Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/16/2007 LDC August 16, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 16,2007 LDC Amendments LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1 :00 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff ABSENT: Tor Kolflat ALSO PRESENT: Catherine Fabacher, Zoning & Land Development Review Joe Schmitt, Community Development/Environmental Services Jeff Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 August 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. We're going to resume today's meeting but not the meeting we started with this morning. This is the Land Development Code cycle one continuing meeting that we had started several weeks, continued to last week, and then re-continued to today, time certain at one o'clock. So where we left off was a series of LDC amendments. And Catherine, if you could tell us so if anybody is waiting around for something that isn't going to happen. MS. F ABACHER: All right, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get into the ones we are going to do and not going to do. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. We're going to do helistops today. We are not going to do outdoor serving areas. We are going to do the emergency generator today. We're not going to do the BMUD/GTMUD revisions. Weare doing the stormwater management system. Weare continuing the final plat filing deadline revisions. Weare doing the off-site drainage improvement revisions. David is here to talk about the signage requirements for GMP. And we are continuing the lot width measurement definition to the September 5th (sic) meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we've got one, two, three, four, five items that we're basically going to hit today. MS. F ABACHER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I know, Bruce, you're waiting on the lot cord one. That one isn't going to happen. And the heliport one, for which Mr. Brooker is here for will happen. MS. FABACHER: Yes. And I think that that would be first. Everyone received their revisions, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's on page -- started on page 97. MS. F ABACHER: In the book, right, and you've got -- you were Page 2 August 16, 2007 sent the revisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. FABACHER: So Mr. Brooker, would you like to start the show off? MR. BROOKER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. My name is Clay Brooker. As you all probably know, I'm with the law firm ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson. And we appeared -- we appeared before you last week on the first round or hearing on this heliport amendment request by the -- it's a private amendment request by E.B. Simmons Electrical, Inc. Hopefully what you see before you is a version about three- fourths of the way down the first page. The date on the version August 10th, 2007. That is the version I sent to the county staff at the end of last week a couple of days after last week's Planning Commission meeting. The primary changes in the proposal related to creating a new definition for what I called a helispot; not a helistop, but a helispot. And the reason I call it a helispot is because that apparently, from our review of state and federal regulations, is not the term they use. And the reason I want to do that is I was trying to avoid, as I tried to explain last week, I was trying to avoid any unintended consequences by either throwing us into a set of regulations or pulling us out to the scope of a set of regulations unintentionally. So what I've done is I created a helispot, I've defined it, I've actually used some of the definition and pulled that from the state or the federal regulations, one or the other, made it clear that we cannot fuel there, we cannot do major maintenance or repairs there, but we are allowed to park the helicopter at that spot when it's not in use. Then later in the definition I explain the various state and federal regulations are still going to apply, and that was my best attempt to make sure that all the truly applicable state and federal regulations will apply while making it very clear that we're not trying to do anything Page 3 August 16, 2007 more than have a private helispot, if that makes sense. Then to follow through with that addition of a definition, all heliports now, whether they're private or public, are conditional uses. The only thing that -- the only helicopter facility that is not a conditional use is the private use helispot, and that, because of the current code where it's a permitted right in the -- well, transportation by air is a permitted right in the industrial zone, we have kept that as that one limited exception as a permitted use as a right, meaning a private use helispot in the industrial zone only, and it must be 1,500 feet or more from all residential zones. That is the only carved-out very narrow exception. Everything else goes to the conditional use process. And I think that was the major discussion point, I'll call it, last week, and that's what I've tried to address, hopefully to your approval. And with that, I'll take the beating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Don't get hit by -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who wants to start? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Clay, let me get this. So you're going to invent the word helispot even though our code has heliport and helistop. You're going to invent the third entity; is that right? MR. BROOKER: When you say our code, are you referring to the county's code? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the LDC. I have it up. I mean, there's heliport or helistop as uses in our code. MR. BROOKER: Well, if there's a helistop word in our code that's defined, I was unaware of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there's the helistop word, whether it's defined or not. So you're going to invent something, but Page 4 August 16, 2007 is that any way to circumvent federal regulations? I mean -- MR. BROOKER: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How could you, yeah. MR. BROOKER: Right. The Federal Aviation Administration and the Florida State Department of Transportation is going to apply their own rules, their own definitions. They're going to call it what they think it is and apply whatever they think the applicable regulations are, and there's whole -- as we talked about last week, a whole comprehensive set of regulations both from the state and from the federal government. But what I was trying to do is -- I'm just not comfortable. I don't want the county definition to be identical to a state or federal definition when I don't know the consequences of that. So what I'm telling -- what I tried to do is create a definition, helispot, which is not necessarily used by the state or federal governments, which clearly defines what my client wants to do on his property, which is, private use helipad that can't be used by the public, only by him and the people he authorizes. He can't fuel there. He can't do major maintenance, he can't do major repair there. All he can do is fly in and fly out and park it there when it's not in use, period. And so that's why I intentionally created something, you know, just a little bit different so I wouldn't be thrown into something that I don't know is out there, frankly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do you think -- does that meet the definition of a helistop, the federal definition. Do you know what that is? MR. BROOKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this differs from that in what way? MR. BROOKER: I don't know exactly. I think the helistop definition may be a little bit more stringent in terms of, it talks about you can't have parking for automobiles at the location as if you're Page 5 August 16, 2007 going to use it for passengers loading and unloading and it's a major operation. What this is, what we are proposing is an accessory use to a permitted use in the industrial zone, and my example is an electrical contractor business. The parking requirements for the electrical contracting business are going to apply on the ground for cars, but he will have this accessory helipad that meets the definition of helispot, but the FAA, as far as I understand it, will apply the helistop application. I can read to you what the FAA defines helistop as. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That would be good. MR. BROOKER: And a lot of this is going to sound familiar because I pulled it straight from this. A minimally developed helicopter facility for boarding and discharging passengers or cargo. The heliport/helistop relationship is comparable to a bus terminal/bus stop relationship with respect to the extent of services provided or expected. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Good. MR. BROOKER: So what I did was I lifted that first sentence out -- I didn't pull in the bus stop analogy -- and I also made it clear, because I'm not so clear that in a helistop you're able to park your helicopter there when not in use. So that's why I clearly defined it the way I did in our proposal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think that's a good reason. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I kind of think the bus stop is a good thing to have in there because then people will know you're putting no restrictions on the number of times a day that that helicopter can take off and leave. It can go dozens of times every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year; is that correct? MR. BROOKER: Correct, just as the code reads today. Page 6 August 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Clay, I brought the idea of the helispot up in the discussion last time because it's something I had found, and I read about it, and it seemed to make sense. It was a helistop. And you've got -- and boy, Terri, I bet this is going to be fun for you to get it right in the transcript. You don't like the helistop which, by the way, Lee County and Hillsborough County uses. You want to change it to helispot because you're concerned that helistop may bring in some form of federal or other oversight that you're not aware of, which is exactly what we would want. And if you're not aware of it and you're hired by the client to do this, how are we to be aware of it? I mean, how do we know what door we're closing and not opening properly by changing a name, two letters in a name, that is defined and used elsewhere; why wouldn't we use it here? MR. BROOKER: And that's a good point because I can give you the flip side of that coin. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine. MR. BROOKER: The flip side is, what if we, in good intention, want to do exactly what I told you we want to do and by calling it helistop, we can't because I'm unaware of something out there. My client's $3,000 in paying for my time and the consultant time would be a waste of time. So what I'm trying to do is protect that. I understand where you're coming from, but please understand where we're coming from. And it may be that helistop is perfectly fine. There's no intention to get around all of the federal regulations that apply to helistops. But I just want to make sure I can park my helicopter there when not in use. And so if someone knows of something out there that won't allow me to do that because it's part of the FAA reg., then I want to make clear that we're a different bird. Page 7 August 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we are not in the business here of regulating helicopters, and we're relying on FAA regs., unfortunately. I don't like the invention of a new term just to avoid what may be out there. That's concerning. And when I first read this -- and I realize you had changed it, but I also saw you put in some useful changes like conditional use its only accessory, and an industrial zone is a permitted use by right for a heli -- I would assume a helistop, although you said helispot. Those are good things that changed. But I -- the terminology bothers my because it has an unknown connotation to me, just like the other one has an unknown connotation to you. And I do feel uncomfortable with that, and I just thought I'd let you know it. And there's eight of us here. So Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Let me see. They're in conference. Almost. MR. BROOKER: I don't think we would have an objection -- and boy, if I'm wrong, I'm in trouble. I don't think we would have an objection to calling it a helistop as long as the definition clearly states that we're allowed to park the bird there when not in use. