Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/11/2007 S (LDC Amendments) October 11, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 11,2007 LDC Amendments LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta Tom Henning (absent until noted) Frank Halas Fred W. Coyle (Absent) Donna Fiala ALSO PRESENT: Catherine Fabacher, LDC Coordinator Joe Schmitt, Administrator of CDES Susan Istenes, Director of Zoning & Land Develop. Review JeffKlatzkow, Chief Assistant County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ LDC AGENDA October 11, 2007 9:00 a.m. SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF Page 1 October 11, 2007 CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 3. ADJOURN Page 2 October 11, 2007 October 11, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats, and I'd like to welcome you one and all to the Land Development Code Amendment 2007, Cycle 1. And with that, would you please stand, and Commissioner Fiala will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) MS. F ABACHER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Catherine Fabacher, with Zoning and Land Development Review. I'm the LDC coordinator. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Happy to see you here this morning. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Happy to be here. Item #2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA _ CONTINUED TO THE OCTOBER 24, 2007 BCC MEETING AT 9:00 A.M. MS. FABACHER: We're beginning our first meeting of the first hearing of the LDC 2007 Cycle I amendments. And I would like to begin on page A of your summary sheet, and I included an extra summary sheet that completely matches what's in your package, because I think we agreed, working side by side was better. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is. MS. FABACHER: Okay. And the first one's going to be section 4.02.01, specific standards for locations of accessory buildings and structures. This is the amendment emergency generator placements. Page 2 October 11, 2007 Do I have any questions or do you need an intro? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. I had a question. I just want to make sure that that restriction that was on how long the generators could run just applied during the non-emergency times. MS. F ABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To be able to test them. And there is no restriction at a time of emergency, other than those that have to do with the placement of the generator and the shielding for sound and everything. But the hours of operation don't apply -- MS. F ABACHER: Correct, correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that are in that? MS. F ABACHER: This is just for the exercising of the systems. And in fact, during an emergency, you'll have a lot of portable ones out all over the place in the front yard, and we can't -- don't have the power, the staff to be regulating that sort of thing. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we shouldn't. At that point in time with an emergency, I would think that we would waive anything as far as placement of a temporary generator where it is because -- MS. F ABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HALAS: As long as it isn't inside the house. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. And we're not regulating temporary . CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As long as it isn't in the house, right. MS. FABACHER: We are regulating those that are permanently installed by people. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just for your information, Commissioner Halas just brought up a good point. In the time of an emergency when the power's off, if you're a person that's new as far as generators go, do not under any circumstances, run them in your house or -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Garage. Page 3 October 11, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- or any enclosed structure. It has to be out in the open or else the hurricane will be a minor occurrence compared to what the carbon monoxide from the generator will do. Is any other comments or questions on that particular one? You just need nods from the commissioners to be able to keep moving through, right? MS. FABACHER: Okay, great, right. We're not going to vote on this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You have it. Proceed to the next one. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Our next page we're going to skip. The applicant's not here today. They'll be here on the 16th. That's the heliports. In fact, C we're going to skip because we're waiting for another -- more revisions from the County Attorney's Office. There's Stan. We're on page D of your summary sheet and page 15 of your book, and this is section 6.05.05.01, stormwater management system requirements. And Stan Chrzanowski is going to -- and I want to say that this is your direction. We included the minutes in your packet to see from the last time you worked with Stan on this problem. Thank you. Stan? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, good morning. Stan Chrzanowski with Engineering Review, and this has come a long way since your direction. I'm going to hand out some sheets to you and then explain what they are as I give my presentation. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Stan, for the benefit of the listening audience, you're going to give us a little bit of history on this item, too, I assume. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. All right. For a long time now we've gotten complaints that we Page 4 October 11, 2007 are allowing people to build homes that are much too large for the neighborhoods that they're in. The complaints range from Pine Ridge, Naples Park through Naples Manor through Golden Gate. And the direction was to find some way to control that, so we had a couple of hearings where we got the local engineering firms in and the developers and we told them what we were going to do and got their input. Then we had the usual succession of public hearings and got public input on it. And the final document is what you see before you. What we're trying to do is to limit the impervious area that you're allowed to put on a single-family house lot, but it's not every single-family house lot. You have to understand most of the county, if you were to look at the PUD map of Collier County -- and you're all familiar with it -- you look at this side of 951, if you superimpose that PUD map on an aerial photograph, you'll see that what's not PUD is old subdivisions, Naples Park, Naples Manor, Pine Ridge. Those areas don't have Water Management District Permits. Most of the sites on the PUD map have Water Management District Permits. If you have a Water Management District Permit, then your amount of impervious has already been allotted. Your discharge rate's already set. We don't worry about people in projects like the Vineyard's draining on one another. But it's the older subdivisions like Pine Ridge and Golden Gate City that we don't have any standards for and, truly, we don't review single- family homes in those subdivisions. They get looked at for a standard structural building permit type issues, but nobody reviews them for lot coverage, so -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to interrupt you. We have commissioners that want to speak. First -- your light went on first, Commissioner Halas. Did you want to address this now or after? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll address it afterwards. Page 5 October 11, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The PUDs that you speak of, the new ones are already approved with the proper drainage, but I wonder if after the PUD -- after the homes are built, the people go in and pave over their front yard. That isn't what was in the PUD, but they do that. Then what? (Commissioner Henning entered the hearing room.) MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, then if we see it, if somebody turns them in and they have violated some portion of the stormwater ordinance, we would have to enforce against them. But I can't remember any project like that, usually because projects like that have their own internal controls. You're dealing with the homeowners association. I live in Lakeside. If I were to try to pave my front yard, I think they'd stop me. If they didn't and I got by with it, nobody -- none of the neighbors turned me in to the county, not a problem. But I don't remember anybody ever turning their neighbor in a project like that, you know, one that has a Water Management District Permit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe after we can make a little appointment and you could go for a ride with me. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm sure you know a few. And for some reason, I guess they call you before they call us. Not a problem. But anyway, please understand that most of the projects we're talking about, Pine Ridge, Naples Park, Naples Manor, Golden Gate City, with the exception of Golden Gate Estates, are fairly well built out. So what you're looking at really is something that's probably going to have more effect on redevelopment than on development. We came up with a formula, and our first attempt was a straight percentage. From a water management point of view, that's the fairest way to do it if all you're worried about is water management. But the percentage we had when you looked at the larger lots like in Pine Ridge or Golden Gate Estates, and you assign a 40 percent, the Page 6 October 11, 2007 amount of impervious coverage we were allowing was very large. So one of the engineers at one of our meetings suggested a graduated percentage, much like the income tax where people with larger lots are, in effect, penalized by being allowed a smaller percentage of their lot to be developed. It's the way it's set up. And when we looked at the handout I gave you -- and I don't know if Commissioner Henning had a copy put on his -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. The handout I gave you, we wanted to see what effect the ordinance we're writing would have had ifit were in effect when all of these projects were considered. And if you look at it, we have different projects, upper left-hand corner on the spreadsheet, Naples Manor being the first one. For your own purposes, if you wanted to get into the appraiser's website, we've given you the folio number. You can look up the folio number __ CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry to interrupt you, Stan. Do you think we might be able to put something on the visualizer for __ MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, yes, sir. I believe I gave them all out. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- our viewing audience to be able to see? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I brought spares. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I like where this is going, by the way, and I'm not all disturbed by the fact that the larger your lot is, you don't get the same proportion as a smaller lot. It only makes sense. I mean, who wants somebody on a 20-acre lot out in the Estates to build something that would be the size of a gymnasium? You know, I don't think that's the intent. They're single-family home lots, and that's what they were platted to be and they should remain that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. I know we put it on the -- oh, there it is. MR. SCHMITT: What do you want to zero in on? Page 7 ^-_._--_._-~~._-,_._"'-_._---.---- October 11,2007 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Very last column. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is this on-line also, Stan, where somebody might be able to view it? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir. I have all-- it's an Excel spreadsheet. I can forward it to anybody that wants to put it on-line, like your IT department. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If anyone would like to see -- well, I'll tell you what, rather than put it on-line -- because this is a working document that's going to be changing continuously, I assume, right, or no? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir. I think this is about the final draft. The only thing, when we gave this to people, there's certain properties in here that are really 95 percent paved, and if you don't mind those people being brought up for public viewing, I have no problem with it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Everything we have is public record. What I might suggest is, in the interim till we get it on-line and people wouldn't know where to go to find it, if anyone has an interest in this particular document, maybe they could contact you and you could email it to them. And would you be so kind as to state your telephone number where you can be reached or someone from your office can be reached to be able to move this -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The email address would be better. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead, sir. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's Stan Chrzanowski. That's S-T-A-N, C-H-R-Z-A-N-O-W-S-K-I at Collier gov C-O-L-L-I-E-R G-O-V , , " dot N - E- T. I don't get enough emails already, so this will be a welcome addition. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. We'll get you on some lists. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. We have a couple people Page 8 October 11,2007 that want to comment. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, I'm sorry. I just -- Catherine Fabacher, again, for the record. I just wanted to say if you go to the LDC web page, you have my email address there, and people can contact me for this information. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you give directions to that then? MS. FABACHER: Well, it's on the county website. You go to the bar that says "doing business." Go all the way down, you hit the zoning page, and when you get to the zoning page, it will say "LDC amendments." Then any page you go from there will have my telephone number and my email to contact me about the LDC, and I'll be happy to provide this information. