more than other parts -- there's other PUDs -- for example, almost every PUD that comes before us has conservation areas set aside. And within that conservation area, they said they can have passive recreational uses. And it's repeated in almost every -- Page 164 August 8, 2007 MS. F ABACHER: That's right. That was the third group, environmental. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So now you've got Parks and Rec saying what you can have for passive uses. And I can see a developer saying, well, they said we could have a football field if we're passive use, so let's put that football field in a conservation area. MS. F ABACHER: Your point's well taken. I think just trying to define it is just going to be -- getting all those people to agree is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure you need them to agree. I think you need them to present their arguments in a format to us and let us make a recommendation -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the board for LDC language. I don't care if they agree or not. MS. FABACHER: Would you like to direct us to do that the next cycle? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if this board could do such a thing, it would be a good idea. Are you all in agreement with that? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Hash it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So next cycle let's try to see something resolved in this issue. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Now, is that going to be passive recreation, passive uses, passive parks? What form? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got a use here that now is apparently undefined. MS. F ABACHER: That's passive parks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got two. And other passive recreational uses. So I think we need a definition for what passive -- what are passive parks and other passive recreational uses, so that when we have this language in PUDs coming through and it's a Page 165 August 8, 2007 standard language, that from here on forward everybody knows what that language means and what they can do with it so we don't have someone coming in trying to push the envelope like they constantly do. And we've got some people that want to discuss it. Ms. Caron was first and we'll work our way down. COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, I was just going to ask, Conservation Collier is not listed up here in your list at the top of Page 110. So Conservation Collier lands aren't -- MS. F ABACHER: Perhaps it's included under passive parks. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Barefoot Beach Preserve is not there either. Just found that strange. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, you had a question? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah -- well, not a question, but I think your idea to try to get a definition is good. But I would say if they're unable to come up with a definition, I think it would be better just to leave all four of these items out, because each of them is just a door that can be jarred open a little bit more. In other words, if you say biking, you can say that might include motor biking. Equestrian pads, you might be close to a short racetrack. Whereas if it was just left as passive, if they can't come up with a definition, then it would enable us to have the opportunity to determine whether it's acceptable or not on the basis of being passive. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think you can leave it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately, Mr. Kolflat, what's occurred, there's a lot of areas already zoned with this type of zoning and they're using this language already. I'm not sure we can leave it out but maybe try to refine it so that it's defined. That might be the better protection. I think if we leave it out we may be encountering problems with areas that it's already a use end in some manner or form. I don't know, I'm just trying to think of the best solution. Because it does say, passive parks and other passive recreational uses Page 166 August 8, 2007 including but not limited to. And then it says open space and recreational uses. Well, now you're back into a recreational use in that category could be anything. I'm just -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Four-wheelers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, that would be even worse. I'm just wondering what the best -- Mr. Murray, did you have a-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I was just going to say, it's too late with the cat's out of the -- whatever. We have a number ofPUDs, I remember, where we have it cited. So we're going to have to do something about that. I had a question, though. Are greenways -- I think that's what they called them, greenways, are they considered for passive recreation, or is that active recreation? Do we know. MS. F ABACHER: In the county? The county has greenways? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're developing them along main roadways. There's a process going on with the pathways committee I think -- MS. F ABACHER: Okay, I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's putting those in. MS. F ABACHER: Putting them in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so if they're -- MS. F ABACHER: It would be almost like a, I would think, like a buffer or any other use. I mean, you could ride your bike through it, probably. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me help you a little bit, if I can. As I remember it when it was being portrayed for us, one of the illustrations that was given was to run through areas, right through commercially where you cross the street and go through alleys. They were talking about old railroad rights-of-way in that particular case. In other cases it would actually go around and perhaps in some cases through communities. And the big question there was how do Page 167 August 8, 2007 you get into gated communities, et cetera. But nevertheless, what they talked about was the use of roller skating, walking, and I guess any number of activities, that cars would be parked at certain locations and you would go about your business. That's got to be I think in some respects passive recreation. MS. F ABACHER: I think you're thinking in term -- but that's in terms maybe of alternative modes of transportation, alternative transportation modes that regulate that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm trying to get across to you by giving you the background is so that you might take that into consideration when you're looking at this -- MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- for whether or not that qualifies. MS. FABACHER: Wouldn't that be easements? Would that be easements, dedicated easements? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The functionality is what I was addressing, not the means by which they got there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat's recommendation, though, this is language, if I'm not mistaken, that already exists on our code for these areas, right? MS. F ABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're not changing anything by adding it, we're simply -- MS. F ABACHER: No, it's in existence now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in existence now. So the goal here was not to take stuff away -- MS. F ABACHER: Not to make any substantive changes, just bring it up to current code citations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think we ought to leave it with a -- seeking a definition for passive to clarify it further in the future. Page 168 August 8, 2007 MS. F ABACHER: Next cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with everyone? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine by me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last section we have to go through to the end of the book will be Page 113. And Catherine, I've got a question on the second to the last paragraph. Wouldn't you know it. After 113 pages. (iii), commercial uses accessory to permitted uses (B)(l)(a), then it's got 3, 4 and 7. Above such as retail uses of produce accessory to farming. So what this says is that you can have in a con. district, you're allowed to have agricultural use by right, and now what we're saying, you can even have a commercial use such as retail sales. Was that always in the code? Because I noticed the green lettering seems to have been added. Is that -- MS. FABACHER: Well, the green lettering was because the reference changed from the old code to this new code because we relettered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: That's what the change was, the reference change. But yes, that was always there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Weren't they farm stands, like a farm stand? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was just surprised in the con. district that we would have that. Okay, are there any other questions of the pink book? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We really haven't voted on whether we replace the tables with this. I mean, the intent here is to replace the tables. There is some advantages to the tables. One is if you want to look and see where a use is allowed, the table is easier. Page 169 August 8, 2007 This is easier if you want to see what's allowed in a use. So the point is, do we have both? Do we eliminate the table and accept this as a replacement? Or do we keep the table? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, was this intended to replace MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the table or-- MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir, yes, sir, to replace the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Replace it completely. MS. F ABACHER: Now, we could keep the tables as kind of a pocket guide or something like that and distribute it at the front counter like we do with other kind of abbreviated lists for people's convenience. But as it stands now, you can't look it up on-line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's why I couldn't -- MS. F ABACHER: And then we would have to update the permitted -- all those footnotes to try to match this, which -- and, you know, they had restrictions and so forth. A lot of things were lost in the tables, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, your point is that if someone wanted to know a use like a meeting space or office space, they could go to the table, look on the left-hand side, look at offices and see all the sections -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but at the same time they could go on-line, type in search, office, and get the same hit. So in a way the on-line version is simplified by doing this, but it still divides the benefit you seem to be looking for from the tables. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm just pointing that out. I'm not a big fan of it. And it is because the tables don't work on-line is why I couldn't find what I was looking for at that time. The -- but I think obviously you reviewed it with everybody in staff who was active to do this. I mean, the intent -- this was a major Page 170 August 8, 2007 upgrade in the code to bring it forth into the new millennium. MS. F ABACHER: Are you talking about the tables? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The table method. I mean-- MS. FABACHER: I think if they had stuck with tables that were smaller and tried not to be so all-encompassing, it might have worked. But at this point the scale is too large of the tables to adequately address the intent of the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think with the on-line ability to search, you still got the benefit you're looking for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the next thing we do is if we put the setbacks back into these chapters and leave out the old code agaIn. MS. FABACHER: I don't see a problem with the way the setbacks are listed, the dimensional standards in the table. I don't see a problem with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Just devil's advocate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I did find that site I wanted to talk to you about. If you go to Page 15, and this happens to be in -- under residential zoning. Under the conditional uses, A, noncommercial boat-launching facilities and multiple dock facilities subject to the applicable review criteria set forth in the Manatee Protection Plan. All right, that's -- then you go to Page 17, and this is under residential, multi-family, again under G, conditional uses, noncommercial boat-launching facilities. But it doesn't say multi-docking facilities. And I don't know whether that should be in there or it's not supposed to be in there. MS. FABACHER: I could make a case that where you have multi-family, they don't want docks, they just want the boat launch. Where you have a private single-family residence, you're allowed to have a dock. Page 171 August 8, 2007 But I can tell you that if you want to clarify it, perhaps we could do that next cycle, because it's verbatim from the old code. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that's fine. Ijust-- MS. F ABACHER: But thank you for pointing that out for sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's throughout here. It is in that one and then it's only noncommercial boat-launching facilities that seem to be regulated anywhere else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe under the first one you cited, which is your single-family districts, you only expected to have a single dock. A noncommercial launching facility or a multiple dock -- that's why if you want to go beyond that single dock, then you'd have to have a conditional use for the multiple. Whereas under the multi-family, you would more likely expect to have a multiple dock. Maybe that's why they're only listing -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But it's not here at all. So I would read this that they don't get them at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under two it is. Accessory uses, private docks and boathouses. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, private docks and boathouses, which is different from a multi-docking facility. MS. FABACHER: Well, I'll certainly get John on this. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's two different things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a recommendation with the changes we discussed to approve LDC Section 2.04.03, the table of land uses in the zoning district? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Caron. Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. Page 172 August 8, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Catherine, that gets us through everything that was on today's agenda with the exception of a few things that have been continued or will be continued, and the generators. MS. F ABACHER: And the outdoor seating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Outdoor seating. And I want to say thank you, especially thank you to all the staff that you've worked with, because this has been the most well thought out and put together LDC cycle amendments I've seen in the years I've been on this board. And you did a really good job. MS. FABACHER: Well, thank you. I'll go pass that on. We very much appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody worked real hard to get this through and it looks good. MS. F ABACHER: I'm amazed you -- I mean, I thank you for reviewing that pink book. We've been working on that since January. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a good idea. Next week on the 16th we have a variance for the Kurt Lutgert residence that was extended from last time, and we have a multi-family rezone in an Estates district known as Eljack. I'm not sure where that's -- that's south of Santa Barbara, Davis and something like that. And we have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Cocohatchee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the Cocohatchee issue on the Burt Harris, which our role on that is going to be limited to whatever the county attorney's memo comes out to. Page 173 August 8, 2007 Now, those three things for next Thursday. We need to figure out -- I'd like to see us continue this meeting to try to finish these amendments next Thursday so we could knock it all out in one day. I don't think the first two should be that involved. I would imagine there's going to be some people for the second one, if it's in an existing neighborhood, that are going to be there to speak. But if that's in the area I think it is, then it's -- MS. F ABACHER: Talking about the outdoor seating? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm talking about our regularly scheduled hearings next week. MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. You weren't talking about the LDC, you were talking about the petitions. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think we could have it be -- maybe Margie, we've got to do a time certain for a continuance? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, we continue it just to that day, unless you want to do a time certain. MS. FABACHER: I'd like to have that for some of my speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, we're going to have to close the first hearing and reopen a new one on this one. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have to state a time that we're going to reopen this one? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. With it being like that, I think you would. It's safer to do it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if we pick a time, can we run late? Or we can't run early, is that the way it works? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I think if you pick a time and you get to it and you see that you still have items left over from the morning, again, the most conservative thing is to say we'll continue it an hour, maybe, or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does the commission feel about setting a time right after lunch next Thursday? I think the three items Page 174 August 8, 2007 we have will easily take us through the morning. And then we'll set a 1 :00 time for this. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My only limitation would be that Mike Davis's reception is on that date at 5:00 or 5:30. So hopefully we won't go that long. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I mean, even if we do, so what? We've got to be here. If this is our assigned job, we need to be here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it's our assigned job if we agree that we have to be here all those many hours. I mean, I give everything I can, but I do have other things I'd like to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You'll make it happen, Mark, we trust you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll do it. Okay. So is there a motion to continue this hearing until 1 :00 on the 16th? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made, motion seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, and we'll continue this meeting until then. Thank you all. Page 175 August 8, 2007 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:40 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 176