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's what I was going to say. MR. BROOKER: And if -- I'm going to call each of you at home ifI'm wrong. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you should-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My number's unlisted. Good luck. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You should have done your research before you got here. MR. BROOKER: I could find out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Clay, one suggestion I was just going to make, could you call the helispot a helistop with the ability to park the helicopter overnight? That way drag in the federal regulations. Kind of what he just said, yeah, but I mean -- MR. BROOKER: Or just -- either that or just call it a helistop, Page 8 August 16, 2007 and in the definition, make it clear that we're allowed to park the helicopter there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's interesting. MR. BROOKER: Either way, I think we get to the same result and my neck is on the line. Yours aren't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I kind of think the third term, which inherited -- which inherits helistop, and then adds one more thing to it, and so you don't get tied up in a federal reg. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That by just designating a helistop with the ability to park, that I think that seems reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the rest of this where we've got the use as an accessory use for a principal use in an industrial, and other than that, basically it becomes a conditional use application. MR. BROOKER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That clears up concerns in that regard well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I'm -- in other words, so what this is going to do is make helistops allowed without a conditional use? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only in industrial areas where they have a principal use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to all the rules and regs. which eliminates their -- no less than 1,500 feet from a residential zoning district and things like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well-- MR. BROOKER: And just for the record, when we say we're going to convert it to helistop, that's S-T-O-P, Tom oh Paul, and not spot, S-P-O- T, Paul oh Tom. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was helpful. Page 9 August 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You really confused her. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't particularly like the idea of even to have this whole thing applied, but the fact that we do allow air transportation already in the district provides some -- is of some concern. And I think by implementing a standard that further defines what that is probably is to our benefit, not to our detriment, so that's kind of -- you know. MR. BROOKER: It is -- it does take -- arguably take private property rights away that currently exist. By converting something from a permitted use to a conditional use, but that's a will -- that's a step we're willing to take just to -- because my client basically funded this whole process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments made by anybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. It protects the public. That's the more important thing, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's -- that's what I mean. It becomes more of an advantage. It helps with -- it provides more restriction than less by putting -- by implementing this, so just the opposite. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And by that we have to help to protect the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I was just trying to make sure we understand why. Any other comments? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just have a concern about business parks being included here. Are business parks included currently under -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, they are, as a conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: But under the current code, are Page 10 August 16, 2007 business parks included for helistops, ports -- MR. SCHMITT: Turn to Catherine on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- or spots? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about -- you know, they say vertiport and vertistop. We haven't talked about that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here we go. You got your Haraya ready? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, are you checking on the question? MS. FABACHER: Yes, I am. It's in industrial. COMMISSIONER CARON: Only, not in business parks. MS. FABACHER: Not in business parks. COMMISSIONER CARON: So I don't see why they should be included at all, even as a conditional use. Business parks are not, for the most part appropriate, I would think, at least the business parks that I can think of in this county, would not be appropriate for helicopters to be coming in and out of. MR. BROOKER: If you'd like me to respond. That was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. BROOKER: We did not -- you know, my client's in the industrial zoning district. Our initial draft did not have business park in there. County staff thought it might be appropriate given the business type uses in the business park zoning districts to include that as a conditional use for private use helistops and heliports. So that was a staff recommendation to add that in. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Mr. Brooker, I knew, and I had asked you that prior to the meeting, and that's why I was just getting clarification from staff on that point, not from you. I just think they're not allowed at all now and I don't think we should be adding them in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does staff have a reason why they added it? I mean, if you have a good reason, why don't you tell us Page 11 August 16, 2007 what it is. MR. SCHMITT: Well, there is none, other than the fact that when looking at the use and considering for a business owner, an industrial area, same as a business owner in a business park, and it would have to certainly be a large enough business park to accommodate it, if somebody wanted the same use. But that was the only reason. We put it in there thinking it was -- it would be almost a similar type of request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be better, ifthere's nobody asking for it, Joe, why don't we just leave it out. MR. SCHMITT: Fine, yeah. This was nothing more than a private petition which we tried to make it a little more broad. The conditional use would certainly still bring that before the public and -- for a discussion, but certainly it's your prerogative. We can strike it. Nothing more than to allow the use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, I'd like to try to keep it in. I think there could be businessmen that would like to have access via helicopter to an office building some day. It's going to be a conditional use. It will come before a public hearing. So, you know, I don't see why -- make it just industrial just because -- I mean, what's wrong with a businessman? Or maybe Joe wants a helicopter. MR. SCHMITT: I'll give you an example. Looking at North Collier. You've got the North Collier Hospital which could bring an air ambulance in. Across the street is a business park. I'll use the name of a company, Arthur X, ifhe wanted to have an aircraft to land back in his area. Now, he may be too close to Pelican Marsh, but again, that was the issue. It was nothing more than to say, if they wanted it, they would be allowed to come and petition their government for the use as well. We can strike it out. It was nothing more than just an accommodation. It was their petition. We just kind of said -- Page 12 August 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Schiffer, you wanted to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask you a question. Would they still be allowed in a PUD? If somebody was developing a business park PUD, would they be able -- because that's where it's in the code right now, the PUD section. MR. SCHMITT: In the PUD as a use, they would list it as a use and it would have to be vetted publicly as a use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So someone could build a business park with helistops in it -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- via that method. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: But again, it would have to go through the public hearing process that way. MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARON: And it would not be -- it would not be something that is considered -- I mean, let's face it, conditional uses are considered appropriate unless -- and there are a list of criteria. I just think it's not permitted right now except in an industrial zone, and I don't see the need to change that. MR. SCHMITT: Fine. I'm comfortable. COMMISSIONER CARON: Again, if you want to use North Collier as an example, I think that would be a very good example. We back up and you're across the street from residential on both sides. I'm not sure it would be appropriate in that location, and I'm not sure that the neighborhood needs to fight even a conditional use hearing. Right now it wouldn't be allowed. MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So I don't see why we should open the door. Page 13 August 16, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I respect Commissioner Caron's views, but I share Commissioner Schiffer's views that I'm thinking about the future and where business parks in the future may be, and the opportunity for a public hearing for the public should also be the same opportunity for someone desiring to have a particular facility. So I would be inclined to support that being -- remaining in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. Clay, I think he's made up his mind as to what he is doing. His client is here, and it's his responsibility. Ifhe wants to do it that way first, if they send it in and turn it down, that's his problem. But right now the word doesn't make it that hideous to end it or start it from that direction. Now, it's his time, it's his money, and he's the client. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got a question for you, Joe. A business park is a PUD for the most part. Are there any that are not PUD? MR. SCHMITT: Wow, that's a good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm asking is if they have to go through the PUD process, then they're going to have to list their uses, and they would have to address us in the process of a business park PUD. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. Let me talk to David. David's walking out. He's saying, no, I don't know. No, in fact, the example I just used is a PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it is. MR. SCHMITT: It's Creekside PUD. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. MR. SCHMITT: So they would have to amend the PUD. It's not simply just a business park. Page 14 August 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless we provided it as a use by right, then they may not have to amend the PUD, would they? Which is what is being offered here today, which that may be the concern. But I'm sorry to go sidetracking. Go ahead, David. I'm sorry. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Department. Both of the existing business parks that are -- the zoning that is approved are both PUDs. The other one is on State Road 951, not yet developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a way to develop a business park in this county without going through the PUD process? MR. SCHMITT: Isn't it a zoning district? MR. WEEKS: I don't think so. It's structured as a subset of the PUD district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then this seems to solve everybody's problem because the only way that you can have a business park then have a use for a helispot, heliport, whatever all those are, is to have the use listed, and then they go through the PUD process, which is fully vetted, so there's no reason to add the language then in this particular LDC amendment. It's covered. Does everybody seem to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- follow that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I was happy with the PUD process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Me, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we're done. Okay. There's been a suggestion then on this one to change helispot to helistop. There's been no objection from the applicant as long as the reference is added to the definition so that he can park a helicopter there as well. Is there a motion to recommend approval ofLDC section 5.05.13 Page 15 August 16, 2007 with those changes we've discussed? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8-0. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Just for the record, to clarify, under section C2- A, you want to strike the words, and business park? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. That was -- does that meet with the motion maker and the second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And everybody, anybody have any objection to it? COMMISSIONER CARON: It's also under private use, helispots right now. Page 16 August 16, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: 4B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. BROOKER: Yes. So all references to helispot are going to be changed to helistop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. And all references to business parks shall be taken out. And you got your definition with that additional sentence that you wanted. Okay. MR. BROOKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Catherine, next on the list is emergency generator revisions? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. And we have our expert for you today, Mr. Steve McManus with Excel Electric has graciously agreed to help us with this. And I do have a small PowerPoint presentation on some sound measures we took when you're ready for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we also need to know what page to be working from. MS. FABACHER: Okay. You're working in your book from page 77. And I also -- John handed out some new ones, if you don't have your book John handed out. But there are no revisions at the moment to this. Same one you got in your green book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, sir. It's all yours. You can state your name for the record and we'll be off and runnmg. MR. McMANUS: Hi. I'm Steve McManus, the owner of Excel Electrical, a licensed electrical contractor here in Naples, Florida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're Susan's husband? MR. McMANUS: I'm Susan's husband. We know each other, Mark. I've seen you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. I thought so. Oh, good for you. Okay. Excellent. MR. McMANUS: And we've been actively involved in the Page 17 August 16, 2007 generator business, as a few electricians have the last few years, you know, especially, post-Charley. We've installed everything from 15 kw's to a large 500 at WilsonMiller and a lot in between. And my understanding is is that they're trying to formalize the installation -- I'm sorry. I thought I had this off. Excuse me. And my understanding is the idea is to formalize in the land use code exactly how we're able to install these, to specify them, and as distinguished from other mechanical equipment that's already specified in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sort of right. We were concerned last time about the noise and how much noise could be limited from these units and what to expect because the reference was for a noise level that would equal a manufacturing and industrial level. And my personal experience has been that you can buy a generator quieter if you're willing to pay for the installation. And we had got into that discussion. I think that's what got us to a point where Catherine suggested bringing someone in to answer those kind of concerns. MR. McMANUS: There are nowadays the manufacturers that make the smaller residential, everything from a 615 kw up to, say, 25 or 30, you know, for a larger home. They're making them better and quiet. We're Guardian, made by Generac dealers. We're most familiar from a hands-on standpoint with those. But other manufacturers like Coleman, Koehler, you know, make some similar products. One of the things I offered to do and we did do, I guess, two days ago, is we took your sound enforcement and code out to three installs that I had done. We looked at a 16K air-cooled, a 25K liquid-cooled, and 45K liquid-cooled, which is a pretty good representation of what you're going to have in this county in the residential application. And one of the problems is, the manufacturers, all of them for some reason, specify their sound levels at seven meters, 21 feet. Well, it doesn't do you much good if you've got a 10- foot side setback on a Page 18 August 16, 2007 house. So I think you've tried to get some real-world sound readings. And are those -- MS. FABACHER: Yeah. I have those, if you'd like me to go through those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. It would be helpful to know what they were. MR. McMANUS: Yeah. There is some -- as he showed me, I learned a few things about sound, depending on where he's reading at and other structures' effects, the sound levels that he read. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you read the proposed ordinance; did they give you a copy of that? MR. McMANUS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you see anything in there that could be done better in regards to protecting the neighboring public? MR. McMANUS: Yes. One of the response -- replies I made back was, I suggested that the exercise -- they use the term testing, but the general term is exercise because these things run once a week preprogrammed -- to be, that the hours with which the ordinance could apply I thought could be narrowed as opposed to, you know, your normal seven a.m. to 10 a.m. A lot of folks would be disturbed by that thing going off at nine o'clock at night. There's no loss of utility for the owner of the generator if you tell him he needs to exercise it between nine a.m. and five o'clock, for example, because it's automatic. Some people want to have it on weekends when they're there and they can make sure of it, but nobody has any reason to want to do it later or earlier. And even if these generators -- if you were to choose to allow some more noise, you could narrow, I thought, the range with which that would be allowed. In my experience, if this thing starts up and runs from 12 to 20 minutes, which is typical by the way, if that were happening at 11 o'clock or one o'clock in the afternoon, other than an unusual Page 19 August 16, 2007 circumstance where you had somebody that is infirmed, that happened to be right there, that was -- but typically that's not going to disturb anybody. And they're not that loud. I mean, again, you're going to get figures. But I mean, some of these things are not much louder than an older, noisier five-ton air-conditioning used to be, something that's running 24 hours or a big pool system. And so that was one thing. The other thing about the ordinance is, it said something being biweekly. I don't think that's good because the residential units don't have adjustable timing mechanisms. They literally have a button, and whatever time of day you want to run them, you push the button, and from that point on it's going to do that every week. So it needs to be permitted weekly, in my opinion. The larger commercial generator has some programmability to it. But the ones we're talking about typically don't. The other thing would be side setback. I live in Autumn Woods. And between our homes we have -- we each have 10 feet to the property line, and every one of those houses is built to the max setback. So let's just -- let's call it 20-foot separation. The 16 air-cooled generators that we typically install are 24 inches at a Y. The manufacturers are looking for at least three feet of clearance from the home. Some of it has to do with there's some UL issues associated with fire there. It's also just from a servicing standpoint. You have to have some room to operate on that side that's next to the house. The 16 case is 24 inches wide. So, you know, basically you're talking about the outside edge of this generator would be five feet away from the home. And in my cases with a zero -- with a zero distance to the setback, I'd be five feet -- I would incur -- excuse me -- I would -- what's the term? MS. F ABACHER: Encroach. MR. McMANUS: Encroach, thank you. I would encroach into Page 20 August 16, 2007 the side setback five feet, not 36 inches. If I happened to want a 24, 25 kw, liquid cool, which, again, in my size home -- and I have a 2,300-square- foot house, but it would certainly be reasonable to want that. That could run my whole house, and that type of generator has some benefits as far as longevity over an air-cooled unit. More expensive, but some long-term benefits. That generator is 34 inches wide. So now we're up to about 70. Now we're getting even closer to the side setback -- or excuse me, the property line. We're already in the side setback. And now we're -- I understand the noise concern and I also understand the clearance to allow my neighbor to do what he's got to do, lawn maintenance, stuff like that. But I'm wondering if some more flexibility into that incursion number could be considered. And I had a thought, for what it's worth. What if you instead specified a minimum distance from the property line, not a minimum incursion into it? Because you'd address the issue of allowing your neighbor's lawn guy to get by, you'd have some issues, for instance, if you -- you know, the generator -- if my neighbor, if we put a hedge right on his property line, which he's allowed to do, I'd -- as a generator owner, I probably couldn't bunch up -- I couldn't go up against that because I'd have some problems with the manufacturer's requirements for clearance. Clearance is serviceability, it's also airflow, it's also distance from a flammable structure, which I guess a hedge could be. So I'd have -- those restrictions would apply to me. But on the other hand, if I'm with somebody and I -- and there is no clearance problem -- if somebody could get -- reasonably get some lawn equipment by me -- now, maybe he can't get the full-blown -- well, I mean, ifhe could reasonably get lawn service equipment by, could we get some more ability to approach that property line? Because otherwise -- I'm fortunate. I'm on a corner, and I actually could be on the other side, but my neighbors two houses down, under the current proposed rules, could not place a generator on Page 21 August 16, 2007 the side -- in their side yard because they would encroach -- they would go into the side setback more than you guys are proposing. And yet, in my opinion, if we were -- if we were to give them the ability to be five to six feet off, there -- and I'm talking about the side of the generator closest to their neighbor, that would still leave, let's call it three feet on my side plus all the neighbor's side, you know. I guess if two of them put generators right in line with each other, you'd still-- you'd still have about a four-foot bit of clearance if they happened to be, you know, mirror images of each other, but it would allow the clearances required. Noise -- I can't believe there's much material difference between a couple feet as far as the noise the other person's going to experience. The gentleman that helped me with the noise measurement said that they measure from 50 feet no matter what. They don't measure from the property line, if the ordinance is written and he takes his mic 50 feet wherever it is. So I don't see that as being an issue. The only other thought -- and I don't know if this is practical -- maybe you throw something in there that if for some reason a particular 20 minutes that some neighbor picks really is a burden for the neighbor, you know, their child naps at that particular time every day, their -- they've got an infirmed parent with them or spouse that, for some reason, that's nap time, if there could be something -- because it's so easy for the person with a generator to reset his exercise to a time that's not troubling to the neighbor -- how that could be administered, I don't know. But these were a couple things that came to mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, those ambiguous statements would get us in a lot of trouble. MR. McMANUS: I mean, if you have a good neighbor and they say, look, do you mind resetting this for two hours earlier, they would, but I know that's not how you guys draft ordinances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, and the county attorney loves that Page 22 August 16, 2007 kind of stuff, too, so it gives him something to do. Did you want to ask a question before we get the sound measurements from -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah. I just wanted to say that, actually this gentleman is lucky that he lives where there are setbacks that are at least 10 feet on the other side because most of us in the urban area live where the setbacks are a lot less, and we would be talking about seven and a half at most, so. MR. McMANUS: Well, could we use that as an example? If you had a seven-and-a-half-foot setback and we went with one of the smaller 16K units, you'd be right at two feet from the property line. Now, hedging can be an issue, but if you're two feet from the property line and then your neighbor has his seven and a half, how big of a problem is that for -- do you feel? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can't authorize your lawn maintenance equipment, as an example, your lawn guy or anybody else, to go onto your neighbor's property to access your back yard, so he'd have to get by in that two feet. That's all you can count on. MR. McMANUS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I understand what you're thinking, but it can't be done that way because you can't -- if your neighbor decides he doesn't like you one day and puts a fence up, your lawn guy doesn't get to your back yard now. MR. McMANUS: True. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So those are things that we're going to have to see how we can fit into the code. Mr. Schiffer, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. One of the concerns I had last time is, we have a requirement at the rear to keep it 10 feet away, and I think we should be able to go closer to the rear property line. How big a problem is moving these away from the house? Obviously wires and -- Page 23 August 16, 2007 MR. McMANUS: You mean to the rear of it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. In other words, if we got ourselves out of the side setback, which is really a canyon; actually the worst place you'd want to be. And I'm more concerned about the noise after the hurricane because the fellow next door may not have a generator and the other guy's running it constantly. MR. McMANUS: That's a good point. If I could address your first question. By giving some more room to work in back, that is a solution. What happens from a cost standpoint is, is that most -- very typically the electrical service where you need to connect to where the transfer switch would be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. McMANUS: -- is going to be up, say, halfway down the garage, for example. Sometimes we're forced to do them on the other side and we go across the attic. I mean, some of those things happen. So now you're basically paying for underground wiring back to this area and the -- typically the gas propane installer -- and 90 percent of what we do is propane. There are some of these communities with natural gas, but the majority of them are propane tanks. Typically they're going to have to put that in the front of the yard both for -- and they are permitted in the front setback, as long as they're below ground. They currently are, and that's great. You're basically paying. So if I was to guess, the added cost for what you're talking about to go back 60, 70 feet and put it in the back, 15-, $2,000. Now, to give you an idea, a rough budget for a 15K generator, fully installed and permitted by me with a tank, 500-gallon tank, which is appropriate for that size, fully -- turnkey price is around $12,000. So we might be adding 1,500 to $2,000 to that base price. The next guy up who does a 25K which, by the way, can cover a house all the up to probably 3,500 square feet, in that range, you know, that's a $22,000 generator. And, again, we would add a little bit more, but a similar magnitude of cost to it. So the cost is an issue. I Page 24 August 16, 2007 mean, but, you know, people can pay for what they want. I also question whether or not you'd get into some issues in some of these communities as far as approval from a visual standpoint. Now, you could probably screen them in the back. But on the side it's real easy to screen them. But those are probably the two issues. The after -- the after-the-hurricane scenario, may I express an opinion on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. McMANUS: I was told that -- of course, technically, you're not -- the noise ordinance will not be enforced because of the emergency state. That doesn't mean you guys shouldn't plan to make things better even though there won't be anybody out there with a sound meter, so I understand where you're coming from. I'm in these neighborhoods that are tight who may not -- may not do what we want to do here. And I tell them this if I'm Island Walk; there's just no place to put them. They will go down to Home Depot, they will buy a 17.5 kw, similar-size gasoline portable generator, they'll hire me to do a permitted proper manual transfer switch so it's all legal and proper, and that generator will probably be four times as loud, and it will be right up front, loud as you can be, during that period. Now, the next guy who doesn't buy the big one, he goes out and buys the 6,000 watt generator, for, I don't know, 800 bucks and he wants his refrigerator. That generator, I can tell you, is probably double. I don't have these hard numbers but I know just from being around them. Horrendously noisy, and what you'll have is a whole street full of people doing that. So that, I think, should be factored into that after-the-hurricane thought process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we have any that are diesel driven that you -- that are in this county? Page 25 August 16, 2007 MR. McMANUS: There probably are some. They're typically the really large ones. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. McMANUS: For one of the -- a large home. If you had a-- you know, if you had a -- if you had a 20,000-square-foot house in Quail West, for example. They might consider diesel. There's a lot of downsides to diesel. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know. MR. McMANUS: And in today's world, most -- even from the owner, there's a lot of downsides. Most of them are going to always choose propane if they have the choice. I do think that a diesel generator in somebody's side yard is going to be a lot more objectionable. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree. MR. McMANUS: They're not necessarily noisier, by the way. Some of them can be very quiet. But there's going to be diesel fumes, and that neighbor you're talking about is really not going to like it. Propane is pretty innocuous in its exhaust. You know, you probably live next to propane pool heaters and don't even notice it, and it's a similar thing. So I mean, I think that's a factor. But the percentage of the ones done that are in the size range we're talking about are probably close to nonexistent. When you use them is people will buy toad (sic) diesels. They'll buy a used 25 kw unit, they'll haul it up their house and hook it up. But as far as fixed in place, you have fuel tank problems when they're fixed in place. Diesel fuel has to be maintained. Propane will sit in the ground for 20 years and not degrade at all. So unless you want a really big one, which typically you've got a lot of room to deal with the exhaust unit, it's typically not diesel. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But we should be concerned with diesel in our evaluation of this because of the possibility that somebody -- Page 26 August 16, 2007 MR. McMANUS: I think -- I think you could specifically exclude diesel from being permitted within this more liberal thing we're considering, and nobody can complain. I mean, nobody should complain about that because it's just not necessary to have a diesel generator. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would -- I respect and thank you for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, do you have those sound-- MS. F ABACHER: Yes, I do, Commissioner. On your screen, I gave everyone a copy of the noise ordinance, and we will be regulating, as Steve mentioned, will be regulating this through the noise ordinance and the noise ordinance levels and methods, so that's why I gave you a copy. So I'm going to show you what we -- all right. So under your noise ordinance, you'll see to the right the sound level limit. I think that last slide showed you that there's two measures they use. This is the first one, sound level limits. And you'll see to the right -- well, it has the times in the middle, but -- and the land use to the left, typed to the left, and then you'll see that manufacturing and agricultural are both 75. And I think we do not directly put 75 into the generator ordinance. We put in the same level as manufacturing and agricultural in the noise ordinance. The second one -- measurement is maximum sound pressure levels, and that's -- on the left is the -- I wish -- I wish code were here. On the left is in hertz, and those are the octave bands, and they call these the octave bands that they measure. Okay. We measured three units. We measured them at a distance of 10 feet, measured them at a distance of 18 feet from the unit, and measured at a distance of 50 feet. The 50 feet would be the measure we would use under the noise control ordinance. And the units we measured -- I'm sorry, Steve. Is it a 16 watt, kilowatt? MR. McMANUS: It actually was 16 kw, but very comparable to Page 27 August 16, 2007 a 15 -- MS. F ABACHER: But anyway. The three we measured was a 16 kw air-cooled unit, a 25, I guess I called it liquid-cooled unit, and a 45 kilowatt liquid-cooled unit. And obviously the air-cooled units are noisier than the liquid -- the internal. All right. Some of the factors that we found influenced sound level was the size of the engine. The smaller the engine, the higher the rpm it needs to run. The larger the engine, you can run at a lower rpm, so that's why they won't be as noisy. Another factor is the insulation. Obviously more insulation, less sound; less insulation, more sound. And a third factor was condition of the unit. A brand new, good-conditioned unit is going to have less sound whereas one that has a problem is going to make more noise, more sound. Okay. Now, the test measurements I'm about to give you were not adjusted for ambient sound which is -- which they measured in the neighborhoods. The background noise, which was lawn mowers, leaf blowers, construction activity, traffic was 56 to 58, the background sound at all of these sites. Okay. This is your 75 d/b/a, just your plain sound level limit, the one number. And if you'll look, the ones on the left that are underlined are the 50-foot measurement. Now, these measures are plus or minus two hertz, that's the aero factor. So it's not until you get three over, until you hit 78 would you be violating this. So you can see that the 25 kilowatt at 50 feet did go over 75, okay. These others are the shorter distance. Now this is the bands, the octave bands. And it's the same on the left. It's the 15 kilowatt 15, 18 and 50; the 25 at 10, 18 and 50; and then 45 kilowatt at 10, 18, and 50. And the shaded areas are all where these exceeded the octave band or the sound pressure level limits. And that's it. There's your -- your black line is really your regulatory line, and you can see the way it's coded, that the 45 pretty Page 28 August 16, 2007 much stays below. The blue, the 15 is surprisingly not too bad, huh, Steve? And the yellow, the yellow had a problem. The code enforcement officer who did the readings said that the yellow had kind of a rattle or something was loose on it, so that goes into our third factor of what kind of shape it's in because if something's loose, that's what the peaks are on the -- that's why the yellow one gets pulled above. MR. McMANUS: There's, I think -- I think also there was some oscillation in rpm on -- it's a custom of mine. We've got to go back and take a look and see if there's a reason. One distinction here, by the way, Guardian -- and I don't know if anybody else does this -- the exerciser units at 50 percent of their normal running load, rpm, they refer to this as their quiet test feature. So these will be louder when they -- when they run under load, not a lot louder. But I mean, well, I guess with db it's logarithmic, so they are louder. But they -- that's part of what they've built into these. And I think that 25 -- normally that 25's a pretty quiet unit. Part of the reason, too, that the 45, I think, was -- performed as well as it did is they have the exhaust on one end and it's blended in with the out -- the escaping air. They don't have a stack sticking up. And he was measuring from property lines the way he would, and the 45 happened to be oriented away whereas he was directly in line with the exhaust on the other two. That might have been a little bit of a factor. But that 45 was running very quietly, too, on top of it, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, your -- I guess you -- Guardian is your preferred brand, is it? MR. McMANUS: I wouldn't call it preferred. There's some applications that -- we work with some others. But as far as this type of size for the price and the -- what you get for it, yes, I would say so. Page 29 August 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I wasn't trying to fix that part of it. What I was trying to determine is that -- your familiarity with other brands, the multitude of brands, is it fairly good? MR. McMANUS: It's decent. I mean, like I said, we -- you know, the largest one we ever did was a Koehler. And I know -- I understand the specs and operating systems. Cummings is certainly one we've worked with, and Guardian is the only one I know of now that uses this quiet test. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nice feature. What I would try to get at is the weakest link in the chain issue, and I was trying to understand whether you appreciated that while Guardian has certain benefits such as that low exercise feature, if you're aware that the other brands you may be familiar with are not quite as good in terms of those features and whether or not they would fall above the ambient -- well, they're certainly all going to be above the ambient, but above the 75 db. MR. McMANUS: They might. What I'd like to -- what I'd like to actually come back -- I don't know if this is going to be considered further. It would be interesting for me -- and I didn't do it before this meeting -- to compare what we measured against Guardian's published specs and see -- and then -- 'cause they all measure their specs for publication in a similar fashion, and then I'd want to look at that Coleman and Koehler and Briggs and Stratton and see -- and then we could maybe surmise that we'd have a similar relationship. So from the sense that the other units do not have the 50 percent feature, I'm thinking they're going to be noisier. Now, they do -- you can buy up in these other units a sound attenuated enclosure for premium dollars that will make them very quiet. I know that Cummings offers it and I know that the Koehler offers it. I don't know about a couple of the others. So there's some options with the other brands to create the -- you know, to control the db in more than one way. Page 30 August 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. I really appreciate your expertise on this. It does put into perspective a number of issues. It needs a lot more -- a lot more evaluation, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Just -- and I assume decibels is the vertical. What's the horizontal scale on this thing, on this chart? MS. F ABACHER: It doesn't even show, does it? The horizontals are the -- the vertical was the hertz. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Decibels. MS. F ABACHER: No, those were the hertz. No you're right, those are decibel, I'm sorry. The horizontal is -- are the octave bands. I think it's eight and a half, 16,31,5. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And how was -- when you were testing these, how were these things running? Were they running on exercise mode or -- MR. McMANUS: They're all in exercise mode. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So full load would take them up higher? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yes. MR. McMANUS: They'd be higher. Again, whether this is -- I know from the last time we had it out, you know, in my neighborhood there were five of these gasoline generators going. Of course, you guys, at this point in the game, there's no way to reg. that at all because your enforcement will be gone. So I think it should be compared against the option, which is going to be a portable generator. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The state fire code regulates it by they can't be closer than 10 feet to a building when they're running because the fire departments wanted the ability to -- MR. McMANUS: You're talking about the portables? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The portables. Because there's Page 3 1 August 16, 2007 guys that put them in their garage. They're fueling them while they're running, while they're smoking a cigarette, you know, so -- MR. McMANUS: Oh, yeah, there's all-- and that's the other thing when we -- when we work with customers and you tell them you can't have it fixed in place. And they're -- you know, if we've got an older person, you know, it's five gallon cans of gas. I tell them, get your cans, but please don't store the gasoline in your garage till the last minute. All those issues associated with people that are -- right now the City of Naples has made it extremely difficult to do one of these, and there's lots of people at a lot of income levels that are reg'ed out of a generator and, you know, those folks are going to be, you know, taking gasoline cans around. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's one thing, when you really think about it though, is, why isn't the front yard actually the best place for it? Because here's the sad thing is that not everybody has a generator. So I'm in the house next door and you've put it in the canyon between our houses, and you're happily humming along there, you know, watching television and I'm trying to exist. So theoretically the best place is the front yard. The best place for it would be right up at the right-of-way at the front yard. And so, you know, I know it doesn't look good, but the point is that it's an emergency generator and you're really making it uncomfortable for the people that don't have them. MR. McMANUS: You know, I'm not -- of course I don't have one right next to my bedroom window either, so I can't sit there and say that it's never going to be a problem. I only know that when we were -- after Charley -- we had our own gasoline generator, too, by the way, in the last one. We shut it off at -- you know, because the fridge and everything would handle it, I shut it off at eight o'clock at night because -- but in that instance, we had four people in the street that ran them all night long, and it's about Page 32 August 16, 2007 as miserable as it gets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. MR. McMANUS: That propane generator, if you were listening to it, even under load, because of -- even though it's got higher db because of the way it's sound attenuated, what you're hearing -- I tell you, I guarantee you you've got neighbors with older AC units that are as loud or louder. And if you were to be there to -- you know, the newest ACs are better, but I'll tell you, I've heard plenty of pool equipment pads, and because it's a pretty smooth, easy running noise, it's just not that bad, in my opinion, even if -- now, if I'm -- ifmy window's open and I've got this thing on my ear, yeah, it might be a problem. I'm not going to dispute that. A factor I've tried to bring into the conversation with the City of Naples though is, if you have a series at a given street, if you had 20 percent of the people that had these units, to me there's a real emergency preparedness element to it. What happens is, your neighbors come over right away with all their perishable food, and people share the refrigerators because they operate. Your kids come over and take showers at your house. It really, to me, is an asset on that street. There are probably people that might wind up in an emergency room that will wind up at your house in the air-conditioning. You know, the last storm was cool, but the typical storm is miserable, and for three days, and that's why I think this mightjustify a different angle than almost all the other mechanical equipment you can think about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, that's the Disney script. That's not the real one, at least I've been around. What is the reason, and I guess, Catherine, that we're not allowing these in the front? I mean, obviously it would have to be screened, there's a vision problem. But the best place to put an Page 33 August 16, 2007 air-conditioner would be on the garage side front of the house -- or a generator, not air-conditioner because that would be where the -- MS. FABACHER: Well, in front of the garage is the driveway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, obviously not in the middle of the driveway, but the -- that's where the noise would be the least disruptive to anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're allowed in the front, aren't they? MS. F ABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it just says same as a principal structure. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no. They're not permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm looking at the wrong one. MR. McMANUS: I would -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're not that big, they're not that ugly. I mean, I have a Koehler 2,500, my parents do, at a place in the mountains, and it's a hum. It isn't even as bad as an air-conditioner, so -- but I wouldn't want my bedroom window to be six feet away. And remember, I don't have air-conditioning so I'm looking for cross-ventilation, and you're in my cross-ventilation. So in other words, the worst place, I think, we're putting them is the side setback. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there any way we can stipulate that if installation were made, that they were somehow separated to such an extent on a diagonal, if I can make myself clear? One could be toward the front, if the other would be toward the rear or that type of thing. Is that plausible? Will that help in any way? MR. McMANUS: You mean if you had two generators? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. McMANUS: Each neighbor had one? Page 34 August 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. McMANUS: Well, the-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that make any sense? MR. McMANUS: Well, the idea of how far, but the fact that you wouldn't offset them next to each other, I don't know if that's -- if that could be written that way, but it would certainly be beneficial because then you'd be -- you still get into a potential issue of your lawn guy having to go on the other guy's yard to do it. But, you know, yeah, I think that's practical. I mean, it would help me -- install-wise it certainly could. As far as the front of the house goes, that in most cases would work, even -- even if you were -- I mean, if you had a house with a driveway straight in to the garage, then you would still be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You'd have a setback, but you could get your trucks and stuff around it. In other words, I think the best place for it is as far front as you could get it or as far back as you could get it for the courtesy of the neighbor. I'm defending the guy next door who doesn't have one. For the guy that wants it, the side setback right outside the panel of the garage is the best location. But unfortunately, that's -- I'm representing the guy next door who doesn't have one, and it's 20 days without electricity or something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on what we've heard though, the current way this is written won't work for a number of reasons, but especially the decibel level. Looks like most all of these violated the decibel level at some point, especially on the property line. So this ordinance as it's being proposed today wouldn't have worked for any of the generators that were already installed. MS. F ABACHER: No. I think it would have worked for the 45 and it might have worked for the 25 if it hadn't had some mechanical Issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what about the 45 up at the Page 35 August 16, 2007 10- foot setback? See, I know what the code says at 50, but if 50's on the other side of the house next door because the house next door is 10 feet from the generator, practically speaking, 10 feet from the generator is what we ought to be looking at. That is concerning in the way this is written. MS. FABACHER: Right. Nobody will pass it at 10 feet away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that becomes a problem then in allowing it in the side yard, I would think, because not everybody's going to have a generator. They may decide to stay in their house and sleep, or try to, but if the guy next door -- and that means their windows are going to be open because the air-conditioning isn't on. The guy next door to the bedroom window is running a large generator all night at a decibel level of 80 or 84 to that bathroom window, it's going to be problematic for that other person. And if people have lost their temper in the air-conditioning during normal times when there's plenty of law enforcement around, during a hurricane or after a hurricane when there's no air-conditioning and they're sweating and upset and mad and there's very little law enforcement but a lot of guns maybe, it would be a bad thing to have people get mad at that time. And I'm wondering if the side yard is even a practical application. Maybe we ought to be looking at rear yards and front yards and not considering sides unless the side is so wide like in the Estates, for example, where you have 35 feet. That may be practical. But on some of these homes that are 10 feet apart or 15 feet apart, it may just not be a practical application. MS. F ABACHER: True. We could leave it as it is with the three- foot encroachment, and if they can make that on the side, they can do the side, or they don't even get them within the setback, they could do the side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you have a side 10-yard -- 10-foot setback and you allow a three-foot encroachment, you're seven feet Page 36 August 16, 2007 from the property line. If none of these generators give you a decibel level that's acceptable at the property line, the person next door is going to have an unacceptable level whether the code says it is or not. And I don't know if we want to create that situation by encouraging it. Maybe we ought to be encouraging front and rear and not sides. That's kind of where I'm going. And I think Mr. Schiffer hit it on the head; put it up on the street and let the county take the liability for all the problems might be one solution. MR. McMANUS: I would recommend not thinking in terms of it next to the street -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm being facetious. MR. McMANUS: -- but on the front though. But on the front -- like even the scenario where somebody's garage lines, there's no way to put it on the best side. If you were to install it on the other side, you're going to bring up some -- the cost of installation some. Many times what we would do -- because we have to do this sometimes -- we'd run our feed up in the attic and over and down. That's doable. We've had some situations where we've directional bored underneath driveways and pavers. It's going to add some cost, but if it resolves the problem, I don't think that's an undue burden. Do you feel like they -- if that thing is a concern -- on the front, and then how many feet do you think you'd have to be from the side to resolve the concern you have? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, here's the problem. Within the side setback, there is a canyon of buildings. So one thing none of these studies have taken into effect is the reverberation of sound coming down that canyon, so that's a disaster. And that canyon is the bedroom of a guy that doesn't have one. So I think that anywhere along -- off of the front of the building is actually the best place. MR. McMANUS: Are you saying that on the side, if that's our Page 37 August 16, 2007 driveway -- and let's assume we can't actually even be to this side of the driveway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you could. There's always going to be some vegetation there. There's a setback of the building. No one's going to have a driveway. MR. McMANUS: No, no. The building's here -- the driveway, ifthat's where the garage is, is going to be lined up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. McMANUS: But -- I mean, I'm not saying you're not right, but let's assume we even have to be here, which would work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's fine. MR. McMANUS: But what I'm getting to is, would you say -- would you propose putting it -- allowing it up to the edge of the building envelope if you run that down to the street, or what's your thinking there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I think it could be in the front yard anywhere. I mean -- and it's really up to the person buying it to put it where they aesthetically want it. Let me just ask you a question right now. What kind of regulations do you have now when you go to install one of these? MR. McMANUS: Well, what they're -- there's the 36 rule incursion. There's a memo to operate and that was -- that's the way it's done now, that you can't -- that's been the practical operating thing. Has it been two years now? Susan drafted a -- MS. F ABACHER: Susan, two years? MS. ISTENES: Close to two years. MR. McMANUS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's an in-house memo kind of thing? MR. McMANUS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. No, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we focus on providing some Page 38 August 16, 2007 input right now to staff so -- I don't think we're going to resolve this at today's meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means on September 6th they can come back with some changes made based on comments that we've had and maybe some further input that you could have, Catherine, with Steve ifhe's kind enough to supply some review on it. MS. F ABACHER: Understood, but let me say this, that code did these tests, but they said, if you wanted to get more in-depth to take up -- and all that, you'd need to get an acoustical engineer so -- I'm just saying that we've measured as much as we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't suggest to re-measure. I suggested, based on what you've already done -- MS. F ABACHER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it seems impractical to put these in the side yards and expect a reasonable level of sound protection; therefore, why don't we look at changing some things as suggested already. One is testing to exercising, the testing be done one time per week, maybe between nine and five instead of seven and 10, and that you look at regulating the location of these in some manner that's a little better than the side yards where the worst possible sound occurrence is going to be. And if it's in the front yard, maybe there's a setback it needs to be from the nearest principal structure on the neighboring property. That way you've got some distance. Even in the front yard you don't place it over on the side yard edge. Then you're not gaining anything. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why don't -- and you come back-- why don't we put some thought into that portion of it. If there's any other comments from the Planning Commission, at least, then come back on the 6th with some more ideas. Mr. Midney, then Mr. Schiffer. Page 39 August 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I would think front yard would be better, that we should try to do it there because it would be less intrusive. And the other question that I had is, these are only going to be used in emergencies, temporary emergency situations, and we're also going to be allowing those noisier gasoline generators. So it almost -- I'm almost wondering why we're regulating the least offensive of the things. MS. FABACHER: Well, because if they are extremely noisy because they have a problem with them or something, it will come out during the testing cycle, the exercising cycle. And remember, we talked about the fact that if we're in a state of emergency and we have no power, there's not going to be anybody to go around and read the sound on generators. So we're not talking about regulating them during that time. We're just talking about looking at them for the testing cycle, the weekly operation. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Only for the testing when there's not an emergency. MS. F ABACHER: Exercising. Well, that's what we're talking about. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I see. Thank you. And I think the front yard would be better. MS. FABACHER: Okay. MR. McMANUS: Could I -- I don't want to take any more time, but if I could -- I don't know myself. How do -- does any regs. that are passed ultimately, if you have an association that's basically going to say, hey, we're not letting you put any mechanical equipment in your front yard -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a deed restriction. That is outside the boundaries of the county's control, so -- MR. McMANUS: But if we -- if we re-craft this ordinance to try to come up with a practical solution and yet we're in conflict with, you know -- I don't know what -- percentage-wise how many of us live in Page 40 August 16, 2007 an Autumn Woods, but a few of us do, and many of those people are generating orders, have we accomplished anything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're looking at front and rear yards. I mean, there might be a preference for the front yard, but I think we could write it up -- Ms. -- Catherine? MS. FABACHER: I think that's Steve's point though. If you have covenant restrictions on your subdivision -- you know, I know people who can't get an extra tree in their yard because of the covenant restrictions. No, and that -- Steve made a very good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have any control over covenants. It doesn't matter. We can provide the law. MS. F ABACHER: I'm saying, but you're not giving them a real solution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under no case would we if they've got covenants against it. What are we -- what are you trying to do? MS. F ABACHER: I'm just -- I was just trying to clarify what he was saymg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to understand. No. If they have covenants against these additions, what does it matter what we do? They're not going to allow them regardless unless they change their covenants. So if we provide a rule that works and then they change their covenants if they want to to abide by ours, and if they don't want to, the people can either live in the community they chose to live in or they can abide by the covenants and stay. I'm -- correct me -- Mr. -- Brad's been waiting, and then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, I think -- well, first of all, I think we're going to let the side stay as you have it, which is the 36. If they have a covenant where they can't put it in the front, they can put it in the rear. I mean, if it was up to me, if I was king, it would be the far rear corner or something. Everybody would have them in the same spot. But one thing, Catherine, in the front one, put some sort of a -- Page 41 August 16, 2007 have landscape look for a way to minimally -- you know, we don't want a bunch of objects sitting on front lawns. And then one thing Paul kind of mentioned, is there a way that we could put a requirement for portable generators knowing we're not going to be able to go out there and control it? But I mean, what if we had a statute that said you can't have them within 10 feet of a building? That way if some guy is complaining and the neighbor put the generator right next to his window, at least you'd have something that you could point to and code enforcement could get him to move it right away. MS. F ABACHER: But remember, we're not going to -- code enforcement's going to be busy with other things in the aftermath of a major storm. It's not going to be out measuring the level on portable generators all over the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But the fire officials had a problem, is that they couldn't -- there was no law that restricts anybody. You know, they were seeing them all over balconies and stuff. So they needed something so that if it ever came up where they needed it and they didn't have time to do this, same complaint, at least they had something to say, you know, get it away from there. You've got to have it 10 feet away. So what if we just threw a portable clause in there knowing that it's going to be very impractical to enforce, but if some guy puts his, you know, generator right underneath my window, I at least would have something to point to, or code enforcement, if they ever did get there. Anyway, a thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You mentioned earlier that typical installation is 500-gallon tank. MR. McMANUS: For a -- the smaller of the units. God, I thought I had this off. What is wrong with me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got-- Page 42 August 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that your timer working? MS. F ABACHER: We're being charged now. MR. McMANUS: I can't turn my phone off. It's ridiculous. That would be a typical size tank for a 15 to -- I recommend that for a 15 to 16K COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. McMANUS: As soon as a customer jumps up to a 25 kw all the way up to say 45 or maybe even 60k, I recommend they go to a thousand gallon. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's liquid, is it not? MR. McMANUS: It's liquid propane. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that means that there has to be a delivery to a location, and then there's a hose. MR. McMANUS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What's the typical length of a hose on these? MR. McMANUS: They can run them out at a good distance. And when I say good distance, I think I've heard up to 75 feet. But we always try to get them to put the propane tank in the front. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. McMANUS: There's no restriction now. And, of course, all you see in an underground is a little cap. And we tell them, look, put it as close as possible so that the guy with the hose isn't ruining your lawn, your flowers, you know, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's precisely where I want to go with the next phase of this. Now, you have a -- the soil has motion, and the question then becomes how much motion there is in the soil against the line. What kind of a line? What do we do to protect the line for the run? MR. McMANUS: You know, I mean, it's all installed per the codes associated with propane. I'm not -- I've seen a lot of it, of course. I'm not an expert on -- Page 43 August 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. You don't know. MR. McMANUS: But it's all been -- you know, it all meets the -- I mean, these standards are state standards and they're part of the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess where I was working from is the distance of the fuel supply to the tube, delivery to the unit, and if -- the longer that line is, the more potential you have for issues. MR. McMANUS: I think so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I would -- you know, putting it in the very rear, which might be ideally nice for noise abatement, might also have some other problems. This is really quite interesting. And I think we need to look at it really carefully. And I do agree with our chairman, I know that people do become angry, and we cannot say because that there aren't code enforcement officers that we don't have an obligation to try and make it better in advance because we have -- we're constructively -- we are aware that that potential exists. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, it needs some work, so we'll just bring this one back on the 6th. MS. F ABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, thank you very much for your time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think Catherine's got your contact number. MR. McMANUS: Oh, yeah. Thanks a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. MS. FABACHER: We'll shift gears to drainage. And Stan's going to -- has come back with the maximum impervious area restrictions and lot cover restrictions on lots, and that is -- you got a new one, but it's in the -- originally in the book it's on page 101, but Page 44 August 16, 2007 we gave you a new one with his changes today. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Stan Chrzanowski with Engineering Review. The changes were at the start of the document. The commissioners wanted the exceptions added up front so they'd be more clear. The exception for any application within boundaries of a project having a water management district permit and central surface water management collection storage treatment and discharge system and exception for any application submitted prior to 1 July, 2008, which is a year away. It's about six months after we adopt this, because when we did the fill pad ordinance, we ended up giving them three months because there were so many projects in the system. And it took a while for people to adapt to what we were doing. So this time we're allowing them six months so that they can read the ordinance, get familiar with it, and we'll start enforcing it when they all know that it's there, and a one-time addition for certain-sized homes as set forth below, which I'll go over later, and applications accompanied by a stormwater management plan, signed and sealed by a registered Florida professional engineer. And the one-time addition, at the very end, in any case, see the one-time addition the existing residents will be allowed, after July 1, 2008, the additional -- 3 percent of the lot area up to a maximum of 1,000 square feet, as long as that one-time addition does not exceed the area in the previous table by more than 3 percent of the lot area or more than 1,000 square feet. So if you're already above that limit, we're not going to give you the addition. But if you're below that limit, we'll give you the addition up to where you are at that limit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The impact you're talking about though is -- the one-time addition would have to be in increasing the footprint because someone could go up and not have a further impact, couldn't they? Page 45 August 16, 2007 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How is that -- how is that-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We don't care if they go up. If you want to build a second floor bedroom, this doesn't affect that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that. Do we need to say that though? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Do you want to say it? I didn't -- I don't -- I'm talking about impervious coverage. I don't think there's any need to say it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just was asking, Stan. I wanted to make sure that someone couldn't be prevented from building an addition up. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Through the whole process, we stressed that this doesn't stop people from building up. We'd prefer that they built up rather than out, but that's only because we're engineers. Other people prefer it if they don't build up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Who are they? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Most of the people I deal with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stan, this looks really good, and the format is really good. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only question I have is, and it's because it kind of resembles the tax code, is the lot coverage. The intent of the greater than 11,000 square foot clause is that you say plus 5 percent in excess. That could be interpreted to mean you're only allowed 5 percent coverage to add to that, but doesn't that really mean that you can calculate at 30 percent if your lot is bigger than 11,000 feet and wider than 100 feet? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Say that again. Page 46 August 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, the way this is worded says, your ground coverage allowed is 27,5-, which is 25 percent of 11,000 square feet. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Plus 5 percent in excess of 11,000 feet. Does that mean you're only allowed to add 5 percent in the additional area to that number? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does that mean you're allowed ground coverage of 20 -- or 30 percent if you have a lot bigger than that? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It means you're allowed -- if you have 15,000 square feet here, you have the 2750 from the first 11 and 5 percent till the next 4,000. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's all? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's all, yes. For example, if you said it about the tax code, it does penalize the higher-use properties, the larger properties. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because I really thought what you were talking about is that means that if you have a lot larger you can have 30 percent coverage because you have so much more impervious area. Why would you -- in other words, so if you were graphing that, it would go at that 25 percent rate, or one-to-four slope, and then it would almost flatten out. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, it does. It flattens out quite a bit. Would it make it clearer if I put 5 percent in excess -- 5 percent of the area in excess of 11,000 square feet? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, that would make it clearer, but that wouldn't be -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You don't like that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't like that. And, you know, Mark, when we had the moratorium, we were, you know, Page 47 August 16, 2007 talking to the realtors and wondering where they were. Where are they now? Because this would be -- this means that a guy who buys a big lot which has a lot more pervious area -- or impervious area, is -- or pervious area is being denied the ability to build. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's why I gave you that chart with all the Excel spreadsheets showing the different subdivisions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It looks -- the smaller subdivisions are not harmed by this. Harmed is a bad word. Not as affected as the larger lot subdivisions. But most of our complaints come from the larger lot subdivisions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This basically restricts your buildable area, the higher and greater you want to build on a bigger lot, is that -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your mega-homes would have to be restricted to smaller lots based on this, and your smaller homes be restricted to bigger lots; is that -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Again, please repeat that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What it is though is obviously you can hire an engineer and that number doesn't mean anything to you. So it's really essentially the civil engineer annuity act we're putting together. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, there's more room on a larger lot to do water management. If you were in the Pine Ridge Subdivision with a one-acre lot and you wanted to build a substantial structure, you have a lot more room than you have in, say, Naples Park where you have a very small lot. You have a lot more room to do that water management. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I honestly thought, and it seemed fair to me, that if your lot was bigger, your percentage could Page 48 August 16, 2007 get bigger, because you really do, you know, have the ability to take that water offbetter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It can. It's-- MS. F ABACHER: It's taking off. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So get the engineer -- get the engineer, right? Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Fabacher? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. It's not the taking off. The fact is -- and I appreciate your comment about the Engineering Employment Act, but the point is, is you're not to shed on your neighbor. If you don't have a backbone system in the stormwater permit from the state, then you don't have the capacity and you need -- if you want to go bigger than this standard, then you need a store on your lot with a pond or swales. So it's not about shedding it, because that's what we're trying to prevent is shedding it to your neighbor and increasing your peak runoff along with the impervious area and not accounting for that because this is totally for the subdivisions that are older and having infill redevelopment. It's not subdivisions. They have everything they need. So I'm saying it's not just to get the engineer. You've got to put a system in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, you are right about the annuity guy. I sent this, along with some of the others, to a couple engineering firms for comment. I got no comments back. Now I know why. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you will get Christmas cards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that in mind, are we -- I think we're ready to vote on this. Anybody have any -- I don't think we need any continuance. So is there a motion for approval of6.05.01F? Page 49 August 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney moved, Mr. Adelstein seconded. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Did -- Mr. Schiffer wanted to put that plus 5 percent of the area in excess. Do you still want that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. I think just to be-- because I honestly, up to this point, thought that the bigger the lot you could have 30 percent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it makes it clearer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So people like me can be confused. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I wrote it down. I'll add it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we need to stipulate. It will just get done. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8-0. Okay. I hope the guards downstairs are watching all this paint Page 50 August 16, 2007 drying here today. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. All right. And next we're going to talk about off-site drainage, and it's in page 115 of the original green book, but I've given you a revision. And Tom Kuck, Director of Engineering, is going to talk about this amendment. MR. KUCK: Yes. For the record, Tom Kuck, Engineering Director. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What page? MR. KUCK: Page -- the changes were made on page 117. MS. FABACHER: Page 115. MR. KUCK: And it starts on page 115. MS. FABACHER: Page 115. MR. KUCK: But the change was made on 117 at your direction, and I think it reads better than before. And I'm just going to refer to subparagraph Roman numeral 10. We changed to the current phase of the development versus, I think, before it was for the whole development. So we reduced it down, so I think that was a good comment that you picked up. And so we made that modification. Then in -- below that in paragraph A, we inserted the word establish. And I forget what we had before. MS. F ABACHER: Addressed. MR. KUCK: Pardon? MS. F ABACHER: Addressed. MR. KUCK: Okay. Addressed, so we changed that to established as you recommended. And in that same paragraph we inserted the word stop work order at your direction which reads better. And that's basically the only changes we made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, I have one or two comments. MR. KUCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the first group of changes where you added the words associated with current phase of development. MR. KUCK: Yes. Page 51 August 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on page 117. MR. KUCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After where it says associated with, can we add the words, and necessary to service the current phase of development? The only reason I'm asking that is because I would want to make sure that the current phase of development fully serviced the areas that were going to be constructed. Is there any fear that that couldn't happen? Do you feel that is a -- I don't know. I'm just trying to wonder if that's something that's needed or not. MR. KUCK: Probably not needed, but okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That wouldn't be necessary from your perspective? MR. KUCK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the next question would be, we had the being halted and now we've got a stop work order in A. MR. KUCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last sentence up above, the last two lines in number 10 above it says, in the operation prior to commencement and construction of on-site improvements. If the system has to be installed and working prior to the commencement of construction of on-site improvements, what would be -- what would we be issuing a stop work order on? MR. KUCK: In the event that they didn't put that in and they started the construction to the infrastructure before they put the perimeter or the off-site drainage, we would put a stop work order on the infrastructure on the -- that phase of the development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it wouldn't hold up their permitting. And if they wanted to -- MR. KUCK: No. They would already be then permitted to do the infrastructure. And if they went and did these on-site developments and infrastructure construction prior to addressing the Page 52 August 16, 2007 perimeter drainage, then we would red tag the interior part of the proj ect until they got the perimeter drainage installed to our satisfaction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a recommendation to approve LDC section 1O.02.05.a.2? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Caron, seconded by? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8-0. Thank you, Tom. MR. KUCK: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Commissioners, I think we're down to the last one, and this was going to be -- David Weeks is here to talk about signage for GMP amendments revision that he's been working on. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you give us a page?y Page 53 August 16, 2007 MS. FABACHER: Hang on. Page 119, but you -- okay. Yeah, David? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Department. Commissioners, at the last hearing, you had asked for or I had proposed a few changes and you wanted to see those before we went forward, and those have now been reflected in what Catherine has handed out or provided to you. MS. F ABACHER: Well, I haven't handed it out yet. MR. WEEKS: Oh, sorry. MS. F ABACHER: I sent it to them but I forgot to give them the hard copies. MR. WEEKS: And the areas of change are highlighted in blue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Blue, yeah. MR. WEEKS: On the handout that Catherine is providing, the areas of change, again, in blue highlighting, is on page 2 of the handout, and they are over on page 5 and 6 of the handout. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: That's what I remember. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions? David, you look like you're in -- MS. F ABACHER: Consultation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consultation. Anything else you want to add, or are we all set? MR. WEEKS: Thankfully not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifthere's no questions from the Planning Commission -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion to approve LDC section 10;141, made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't care. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't care? Page 54 August 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I want to do it, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 8-0. David, thank you. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Catherine, that leaves us for the outdoor service area revisions, emergency generator revisions, BMUD/GMUD revisions, final plat and filing deadline revisions, and the lot width measurement definition. MS. FABACHER: That's what I have, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So all those need to be continued until the next date, which will be on September 6th at -- let's do it at 8:30 in the morning so we can get it on and get it over with. MS. F ABACHER: Oh, you mean before the regular meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's plenty of public notice-- Page 55 August 16, 2007 MS. F ABACHER: So we're continuing this public hearing until 8:30 a.m. on September -- it's Wednesday, September 6th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Then our regular hearing will follow immediately after that. Now, if we can -- and I'm just wondering. Jeff, do we have to put a time certain to start the regular hearing or can we just say they both start at 8:30? MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me. I think Joe's going to tell you that we've already advertised 8:30 for the regular meeting. MR. SCHMITT: We've advertised 8:30 for the regular meeting, but I thought -- and I'd have to look at my notes. Didn't we give a time certain for the school board for their presentation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 20th of September, not on the 6th. MR. SCHMITT: No, no. The 6th was the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 6th was their presentation about what they're going to give us on the 20th. MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 20th was their expert who has to be in and out before the board meets that afternoon. MR. SCHMITT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on the 6th then we're going to have to -- I didn't bring my agenda for the 6th with me. MR. SCHMITT: Neither did 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Neither did you. MR. SCHMITT: I'm afraid I've left it all back at my desk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me see ifI have anything. No, I don't. Does anybody know our agenda for the 6th? I know we have the school board presentation and we had a water treatment or water facility. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is this what you're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there's another one out there somewhere. Page 56 August 16, 2007 Jeff, if we set the time intentionally early and we run over, we can just announce we're going to continue it, or is that not a good thing to do? MR. KLATZKOW: I'd almost rather we do the land development and do this after the regular hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know. That's what I'm trying to get at. MR. KLATZKOW: You don't need to do a time certain. Just it will be a regular agenda item. So following your regular agendas, we'll do the land development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll continue this meeting to a regular agenda item on the September 6th meeting. All those in favor of that idea -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for a continuance, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're continuing to September 6th. This meeting is over with for now. Thank you all. Page 57 August 16, 2007 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:28 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION , MARK STRAIN, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 58