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And would you be so kind, too, just to state your telephone number because it's sometimes not easy for some people that -- MS. FABACHER: Sure. It's 403-2322, and obviously 239. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. Some people are computer challenged. This might be the best way. MS. FABACHER: Fine. Well, they're both on the website. They're both on the website, my phone number and my email.so -- oh, that's right. You're saying they can't get there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got two commissioners that have their lights on. I'm going to check again with Commissioner Halas. Did you want to ask something at this time? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Stan, at this point in time it says overage, and then it's minus or plus. What is this, percentage or fee or whatever? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir. That's how many square feet. If the ordinance were in effect now, that's how many square feet that property would be over or under what we have written in for a standard. Page 9 October 11,2007 If you look farther down the sheet, and I'll -- if you look down the sheet, you'll see that right now most of the properties in yellow, the negative numbers, mean that -- I'm having a hard time because of something that's in the way. But most of the -- most of the numbers that are in yellow meaning in Naples Manor, if the ordinance were in effect today, most of the properties would meet the ordinance, and then you have a few like the guy that's 1,500 square feet over. He's probably got a circular driveway and -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Everything in white then means that they're out of compliance? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, not out of compliance. If the ordinance were in effect today, they would be out of compliance. When they come in to increase the size of their property, they're going to have to submit an engineer's report, but I'm probably getting ahead of myself. If you look at Naples Manor on your sheets -- and I don't want to keep turning on the visualizer -- but you'll see most of the properties are -- would meet this standard as written. COMMISSIONER HALAS: As -- okay, with the particular building that's presently on there. But if they redevelop and wanted to put a large huge home on there, then they have to have an engineering report in regards to making sure that they -- that they're in compliance with the amount of area that's going to be impervious. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. It's a stormwater calculation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, great. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I just ask a question on what you just said? You said the white ones were out of compliance, the white ones were too much or the yellow? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The white. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The white. Oh, the yellow -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If the ordinance were in effect today, those people would be out of compliance, if the ordinance had been in Page 10 October 11, 2007 effect when they were built. We can't grandfather somebody out of compliance. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's just, the ones in yellow will be allowed to build more till they get to that certain point, and then the ones in white can't build any more. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think this is the right direction, because I know that in my particular case, that there's been a number of stormwater issues where the water coming off of new redevelopment has ended up flooding homeowners to the side or to the left so-- , MR. SCHMITT: The existing units would be deemed legally nonconforming. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I understand that. But it's in the right -- we're going in the right direction to address it. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. This is the direction you wanted us to go in regards to trying to deal with stormwater runoff, and it certainly will contribute to dealing with 10 pounds of potatoes in the five-pound potato sack. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: That was a nice way of saying it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I apologize for my tardiness. How many nonconforming structures would we have once the board passed this? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I have no idea, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could you give a percentage? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, I would -- we took representative areas, so if you look at Naples Manor, my guess would be 90 percent, 95 percent would be conforming. Five, 10 percent would be nonconforming. In Naples Park, it's probably around 85 to 90 percent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Conforming? Page 11 October 11, 2007 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Forest Lakes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Eighty-five percent in Naples Park? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Would be conforming. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Conforming. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The smaller-lotted subdivisions. Forest Lakes, we're probably looking at 60 conforming, 40 percent nonconforming. Willoughby Acres, probably about the same. When you start getting into -- oh, Poinciana Village, I would guess less than 50 percent would be conforming, about 50/50. When you start getting into like -- go to the very last sheet in the Pine Ridge subdivision, there's usually maybe 30 columns to one of these, or 30, and so you're probably looking at 50 total, of which five would be conforming; 95 percent of them in Pine Ridge would be nonconforming. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The one -- but that's where we have had a lot of our complaints, because it's very large lots. And if you look at the aerial photographs of Pine Ridge, people tend to build tennis courts, five-car garages, you know, just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That leads into my next question. So this pertains to accessory uses also? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's total impervious. If you build a patio and a circular driveway and a basketball court and a very large parking lot, swimming pool and a tennis court and your house, you're probably going to be in violation unless you get an engineer to do a water management plan, because some of these places are actually bigger than 7-Elevens, and we make them do a management plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How big is a 7-Eleven? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: My guess would be, on a quarter-acre lot, a 7-Eleven probably covers maybe 75 percent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's a quarter-acre versus an Page 12 October 11, 2007 acre? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Versus two acres here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two acres here. Well-- so, 7 - Eleven is not a big deal -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Like I said -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: --like a Super Wal*Mart or something might be. The -- what about a swimming pool? Would that-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The pool itself, the water that falls in the pool generally, it just adds to the level of the water, but the patio around the pool and all that would be in the calculation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you -- so we haven't removed the issue about draining water on people's -- the neighboring property? That's still a compliance? You need to either drain to the front or the rear of the property? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Eventually you have to shed water. You're not going to hold all water. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just want to know what's being removed and what's staying. And so you're giving an opportunity to create a stormwater management system on site also? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're giving people choices? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great, I love it. Just a question for the chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we on hot topics or -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You'll see in front of you the -- there's one sheet that's probably underneath everything you've got there, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So we missed some of Page 13 October 11, 2007 the topics then, right? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. We already covered a couple of them. We moved right along. So we're on -- right now we're on page D, correct? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We skipped Band C, right? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Y eah. We skipped a couple because they weren't prepared enough to be able to move forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Which ones -- are you saying ones are not being heard at this hearing? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. There's a couple of them that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which ones is that so I can strike it? The generator? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you-- MS. FABACHER: Yes, certainly, Commissioner. Commissioner Henning, we are not doing heliports today. That's on page B of your summary sheets. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MS. F ABACHER: We are not doing -- on page C, we're not doing the annual temporary use permit, and those were the two we skipped, and we discussed the emergency -- temporary emergency generator -- I'm sorry permanent emergency generator installation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. These other two items, are they going to be heard at the second hearing? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But they have to have two hearings. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. Page 14 October 11, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're going to have actually three meetings to cover this cycle? MS. F ABACHER: Possibly four, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Excuse me. I believe -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bless you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- that the direction that we're going here is to make sure that a lot of these areas that you brought forth are areas that there's going to be redevelopment in, and what we're trying to do is get ahead of the curve so that as redevelopment takes place and we go from a 1,500-square-foot home to a 3,000 to 3,500-square-foot home on the same piece of property, that we're taking care of the stormwater that can be generated by that on site. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Like I said in part of the presentation, if you look at these subdivisions, they're almost -- with the exception of Golden Gate Estates, they are fairly well built out. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But they're going to start redeveloping. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, in Naples Park -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Buying property. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: In Naples Park, people are already buying two side-by-side lots, wiping out two houses and putting in one large one setback to setback, so -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. This is great. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, did you have something? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-uh. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, let's continue. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Commissioners, we're on sheet D still, and we're going to go -- Stan's going to do the next one, and it's section 6.05.02, bulkheads and seawalls, which requires a new Page 15 October 11, 2007 construction to put in pretreatment infiltration trenches by existing seawalls. Stan's going to answer any questions. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners, again. The present ordinance we have shows a design for a seawall with some -- the standard design for a seawall has a certain amount of tow in that you have to drive the sheet in, stops the bottom of the sheet from kicking out, then you have the sheet itself, and at the top you have a cap that ties all the sheets together, and the cap -- or sometimes they drill through the wall with what they call a tieback. The tieback goes back to a deadman. That stops the whole structure from rolling from the top. So you can either kick out at the bottom or roll from the top. Those prevent that from happening. As part of the calculation for a seawall, you generally figure that the ground behind it is going to become saturated, so you take that into account with the design, but you also add weep holes through the seawall so that water trapped behind the wall can eventually leave. It stops the condition from being saturated all the time. At present we show some kind of little bag of rock back there. No, we show a -- we show a patch put over that and backed up with rock. That's difficult to do, and sometimes those bags or the patches fill up with sand. And the solutions we have for that is we intend having people put a continuous filter fabric bag behind the weep holes in the seawall so that water seeps down through those and out the weep holes. It serves the water quality purpose, it serves the purpose of draining behind the wall for hydrostatic pressure. It's relatively simple. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. We've got Commissioner Halas, then you wanted to say something, Commissioner Henning? I thought I heard a noise down there. I guess not. Go ahead, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is somewhat like a French Page 16 October 11, 2007 drain. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Great idea. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: All right. We ready to move on, Commissioners? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please, move on. MS. FABACHER: Okay. We're going to go to page E of your summary sheet and page 21 in your book for the Bayshore mixed-use district, and then we'll also be discussing changes that more or less are the same in the Gateway Triangle mixed-use district, and that appears on page 57. And we have Jean Jordan this morning to answer any questions you might have. She's with the CRA. MS. JORDAN: Good morning, Jean Jordan, for the record, Bayshore Gateway CRA. The changes are pretty much summarized on page 21. It says that we're adding language to clarify that additions or renovations to existing buildings within the C-l through C-5 zoning districts may follow the existing LDC regulations for height and setbacks or the BMUD overlay regulations. We're deleting the residential uses from the land use table, adding them to the residential subdistrict, reducing the minimum required residential building square footage and the maximum residential building height, changing the building line to setback line, and making minor edits, including deletions for clarification purposes. Also we're revising the BMUD overlay map to designate lots located adjacent to neighborhood commercial subdistricts for accessory parking zones. This was basically put in for consistency because some of them -- in the last cycle some of them were designated, some of them were not. So we're just making sure that they're all consistent. When you go through your packet, it will appear that are there Page 17 October 11, 2007 are more changes than there actually are, because we took tables and moved them somewhere else in order for it to be clearer to read, and most of that was at the suggestion of Ms. Fabacher. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions? Yeah, Commissioner Halas, that's from before? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, that was from last time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. You explained that quite well. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Very good. MS. FABACHER: Goodness. We're going to miss you, Jean. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do you mean we're going to miss her? MS. FABACHER: Well, the BMUD and the GT-MUD have been in since their inception. They've been in every cycle to fine tune this, and we're hoping that this will be it. MS. JORDAN: We're hoping this is the end. MS. F ABACHER: This is the last time for awhile. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: So that's what I meant. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think there's any problem. We'll just recycle you. MS. JORDAN: Okay. The next one is for the Gateway Triangle mixed-use district, and it basically mirrors the BMUD. Same -- same changes. Oh, that starts on page 57, I apologize. You guys are making this too easy now. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. No comments? COMMISSIONER HALAS: No comments. Looks good. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No comment. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Jean. MS. JORDAN: Thank you. Page 18 October 11, 2007 MS. FABACHER: Okay. All right, Commissioners. We're going to go to page F of the summary sheet and page 91 of your book, and we're looking at section 4.02.01, dimensional standards for principal uses in base zoning district. This amendment came as a result of board direction during one of your regular meetings to make the setbacks in the Estates more equitable. I believe you had a case where a -- where an applicant came in and he did not meet the side setback anymore because it had been changed. If I can give you a little history. Back in the recodification before this one in 91-102, the old code when it was created, the side setbacks on the Estates used to be 10 percent of the lot width, which is generally 15 feet for most of those properties. And at that point when it was recodified, it got -- I don't know how it -- I mean, I wasn't here, but it was changed to 30 feet then. So anyone who had built prior to 1991 has little accessory structures or even their main structures that -- when they changed to 30 in '91, they became nonconforming essentially. So you asked us to look at making it more equitable, but I think you saw in your packet that we got a lot of response from the civic associations that they thought it would take away from the area, which you know, they think they have a kind of rural area and those larger setbacks separate the uses and the things, and it seems like the residents didn't want to change that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that why that -- there was a unanimous vote by the CCPC to deny this? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because of the feedback that they had -- MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- from the people that lived out in Page 19 October 11, 2007 that area? Well, I wish there was some of those people here today that would speak in regards to this, because if this is what their wishes are, I feel that we should probably follow what their wishes are, but -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, once again, I'll be honest with you. I'm not too sure what to tell you. There might be more to this than meets the eye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ifwe move it forward, it's not going to raise a problem at this point in time, then we'll have time for the community to be able to interact at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER HALAS: .Good. All right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I talked to the planning commissioner who spearheaded getting ahold of the residents who I think is, in my opinion, opposed to this, and explained the situation and, you know, where I came from and why I thought this would make a good amendment. And I mean, it -- like I said at a regular meeting, the larger the lot you have, it seems like you have -- you're punished more. The larger the lot you have, the more taxes you're going to pay, but you have bigger setbacks and where, an acre-and-a-quarter lot, there's setbacks of -- side yard setbacks of seven-and-a half feet, but if you have two-and-a-half acres, it's 30 feet setback. And so I explained to him where I come from on that so at least he had some knowledge of why the amendment is here. I'm not sure if he still agrees with me, and I'm not sure if some of the civic association members really understand that issue. It's a matter of equity and not giving somebody any privilege, special privilege. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You agree that we should let this go forward so we can study the issue? Page 20 October 11, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, yes. And I just needed to explain that because of the Sunshine Laws. We can't talk -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course we can. That's what we're doing right now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely. I agree with you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wow, this has become an epidemic. I appreciate that. With that, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: He already answered my questions. Thank you. MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman? I'm sorry. Susan Istenes, Zoning Director. Is there any -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Move closer to the mike there. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Is there anything you want us to bring back to you at the next meeting or do for you at the next meeting? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To change this? MS. ISTENES: Not necessarily, but I had noted on here that you just wanted to move this forward in hopes of getting more community feedback at the next meeting. Is there anything we can do to facilitate that? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, there's a couple of things I'd like you to do, is to try to see if we can get somebody to go before the Estates Civic Association, the city civic association, and there's a new one that will be forming that's out there that's just announced that they got, I guess -- I don't know, a number of people lined up. It's called the Golden Gate Estates Property Owners Association, and it wouldn't be bad if you run it by all of them to get their input and to try to get them to come to the meeting, and maybe we could schedule it at a time certain so that they won't have to lose much of their time. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Page 21 October 11,2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This next time when it comes back, will it come back on an evening meeting? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Evening meeting, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, that would work out fine. And maybe what we could do is, we start at five, maybe we could schedule it for a time certain for six. When you go to the different associations to meet with them, you can bring that up that it would be coming back at six o'clock. And we really need to have a representative from the organizations come in. And if at all possible, maybe they can give us an idea of how their membership voted on it. MS. ISTENES: And Catherine can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we did notify the organizations of the proposed change, and that was the feedback that the planning commission got. So I think I could certainly try to make contact with the representatives to see if they'll come to your next meeting, and we'll make it a time certain, like you said, and then they could give you the verbal feedback from the discussions they had; is that sufficient or -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: When's the next meeting again? MS. ISTENES: The 16th of October. MS. FABACHER: 16th of October. It's in the front of your books there, I think, the schedule. MS. ISTENES: So I guess my point is, I wasn't sure if I could-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there going to be enough time -- MS. ISTENES: Time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to be able to do it. MS. ISTENES: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The Estates Civic Association's having a meeting, they've already got their agenda set. Is there some way that we can keep this going forward and maybe catch it at the next opportunity so there's -- MS. ISTENES: Sure. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- enough time for them to react? Page 22 October 11, 2007 Because, I mean, just to have the leadership come in -- I'm sorry, you're right. Just to have the leadership come in from these organizations and not giving them a chance to run it by the membership isn't doing anyone a favor, you know. They may -- they may be -- they may have a difficult time trying to formulate what their membership stance would be. They might be only reflecting their own opinion, and this would give them enough time to be able to run it by their membership and try to get some sort of feedback from them. But they need to have a presentation, too, from staff. Now, from October, when's the next one? MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, there's one on the 24th that's a day meeting, and then the final one that's scheduled is for October 30th at five o'clock. That might be the appropriate time because people usually are out of work then. That's why we have them. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's a time factor. Commissioner Henning, you got an idea? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. They are aware of the Land Development Code amendment, correct? MS. ISTENES: That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Mark Strain contacted all of them. MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. ISTENES: That's my understanding. MS. F ABACHER: So did we. MS. ISTENES: So did -- yeah, and we did, too. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, I mean, we could -- why not just tell them when the board is going to hear this item for final action? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it's -- you mean the final action? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Page 23 October 11, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I guess-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ifthere's opportunities to go to the association at the regular meeting, I'd be happy to participate in that but, you know, we still need to move forward. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I'm just looking for the maximum impact with the public that I can get, and I know it did not come up at the last civic association meeting in the Estates, this issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Really? I'm surprised. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, in any case, let's do the best we can to be able to get someone here to be able to speak their mind, and then we'll go forward with it from there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I assist you on that, Susan? MS. ISTENES: Sure, yeah, certainly. I don't know if there'll be opportunities to actually attend the meetings depending on when they're being held, but we'll do the best we can to make sure they're all contacted and aware. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sure you will. MS. ISTENES: And then we can attend, if possible, depending on their scheduling. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Our attorney. MR. KLATZKOW: Ifit pleases the board, if these civic associations simply aren't available because of the time frame, we could shift this to the next cycle and give them ample opportunity -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, I'd really be more comfortable with that. I mean, I think Commissioner Henning and I both agree this thing has merits, but we want to be able to serve our constituency the best way we possibly can. And if we can't get the right feedback, we might make a rash decision one way or the other. How about that, Commissioner Henning, continue until the next cycle? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I don't -- do we have any public speakers on this? Page 24 October 11,2007 MS. F ABACHER: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, if we can't hit the target in this cycle, I think that's great direction. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think so, too. And the reason I referred to Commissioner Henning rather than the other two commissioners directly on this is we both represent the Estates, the other commissioners are -- their opinion is very much welcome. We're going to go to Commissioner Halas at this time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I was just going to kind of chime in and say that maybe through the efforts of cable television -- I know a lot of people out in the Estates don't have cable television, they may have the daily news, and we could publish it in there that we would like to have their feedback on a particular time and date. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we're looking to go to the next cycle so it has enough time to vent through the civic process. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifwe decide to go that way, that's good. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. How about you, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fine with me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I just want to make sure that we give clear direction. It was my understanding if we can't hit the civic association and tell them that this is in this cycle, then we would continue it over to the next cycle. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, there's no way we're going to be able to reach them this month. There isn't enough time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if I agree with that. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, my personal experience with the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, I know that their agenda is chuck full. They haven't got enough time to be able to make a presentation that would be meaningful. I mean, to ask them to rearrange their -- Page 25 October 11, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- presentation would not be fair to them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we want to -- do you need a motion to continue this to the next -- second cycle of the LDC? MR. KLATZKOW: Just for the record, that would be good. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we move this item to the second cycle of the board's 2007 LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that would be dimensional standards 4.02? MS. FABACHER: 01. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Point 01. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta, to move it to the next cycle. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Now I'm still on sheet F -- excuse me -- summary sheet F, and I'm on section 4.06.05(C), which will be on page 95 in your book, and Bruce McNall is going to talk to us about Page 26 October 11, 2007 the boundary for native vegetation requirements. MR. McNALL: Good morning, Commissioners. Bruce McNall, Landscape Architect. If you'll follow along with me here on page 95. Everybody on 95? This amendment is to redefine the boundary for native plant -- the native planting requirement. And we have included a graphic to make it more understandable for applicants. The -- and we're dividing it up on using the roadways. The -- everything south and west of U.S. 41 would be the 100 percent native requirement. Everything between 41 and 75 would be 50 percent native trees and 50 percent native shrub, and everything north and east of that 1-75 would be the 50 percent native trees and 35 percent native shrub requirement. MR. SCHMITT: Bruce, would you point out that this is based on minimum standards though? MR. McNALL: Correct, yes. This is a minimum code requirement for code plantings countywide. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, would you like to go first? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. What was the purpose of this amendment? MR. McNALL: Okay. To clarify. The current language is unclear, and this graphic helps clarify the boundaries for the native planting requirements. So we're simply using the main roadways to divide up the different planting classifications, the different plant percent requirements for code plantings countywide. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the closer you get to the shore, the more plantings? MR. McNALL: No. The closer you get to the shore -- we're using u.s. 41 here as the coastal high hazard line, which would require 100 percent native plantings from that line all the way to the coast and barrier islands. Page 27 October 11, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then the area in white? MR. McNALL: That is -- that's the 50 percent trees, 50 percent shrub requirement. I'm sorry. The 75 percent trees, 50 (sic) percent native shrub requirement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it has to be all native vegetation though, right? MR. SCHMITT: Just minimum. MR. McNALL: No. We're talking minimum code requirements, so -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know it's minimum. MR. McNALL: So it's all native south and west of U.S. 41. MS. FABACHER: I think he's asking if you can plant other stuff on your own, I believe. MR. McNALL: Oh. Above and -- above code requirements, yes, sir. Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that isn't what I'm asking. MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please put the map up on the view finder so the public can see what we're talking about. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It -- are you allowing in the minimum to plant nonnative? MR. McNALL: Only if it's above and beyond the code requirement. The-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let's just stay with the minimum. We're talking about minimum code -- MR. McNALL: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and I want to know about this minimum code. MR. McNALL: All right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You -- are you saying in the minimum code you've got to plant vegetation and you can't plant nonnative vegetation? Page 28 October 11, 2007 MR. McNALL: You can if it's above the code percent required for those three different areas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. McNALL: You'll see on page 96 where it's underlined. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I see that. I see that. MR. McNALL: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But -- all requirements of landscaping shall be 100 percent native species determined and accepted by a valid scientific reference. Do you have that scientific reference? MR. McNALL: Well, that -- sir, that was what was -- what was previously included in the code, and all we're doing is trying to simplify -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry. It's underlined so I thought it was added. MR. McNALL: No, sir. It was just restructured. All the percentages are the same as the current code. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the scientific reference? Is that somebody who has studied native plant species within Southwest Florida? MR. McNALL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Native -- so you're saying that a minimum of75 native trees and 50 (sic) percent shrubbery are required for the site. What about -- recommended Collier County plant list and native vegetation. Are you requiring them to plant specific species within these areas? MR. McNALL: We have, on our website, a recommended native plant list. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's a recommendation. That's not a -- that's not a demand. That's not an ordinance, correct? MR. McNALL: Well, it's written in the current code that -- and we have a 100 percent native -- recommended 100 percent native plant Page 29 October 11, 2007 list on our website. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And is it -- MR. McNALL: But if it's -- I see what you're saying. If it's considered native, otherwise, it can still be used. These are just recommended plants that we're proposing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if! plant a coastal vegetation in the dark area such as -- coffee bean is a native plant. MS. FABACHER: Really. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. That's a coastal plant. MR. McNALL: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I plant it in the gray area and be counted as the minimum? MR. McNALL: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I guess I just really don't understand what we're trying to do here. MR. McNALL: We're just trying to simplify the geographic regions in which these native plant required percentages are going to be distributed. MS. ISTENES: It wasn't clear in the old code as to where the geographic boundaries fell -- MR. McNALL: We had some-- MS. ISTENES: -- and so -- MR. McNALL: We had some problems with applicants understanding the code and so we're just trying to simplify it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You had geographical areas to begin with -- MR. McNALL: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- but it wasn't clarified? MR. McNALL: Correct, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Well, I don't see the significance of it personally, but -- MR. McNALL: It's just to give the applicant more clear Page 30 October 11, 2007 direction when they prepare a code plan. It makes it -- it makes it much easier, less review time when they understand exactly what the code requires. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the code requires equality ofplantings whether it be in Immokalee or in Vanderbilt Beach? MR. McNALL: Given the -- given the required percentages per the geographic area, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. MR. McNALL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just to clarify for my own purposes, once you've planted and you've met your native plant requirement and so forth, and Mr. Homeowner comes in and he decides to plant a ficus hedge and it meets the approval of his homeowners association or whatever, that's okay, right? MR. McNALL: Yes, ma'am, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. My question, if! may, I'm still trying to determine why we have a dividing line of75 for the percentage of native versus nonnative. There's got to be a reason for it. I -- you know, is it they're more stable in the -- than an area that might have frost; is that it? MR. McNALL: Correct, sir. You know, the natives grow better in the coastal areas. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's why they're gradually increasing it out? It doesn't have anything to do with demographics. It has to do with climate conditions? MR. McNALL: Yes, sir. Along with the recommended native plant list, it's divided up -- the plants are divided up into regions, inland, mid inland and then -- or coastal, inland, and then mid-range plants. So it shows what -- you know, where each native plant grows better, as given direction to the applicant. Page 31 October 11,2007 MS. ISTENES: The purpose of the rule and the way it's divided is related to a survivability factor as well as minimum impact on natural resources such as water, requirements for fertilizer, things like that. You start getting in with your nonnative plants that require all sorts of special treatment and care because they're not indigenous to the area, and you start taxing natural resources and limiting survivability . MR. McNALL: Correct. The native plants are more sustainable and require less fertilizer and less water. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, one last question, then I'm going to go back to Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Henning whose lights are on. The Immokalee Master Plan, which is in the process of being drafted -- some day it will be done -- they can override this plan with their master plan, right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. If the board passes the Land Development Code for Immokalee, that's the code for Immokalee and this wouldn't pertain to it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm saying it out loud so anyone from Immokalee that's listening doesn't think that we're trying to sell them down the river as far as plantings go that they may wish to weigh mono Let's go back to -- let's go to Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just to -- something I learned when I served on the board of directors for the Botanical Garden, they were looking at two spots, one down here where they're located now and one at the far north end of Collier County. The difference is that at the far north end, they had to plant a completely different type of garden than they could down here because here they could grow more of the native vegetation and up north they had to put together a garden Page 32 October 11, 2007 that was more designed after -- after Orlando's climate. So that's just an answer to that. It has everything to do with the latitude, longitude, and weather and nothing to do with local -- you know, where you live. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Thank you for that, Commissioner Fiala. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. McNall, can you forward me the link to the different species in the different areas -- MR. McNALL: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- so I understand? I'm starting to get what you're trying to do here. Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: All right, Commissioners. Are we completed with this one? Okay. Well, Bruce is not out ofthe hot seat yet. We have on -- MR. McNALL: Three more. MS. F ABACHER: -- sheet G, page 99 in your book, an amendment that requests that we modify the prohibited invasive exotic plant list. And essentially, they've -- they're going to reference a website here, which is also carried as a printed list, but Bruce can answer any questions for you. MR. McNALL: Correct. We're -- what we're doing is we're trying -- is we're including all the plants on the -- all the category one invasive plants on the Florida Exotics Pest/Plant Council's exotic invasive plant list as being prohibited plants to be planted in Collier County . COMMISSIONER HALAS: Got it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I don't think there's any other comments or questions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Fiala, go ahead, please. Page 33 October 11, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it just talked about ficus hedge before, but number H is Ficus microcarpus. Is that the same thing? MR. McNALL: That's con -- that species -- that species is considered exotic. COMMISSIONER FIALA: This particular -- MR. McNALL: And that's a -- yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the ficus hedge, is that part -- I don't know what species. MR. McNALL: Ficus benjamina is okay. Ficus macrocarpus is an exotic. It's on the Florida Exotic Pest/Plant Council invasive list, , yes, ma am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just thought ficus was ficus. MR. SCHMITT: Ficus trees, honestly, don't survive too well in even a category two hurricane. That's our biggest problem. They'll just go right over. Very shallow root system, and extremely thirsty animals out there. I mean, they take a lot of water. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Other questions? MS. FABACHER: All right, Commissioners. We have one more for landscaping, and that is going to be on page 101 in your book and sheet G, and it's section 4.06.05(G), general landscaping requirements, and it is putting in more specific language on the provision of root barrier systems and a new graphic to kind of explain the concept. I'll let Bruce explain. MR. McNALL: Exactly. You explained it very well. What we're doing is we're adding a graphic for applicants to include on their plans to make it, you know, more -- more understandable and to prohibit the planting -- or to include this root barrier whenever you're planting a canopy tree too close to a sidewalk or building. MR. SCHMITT: You recall the incident we had up in Island Walk -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. Page 34 October 11,2007 MR. SCHMITT: -- where they had to go in and almost replant the entire -- the entire area. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, anything? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. That was from last time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's move. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Thank you. That's the last one. MR. McNALL: There's one more clarification. MS. F ABACHER: In the back, sure. MR. McNALL: Where we just added the buffer -- MS. FABACHER: Okay. MR. McNALL: -- exhibit. MS. FABACHER: Yeah, let's do that. MR. McNALL: That's on page 163. It's just a visual graphic like the root barrier graphic which helps applicants understand what a code-required hedge -- okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, that's great. MR. McNALL: Trying to make it more clear. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Questions, comments? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You got double -- I'm trying to figure out C, buffer C. Those are staggered trees? MR. McNALL: Correct. Those -- all the trees are code-required trees. That's a 10-foot height, inch and -- three-quarter inch caliber mlmmum. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Wasn't it -- I remember when the -- back in the '90s when a lot of this application was adopted for the landscaping and the enhancement. There was a requirement for a double row of hedges. That's -- I don't see that in this graphic. MR. McNALL: In the type C buffer? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not sure which one Page 35 October 11, 2007 calls -- MR. McNALL: What a type C is it's type B, which is 15-foot, but the type C is 20 feet wide. It has a double row of trees staggered. So it has twice the trees and the same amount of five-foot high, 10-gallon shrubs as the B. It's the heaviest -- it's the heaviest buffer that we have. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the hedge? Isn't there a requirement for a double row hedge? MR. McNALL: The only requirement for the double row hedge is for the type D buffer, and that's just a three-foot hedge. The type D is for right-of-way planting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see. I see. Thank you. MR. McNALL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions or comments? MS. FABACHER: All right. We're -- thank you, Bruce. Thank you for reminding me. Okay. We are going to move on now. We're going to have some engineering. We have John Houldsworth here for some adjustments of time zones. I'm going to be on sheet H of your summary sheets, and we'll start on page 107 in your book, and it's going to be section 10.02.04, establish a time specific within which final subdivision plats must be recorded after approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Oh, Stan's going to do it. Okay, sorry. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir (sic). Good morning, Commissioners. Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Review. We have two small changes to this. Weare putting in this statement, in B, 18 months from the date of approval of the final plat by the Board of County Commissioners, and farther down the page we're substituting a section that says, once approved by the board, the applicant shall submit the final plat for recording within 18 months. To transfer property they have to record the plat. We don't -- we would prefer, actually, that they built the Page 36 October 11,2007 infrastructure first before they recorded the plat as opposed to posting a bond. They bond the uncompleted improvements, and if they build the infrastructure first, the bond is smaller, or they can post the bond at the start of construction for the entire project and file the plat and start selling lots before the infrastructure is even built. So this -- this gives them 18 months after the approval in which to record the plat. We've had some that just hang out there forever. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Comments? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the board never sees the plat when they approve it. That's done administratively, right? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: As far as I know, the plat gets approved by the board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's never included in our packet. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The plat itself, the geometry? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The geometry is reviewed by staff and we submit something to you saying that the plat is -- has been reviewed and it's going to be recorded. You may not actually see the plat itself. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Should we? I mean, if we're going to approve it, shouldn't we see it? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We could show it to you; not a problem. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're approving plats based upon a zoning ordinance, right? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Based upon the Land Development Page 37 October 11, 2007 Code. MS. ISTENES: Which includes the subdivision regulations. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Uh, okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if it's -- if there's any deviations within the particular PUD zoning ordinance, that would be recorded on the plat? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It should be caught during the review and it should be recorded on the plat, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thanks. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. MS. F ABACHER: All right, Commissioners. The next one that Stan is -- it simply cross-references the provision that Stan just put in. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. F ABACHER: It's on page 109 and it references -- well, it says 270 days. It's the same thing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Let's see. Actually, I think -- I think I went out of order or they're out of order in the book. On page 114 is where you see the, add the requirement 270 days. That's the reference, the time limitations pursuant to section 1O.0203(B)(4)(a) on page -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're losing me. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. If you're on page 114. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, where's the reference in the -- MS. F ABACHER: That's on page -- it says page 111. Apparently the two files got switched. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I see. MS. F ABACHER: So I didn't want to put it on the record incorrectly. Page 38 October 11, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Page 114. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, I'm sorry. And so this one on page 114 just references the thing we just changed. Then if you go to -- if you go back, these two got switched. If you go back to page 111 and page 112, that's going to be your next one. Create a time limit for resubmittals of plats and plans consistent with SDP requirements, and that is on page 112, so -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. At the present time -- MS. F ABACHER: Just noticed that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: At the present time, if you're doing a Site Development Plan and you submit an application and we send you back our comments, you have 270 days to respond to us or the project goes dead, but we didn't include plans and plats in that requirement, so now we are. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Comments? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Go ahead, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's a great thing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Susan, I have a question for you. If a subdivision plat is approved by the board and years later they want to, let's say, tear down a parking lot and put in a park, does that require a subdivision plat amendment first before it's administratively approved? MS. ISTENES: It could. It could, depending on what they're changing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. If the board is approving plats and then recording them, how can it change if we don't do the plat amendment first? MS. ISTENES: If it requires a replat, then they have to come back through the same process and it would have to be approved by you. Page 39 October 11, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: What requires a replat? MS. F ABACHER: Changing lot lines. MS. ISTENES: Thanks. I know that. That's the obvious answer. I'm just trying to think of all other circumstances that might require it. The obvious answer is obviously a change in the boundary of the tract. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've answered my question. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Or the internal lot lines or the easements. MS. ISTENES: I'm trying to think of anything else that might necessitate a change in easement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I heard a lot line adjustment. MR. SCHMITT: No, those lot line adjustments -- MS. ISTENES: No. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If you're doing one lot, but if you're going to change -- MS. F ABACHER: Setbacks. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It depends on how major it is. MS. ISTENES: If you were actually taking a tract and subdividing it into more than two, you would have to come in for replat. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How is that determined? I mean, if you're changing anything in the plat, how is that determined that that can be done administratively? MS. ISTENES: The LDC outlines the requirements for platting and replatting requirements, so let me just try to provide an example. If somebody had a large tract and they decided they wanted to subdivide it and it had already been approved a previous plat as a single tract of a certain size and dimension and boundary, and if they triggered the requirements, they were then dividing that certain tract up into more than two lots or smaller tracts, then that would trigger the requirement to come in and amend their plat, and that is not Page 40 October 11, 2007 administratively approved. That's administratively reviewed and then brought to you for final approval as a replat. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if you -- if you create another lot, that can't be accepted as an administrative approval? MS. ISTENES: In some cases it can, and I'll use an --like an Estates example for -- let's say you have a five-acre tract in the Estates and the Land Development Code -- and somebody wanted to split that in half. They can do that administratively. Where they can't do that administratively -- and I'll try to provide another example -- is we get developments that come and build in phases, so they may have a plat that shows a tract divided into, let's say, 15 lots, and then the remainder in just large unsubdivided tracts, and then later they come in and want to subdivide those into another 15 lots so they can pull building permits and build, and they'll come in and do a replat of that tract. Again, not administratively approved. That comes back through you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. ISTENES: So it's very minimal what you can do administratively as far as dividing property through the subdivision regulations in the LDC. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And it can't affect property rights -- MS. ISTENES: Well, the-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that change? MS. ISTENES: -- subdivision has to be in -- the property boundaries as a result of a subdivision have to be compliant with the LDC and a PUD ordinance, for example. I think that's where you're gomg. I may use this opportunity to say, where we run into trouble and where there's a disconnect is people will go to the Property Appraiser's Office, for example, and they'll get a new folio number and they will sell off a portion of their property without coming either through the Page 41 October 11, 2007 administrative process to do that where we can review it to make sure what they're creating is consistent with the code -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. ISTENES: -- or through the subdivision process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's where we have the 1.7 -- 1.17 -acre lots in Golden Gate Estates. MS. ISTENES: Possibly as a result of that process, yes. People can -- there's no requirement for them -- well, let me put it this way. They're not being told that there's a requirement, when they go to the property appraiser to get a new folio number, that they have to comply with zoning requirements. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? No. MS. F ABACHER: All right, Commissioners. I'm on sheet J of your summary sheets. We're going to page 115 in the book. Section 10.02.05, submittal requirements for improvement plans. This was, I think, introduced by Tom Kuck, but Stan is going to stand in for him. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir -- ma'am. Sorry. Again, I think this is something that the board probably initiated in one of their conversations and Tom took to heart, was sometimes we have developers that are supposed to build portions of the drainage system off their project that serve the nearby neighborhoods, and they go in and they clear and they fill and they don't build a portion. They do everything at the same time. The purpose of this is to try to get them to do all the off-site improvements up front so that if their construction does cause any adverse impacts in the neighborhood, that there is someplace for the water to drain to. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you, Stan. Next one? MS. FABACHER: Okay. I think that's it for Stan. All right. The next one we're going to do is on section -- sheet J Page 42 October 11, 2007 in you summary sheet, and it's going to be on page 119, section 10.03.05, and it's to provide signage requirements for GMP site-specific amendments and small scale, and David Weeks is here to discuss it with you on page 119. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department. Presently Growth Management Plan amendments have different requirements, public notice requirements, than rezones, conditional uses, other types of petitions you deal with more regularly. You might recall that a few years ago, I think about five years ago, the county made a decision to change the public notice requirement that we put into the newspaper. State law requires a quarter-page ad. We made the decision to put in a full-page ad in the Naples Daily News. A little more recently, in 2005, we amended the Land Development Code to require these site-specific GMP amendments to hold a neighborhood information meeting. And now, taking it one step further to being closer to what the requirements are for those zoning petitions, this LDC amendment will require the posting of signs on the property to meet the same requirements as for those zoning petitions, that is the same size sign, the same number of signs based upon the dimensions of the property, et cetera. The amendment looks, perhaps, substantial when you see the amount of underlying -- underlined text. That's because we made a lot of, I guess you'd say, recodifications, shifted some things around, but the meat of the amendment is simply to require posting of signs for site-specific comprehensive plan amendments. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Comments? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next? MS. F ABACHER: The next would be -- let's see. Linda's not here. Maybe David will help us. It's on section -- it's on page 125. It's section 10.03.05, and this adds the requirement for a second Page 43 October 11, 2007 neighborhood informational meeting when a land use petition is continued for over a year from the initial NIM date. As you know something -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. MS. F ABACHER: -- will be for maybe years and people forget, and so -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. The only thing I might want to question is a year, you know. It almost seems like a year's a long time, but if the person comes back in 11 months, that's still a long time. Maybe -- let's see if Commissioner Henning wants to weigh in on this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, talking on the same issue but different topic. There's -- this is more than a change of time. It also is striking variances and parking exemptions and mixed-use projects. MS. F ABACHER: Actually, I'm going to let David address that because David was kind of instrumental in rewriting, in rearranging it. As you know, I want to preface it by saying that for many years now people have just added things and stuck them in and added things and stuck them in, and it's kind of chaotic so that we can't really -- it's not very clear. And so David had tried to arrange it. He didn't take anything out. He moved it to another area so that they could be not all bunched together. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what I see as striking in F on page 125, the first paragraph, you're taking out variance and parking exemptions and then adding mixed-use projects. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, there are some needed revisions to this for accuracy. I'm -- when I reviewed this just a few days ago, to make sure that they'd did incorporated all of the changes -- we always do that. Staff needs to review these before they come to you to make sure we've accurately reflected the CCPC recommendation and Page 44 October 11, 2007 so forth and see if there's anything we might have missed, you know, make sure these are in proper form. I did notice a few things. And starting with the very first page on 125 up on the staff report section where it identifies what the change is, that's not correct what is stated there. I think it's misleading. It was a goof. I think it goes back to the very first draft of this and what we were trying to do, and I believe it reflects, perhaps, a merger of two different separate and -- distinctly separate amendment. Rather than go on, let me make a suggestion that we pass this on till your next hearing because, Catherine, unless I'm mistaken, the version they have in their packet is -- does not reflect those revisions. MS. F ABACHER: Right. MR. WEEKS: Because, Commissioner Henning, you're hitting one of the points of one of the minor changes I had made, and that was, we need to not strike through variances and parking exemptions in the title of section F, because within the body of this text it is still there. We're not removing it. Furthermore, this is adding a requirement for neighborhood information meeting for the MUP petitions. It's not identified on the report section. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, can I ask you how the strikethrough got in -- on there in the variance and parking exemptions? MR. WEEKS: Well, to start with, it was because this section appeared not to have anything to do with that because it's talking about neighborhood information meetings, but yet if you go over to page 127, I believe it is -- I believe it's 127. At any rate there's a place within here that does make reference to the variances in parking exemptions. MS. ISTENES: 128 under 3, David. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three. Page 45 October 11, 2007 MR. WEEKS: My opinion is -- and remember, I'm a Comprehensive Planner, not a Zoner. And when I'm reading this, this section is dealing with neighborhood information meetings. This paragraph 3 about parking exemptions and variances doesn't belong under paragraph F that starts on page 125. But this is not something that just came about. This has been in the code for some time. I think it's an amendment for another day to move that out of this section. But back to the first question, Commissioner Henning, variances and parking exemptions, that term should not be stricken from the heading of this section because it is still within the body. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, should we have neighborhood meetings for variances and parking exemptions? Obviously somebody thinks not; otherwise, there wouldn't be a strikethrough. MS. ISTENES: I think it was just an error, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. ISTENES: It -- we were trying to rearrange it and it just -- it didn't get followed through, so -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I would concur. I think it was just a -- we just goofed. It's not a major issue, but we need to fix it, and we should do so -- MS. F ABACHER: Yes. MR. WEEKS: -- before this comes back to you in proper order. MS. FABACHER: We will fix it and bring it back to you; apologies. Okay. The next one is section 10.03.05, and it's on page 129 in your book. This is -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Section 10? MS. F ABACHER: 03.05, page 129, and this is to require that -- the mixed-use project approval, which currently goes only to the Page 46 October 11, 2007 Board of County Commissioners. This is to request that it go through the Planning Commission before it comes to the Board of County Commissioners. Let me say one thing. A couple issues involved here. When we originally conceived this mixed-use project, it -- they had asked us, the staff of the CRA, had asked us to find a way to make an abbreviated approval process instead of a thorough -- a complete rezone in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. So what we had come up with was that -- because the rules are all __ it's not like a PUD where you write your own rules. The rules are all stated in the overlays exactly where the building is, and so we thought that was a lot of guidance, that we didn't really need the Planning Commission or you to review a site plan. What we really needed you to do was to look at the uses and the intensity of the uses if we're going to mix residential and commercial and say, well, this is an outdoor bar. This won't fit here. That's it. Or you can't have this large shopping center next to this small neighborhood. It was that. And then the second issue was, there are 388 bonus density units that were obtained by rezoning the Botanical Gardens, and part of the CRA is to redistribute those as a bonus density for redeveloping and using mixed use. Now, just basically as a person familiar with government, you cannot administratively redistribute these. You need an elected body who's accountable to redistribute government resources to the people essentially. So are you very much needed to award those bonus density units. The review that we were -- you were asked to look at was just a conceptual plan. Nothing specific about setbacks, nothing like that. They're just going to show you a box and say, this is going to be a bowling alley and this is going to be townhouses and this is where they are. This is the piece of land. This is what's behind it, and you Page 47 October 11, 2007 were going to say, well, it looks okay to us. How many units do you want? Okay, you can have those units. That was going to be it. Unfortunately, we had -- we had growing pains in the very beginning of the process, and there were some things that weren't very clear. And I believe with one applicant they kept coming back and trying to override staffs interpretation and the way these things work, so it was a problem for you, but it was just with that one. And I -- I don't know how the CRA feels. But if you add this meeting, that's going go double the time that it takes to get approval on these projects. And as I said, you know, the Bayshore and the Gateway Triangle overlays are very specific. You have to be so far from the street. The sidewalk has to be so -- you know what I'm saying? They're very specific on how it has to be, so it's not a lot of leeway for someone to opine on, you know. But that's -- you had said this -- after you had a lot of problems with that one, you all had said, well, this probably needs to go to the Planning Commission. And it will -- you know, that will kind of double staffs time. And then if the Planning Commission wants to look at the -- we had set up a process with administrative deviations, but then if the Planning Commission wants to get into that and sometimes they want to get into issues of driveways and all, then that will just bring it up to full regular zoning again. And if it is an administrative deviation process, then if the Planning Commission weighs in, it's really not administrative but -- just to tell you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And have you spoken to the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA people themselves, and has the advisory board gone through this as well? MS. FABACHER: Well, they left. Page 48 October 11, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did they know it was on here? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, they did. I've spoken to them about it many times. They-- MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, at the last petition that came before you for the MUP, the board directed and gave very clear guidance that they wanted the MUP to go through the Planning Commission before it came to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: So they're well aware of this amendment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We like everything to do through the Planning Commission. We feel good about that. MR. SCHMITT: I think what Catherine was pointing out is the MUP was originally designed to be -- MS. F ABACHER: An incentive. MR. SCHMITT: -- a bit more streamlined. We ran into an issue on this fairly significant one with Bayshore. You directed it to go to the Planning Commission. We have no problem with that. We just want to make sure that that's your direction because originally when the MUP was set up, it was not meant to be that laborious of a process. But I think based on what the Planning Commission does and certainly the detail they've put into it, it's, frankly, not a bad idea. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's a great idea. I just wanted to know if the people that are involved with that process concur, and if they don't, if there's any adjustments. We still like it to go to the Planning Commission, don't get me wrong, but maybe there's __ maybe there's something they have to add to it. I would hope that by the next time we can hear from them. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, ma'am. I'll have David Jackson here for the next -- Page 49 October 11, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think every single commissioner is very supportive of it going to the Planning Commission, anything to do with land use items. There's never an argument on that. Never has been; never will be. Next? MS. FABACHER: All right. The next one is on sheet L of your summary sheet, it's very minor. Replace an incorrect -- it's on page 137 in your book. It's to replace an incorrect reference missed during recodification. Where am I? On page 137. If you look on the book on page 138, almost all the way down to the page, it referenced minimum yard requirements, it will referenced you to chapter 2.07.00. Well, those requirements are -- after recodification were put 4.02.01, so we're just-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: -- fixing that. The next one is on page 139 and that comes from compo planning, and it's section 2.03.07, overlay districts, D, the ST, special treatment overlay, and I believe David Weeks is going to address that Issue. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, this is the section of the Land Development Code pertaining to the original TDR program, that is the one that has been in existence since the 1970s. You're probably much more familiar with the rural fringe TDR program adoption in 2002. This TDR program here includes a -- an ability to transfer credits for hotel and motel units from the RT zoning -- or let's say to the RT zoning district. And every -- every text within this section of the code that deals with the transfer speaks to the transfer of residential units. Nothing is said about hotel/motel units yet it suddenly appears here in the table on page -- or on the list on page 140. My reading of this and my understanding of the TDR program is that it is not the intent to allow for hotel/motel units, which we view as Page 50 October 11, 2007 a commercial use, be transfer; therefore, this amendment is to delete any reference to the hotel/motel. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, if I may. What part of Collier County does this apply to? I'm not -- I remember this was one of the first TDRs that ever came up. My friend Nino Spagno put it together. But could you tell me at what part of the -- someplace around Marco Island, is it? MR. WEEKS: Well, it's now applicable to -- originally it was applicable throughout the county. It is now only applicable to the urban areas, urban designated areas of the county, unincorporated county . CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So that would be one mile east of951 ? MR. WEEKS: Roughly, yes, sir. And then seaward, Port of the Islands, Immokalee, Goodland, et cetera, but -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And forgive me for asking the question directly. This supposedly innocent little change, what exactly will it do? MR. WEEKS: Well, it will preclude someone's ability to transfer hotel/motel credits. I can tell you that I've been here 22 years. This TDR program has only been used once in that time period. That was around 1991, and that was to transfer residential units. To my knowledge, at least that long, and I'm not aware of it prior to that, that hotel/motel units ever have been transfer. So the possibility, yes, we're taking away a possibility but actual use, I don't think it's going to affect anyone. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we'll find out at the next -- the next meeting, ifthere's a number of people here in the audience. Speaking here of the audience, do you have any speaker slips for anybody? I see some people out in the audience. MS. FABACHER: No. I haven't received any. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If anyone wishes to participate, there Page 51 October 11, 2007 are speaker slips out in the hallway. If you'd be so kind as to get them and fill them out, and indicate on the agenda what it was you wanted to speak about. And as a matter of fact, I don't see any problem if there's something we already went on, if you still want to talk about it because this -- MR. MERCADO: I just want to ask a question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I tell you what. Fill out the speaker slip real quick and bring it back, and I'll make sure you get a chance to speak, sir. MR. MERCADO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue. Wait, hold it. We're at a break time. Let's take a lO-minute break, then we'll be right back. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll take a minute now and ask the speaker to come forward. Sir, you have three minutes. If you would, please, when you come up forward, state your name for the record. I hope that it's pertaining to what we're dealing with here today. But in any case, we're glad you're here. MR. MERCADO: No problem, appreciate it. My name is David. Good morning, by the way. My question is real basic. I'm here for my parents. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You're David. Your last name, David? MR. MERCADO: Mercado. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, yes. MR. MERCADO: I'm here for my parents. They've been living here for about three years already. We live in 3125 Everglades Boulevard North, right close to Oil Well. And their house is the only house built from 31 st all the way to Page 52 October 11, 2007 Oil Well. And we got some other landowners that have come to us and asked us, why can't they -- not built (sic). Their house is there. They were not given permits to build there. And that's my question, why not? I mean, what's the reason behind it? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know, sir. I'll tell you what though, it's not the business that we're dealing with here at hand today, but what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask you to get with Joe Schmitt. He's the gentleman that can get you to the right staff people and the answer. And then if you'd like to -- if you don't like the answer that you get, I would like to invite you to come back at a regular commission meeting, which is on the second and the fourth Tuesday of every month. MR. MERCADO: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And at that point in time we'll give you the paperwork, and you can either come at the beginning of the meeting under public petition for a 10-minute span to be able to discuss your particular situation, or you can come at the end of the meeting where you'll have three minutes that you'd be able to bring it forward. If you want to make it a public petition, you have to file two weeks before. MR. MERCADO: Okay. The reason behind it is, because I've heard from some people that actually work in the government and the county that it has been rezoned to commercial and -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no. It has not been rezoned to commercial. That much I can tell you. But for the rest of it, I need you to refer to community services. And do me a favor, after you get the answers that you're looking for, I want you to come back to me and tell me what you found out and what questions remain, and then we'll see about getting you scheduled to come before the Board of Commissioners, okay? MR. MERCADO: Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much for Page 53 October 11, 2007 being here. Yeah, we've got about another, oh, 20 minutes or so. Joe can take you out in the back of the room there and go over that with you now, but before you do walk away, Commissioner Fiala-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I was just going to suggest that he talk to you, too, because a lot of times it's a misunderstanding. People will interpret things one way, but actually -- when you actually come out, maybe there was a stumbling block there and they didn't realize it isn't they that was being refused, but maybe some kind of a situation or something. And a lot of times you're able to just ferret all that stuff right out. So I'm glad you suggested him -- he getting ahold of you, too. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just one little minor point that you mentioned about where you live and everything. That's the possible area of an interchange in the future down there at Everglades and 75, and there's going to be forces there that are going to want that area to be able to go commercial. As far as I'm concerned, that's not going to happen. You can tell them to leave you alone. MR. MERCADO: They already approved to expand the roads, so I mean, they've taken 70 feet in the front of the house and 30 feet towards our house to make the road four way. They're making -- the road is already being changed to a four-way road, four lanes, so -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm a little lost. But let Joe start with that end, and we'll get the other questions of transportation and we'll get back to you on them. And then at that point in time, if a problem exists, I'll show you how to access the system. That's my job to do that. MR. MERCADO: No problem. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. MR. MERCADO: Take care. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioner. We're going to continue on page 141. That is on sheet M of your summary sheets, section 2.03.07. Again, special treatment overlay, Page 54 October 11, 2007 ST, and this is an amendment to change the requirement for -- to change -- to ask for a title opinion. It just said a title search. And if you're on page 142, the language formerly said title search, but now they're requesting a title opinion be provided before they can sever the TDRs to be sure that they can do that. And then the second addition is they've -- adding an affidavit, and I believe Joe Thompson had told me that this was an approved -- this is something that had gone before the board, before you all, and you had approved it, and that's the kind of document that you would like for that exchange. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, do you have something to add? I'm sorry. Your light was probably on from before. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was, although I can ask, what's the difference between opinion and a search? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Ask the question. Move the mike a little closer. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's the difference between an opinion and a search? MS. ISTENES: I'll defer to Jeff Klatzkow. It's more of a legal question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Title -- title opinion is more often signed by an attorney stating that I have reviewed the title and I hereby opine that it is such and such and such. A title search typically would come out and it would simply say, this is what we found, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. What -- when somebody does -- wants to purchase a piece of property, do they do a title search -- have a title company do a title search? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if I'm buying a house, I'm getting a Page 55 October 11, 2007 title search and I'm getting title insurance. If you're just looking at vacant property out there, you don't want to go through that expense; you might be happy just with the title search, then you can go through it and see if there's anything there that would bother you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's -- in the title search that's reported ifthere's any encumbrance on the property, right? MR. KLATZKOW: Any recorded encumbrance, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So in a title -- or a title opinion, there's -- what's the difference? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, there's -- a title opinion would have often an attorney saying, I've gone -- I've done a title search and I've reviewed everything and it's my opinion that, for example, there are no conservation easements on this or what have you. It's just one step more than a title search. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, a title search that a title company does, it just looks for mortgages or liens against a property? MR. KLATZKOW: Right, but they're not giving you an opinion. MS. ISTENES: It's probably more -- and, Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just going to throw this out here. It's probably more advantageous to have an opinion if you -- if you go back later and discover that something through your title search was not uncovered that should have been, and you had a legal -- somebody legally reviewing it giving the opinion. I suppose you could probably go back and seek retribution or what have you, damages or what have you against that individual. I don't know. I'm just, based on my personal experience, suggesting that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So in a title opinion, you're going to be -- the staff is going to, then from this LDC amendment, require what's in the title opinion, correct? MR. KLATZKOW: If the title opinion is such that we wouldn't believe that a TDR is possible, then you wouldn't get it. I mean, that's Page 56 October 11, 2007 really what you're looking for. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we talk about other things, Mr. Chairman, about TDRs? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If it's related to where we are on this, of course. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's due to discovery about TDRs, and the board had a discussion at the last meeting about previous petitions to the Board of Commissioners, so it has everything to do with it. And Mr. Klatzkow, in that discussion, based upon what was said in the public record, would you have changed your mind on your opinion in supporting staff? MR. KLATZKOW: I think -- my general opinion is this, that if you have a -- if you're going to sever development rights from a parcel, that parcel has to be developable. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Based upon the email you sent me, you said, I sat down with staff, carefully reviewed the TDR program, and was advised that only legal developable lots were entitled to credits. And, of course, we've seen that different and attested to it. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we had a petitioner come in and show different lots up on the viewer, and some of these lots appear to be non-developable due to route systems. To be fair to staff, I'd like to sit down with staff and go through each and every one of them because you get hit with something on the fly and it's difficult to respond. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Try it at our seat. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I understand. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, would you give a little more detail for the people that are listening out there. You and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what happened was at our last meeting a gentleman wanted a TDR for his 10-foot strip, Page 57 October 11, 2007 three-plus acres lot. And the email I received from Mr. Klatzkow said it was his opinion or he was told that development credits or TDR credits are not for undevelopable lots. And it was presented to us and verified by staff that actually that was wrong. They did issue credits for lots that are not buildable because they had road easements -- is the one that I particularly remember. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. And that's -- again, you'd have to go -- I think what it identified, something like 150 potential lots out there that were nonconforming. I think you want to go through those to see how many possibly developable, possibly not developable, but the real issue was -- and again, it's difficult for you too. You get hit on the visualizer saying -- somebody's saying, well, look at this lot here. They gave severance credits for that and you can't develop it. And I don't know if you could develop it or not. I just don't know. MR. SCHMITT: I can add, they are deemed -- at that time they were legally nonconforming lots. And Jeff is correct, those lots that were shown, there is, frankly, no way to know if they could be built on or not. But by the code and by the rural fringe mixed-use district overlay, if they're a legally nonconforming lot and are of the size and they can come in and present a plan to build a home with the proper setbacks, they could build on those lots. It's any lot of record after '74 that is legally nonconforming, you can build on, and that is pretty much -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What was the commission's instructions at the meeting when this issue came up? MR. SCHMITT: The instructions are, we're to come back to you to present to you a snapshot of how many lots are out there that are illegal lots and come back to you with options on how to deal with those. If you want to amend -- if it requires an amendment to the GMP and LDC, to define to you how long in the process it would Page 58 October 11,2007 take. So that's our instructions. We're doing research now to determine how many lots are out there that fall in that category that are illegal lots, how many of these legally nonconforming lots are out there, to find some options for you, and define the pros and cons of those options, and you give us direction on how to proceed. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: County Attorney, is there anything that, the discussion today, that we should add to those instructions? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think there's an issue; have we ever given somebody a TDR credit on a lot that could not be developed? I just don't know the answer to that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And that was your understanding based upon your support of that executive summary. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. My understanding was that we're only issuing TDRs for developable lots. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that will-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, that totally changes things, Commissioner. We're talking non -- illegal nonconforming lots versus developable lots. So I mean, that -- it gives a whole new parameter on it. Mr. Ochs, do you have something to add? MR. OCHS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you sure? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's just -- my concern is that everybody gets the correct information. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I couldn't agree more with you, and you'll have this item coming back to you, and I'm sure that we'll include every parameter that was just mentioned here today in that so that we can fully explore it and have the -- by then I'm sure the County Attorney's Office will have some clearer understandings of it or -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. I have a pretty good understanding Page 59 October 11,2007 why we're doing the program. The question is, I don't have a list of the lots that we gave TDR credits for, whether or not they're developable. I assume staff has that list and staff can tell me whether or not that lot could have been developed. MR. SCHMITT: But when the plan was passed, the premise was that any legally nonconforming lot that could be developed on, and it's presumed that any legally nonconforming lot could be developed, and that area was -- is eligible for a TDR. That was the sense of making it fair. Whether they come in and demonstrate that, we can put a house, that was not in the criteria. So it's presumed that a legally nonconforming lot is developable. And if you want us now to go back and look and see how many of those legally nonconforming lots could actually be developed, we'll do that as well. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's just poll the commission real quick. Would you like to include that in the instructions we gave the other day? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the county attorney needs to be involved in this. When we're told that a legally nonconforming lot can be built on, you know, I mean, that's -- you're saying it's nonconforming but you could build on it. MR. SCHMITT: It's nonconforming, Commissioner, in that it's not -- it's less than five acres. It's one unit per -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand, but in any case, this is going to -- it's not something that we're going to change within the -- what's in front of us today. There's no wording in here that we're going to be changing that's going to reflect it, and we also have this coming back to us. So if we need to make some changes at that time, we can. I think that we need to just move on with this right now, come back to this issue when it comes back to us, and deal with it. I know that we gave instructions to staff to bring this issue back to us, and I'd Page 60 October 11, 2007 like to hear it in its full extent at that time. I don't think we're going to be able to solve the issue here today. Is there anything else to discuss pertaining to the LDC change that you have in front of you right now? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's move on to the next item. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Commissioners, I'm on sheet M of the summary sheets, and we're going to go to page 145 in the book. It's the same area. We're talking about TD (sic) credits again. And if you look on page 146, staff is asking that a letter of credit be substituted for a performance surety bond. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, we'll go ahead and move on. MS. F ABACHER: Page 147, the next page in your book. This is not the Goodland Zoning Overlay change that we've heard so much about. This is a simple correction. The provisions for -- I think it's some sheds, storage sheds. It's on the bottom of page 149 -- were identified as being located on Bayshore Drive when actually the street is called Bayshore Way in Goodland. It confused the staff, because they said, well, this should be in the BMUD, so -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, move on. MS. FABACHER: Okay. If you'd turn your page to 151, this is a request, 2.03.07, overlay zoning district, K. Activity center nine does have specific design standards. They are located in section 4.02.23. This is not referenced; therefore, people couldn't find them, so we wanted to make sure. So that's what we're doing is letting them know that there are specific design standards on another section of the Page 61 October 11, 2007 code. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Our next one is going to be another really simple one. It's on page 153. Turn to page 154. It's an incorrect reference. I'm looking at AI, North Belle Meade overlay exemption, except as specifically provided herein, and BML receiving lands are only subject to the provisions of sections 2.03.08, and it should be C instead ofD. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Move on, please. MS. FABACHER: All right. Next one I'm going to have David help me with. We've -- next one is going to be on page 155, and what it is corrections to the density standard table, eliminate errors and corrections to footnotes. And I want to say that with the help of -- it was DSAC; wasn't it, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MS. FABACHER: We started with a small change on this page, and they said, it's really hard to read. Can't we redo it? So we've completely kind of rearranged things, and I think it's easier to read now just to be consistent. But David might -- if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, it's the underlying check marks that have been changed and the underlying -- well, the only thing that has been -- what's been changed on 155? MR. WEEKS: Nothing. That's the staff report portion. The actual text changes begin on page 156, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So 156 is some of the check marks, and then 157, it's the underlying part under, two, starting off with density. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Number 3, maximum. MR. WEEKS: One of the things, if you look in the right-hand column of the table, you'll see a lot of changes there. Weare not Page 62 October 11, 2007 changing the density. We are just changing how we refer to it. For example, beginning under the ago A zoning district, the old one said -- had 1/5, one-fifth, one per five acres. We've changed that to be .2 units per acre, and then parenthetically, one unit per five acres. It simply makes it read consistently with the heading of the column, which is labeled as the maximum density, parenthetically, units per gross acres, so that we consistently identify the number of units per acre. But when you get to those fractional units, as in the ago zoning district and the Estates, which both allow less than one unit per acre, that's something that people aren't used to dealing with. We don't usually deal with .2 and .44, et cetera, units per acre. So we parenthetically explain what that means. One unit per five acres, one unit per 2.25 acres, cetera. A lot of strikethrough and underline, but it's just for consistency and, we believe, clarification. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before you go on, Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Is there anyplace that refers to these codes to -- what is MHO, so that if -- excuse me -- Mr. Homeowner is looking in there he can understand? MR. WEEKS: Yes, there is. In an earlier section of the Land Development Code, the acronyms are identified with the zoning districts and overlays. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, part of this is just making some corrections. I'll draw your attention, as an example, on page 156 you'll see a check mark in the column for multifamily development by the RMF-6 and RMF-12 zoning districts. Page 63 October 11,2007 Well, those districts have allowed multifamily uses since they were created. I suspect this was an omission going back to the recodification in 2004. Again, it's just a minor correction. And then the footnotes have been significantly expanded. We've added a lot of footnotes to the table, again, for clarification. There were, in many cases, I would say needed footnotes from the past, and now we've added them. I think it makes it much more clear to the reader what the densities are, what the circumstances are, as to how to use this table. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: All right. I think that's -- we've got another one in new a minute, David, but I wanted to do the environmental. We're on summary sheet P and we're page 159 in your book. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, of course, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just go back for a second. As I was looking at the 26 units per acre for hotels and motels -- and we've had some problems, especially in the Vanderbilt area, where they were saying they were building a hotel, but they were really building a condo but using the density that they would get for a hotel. Is there any definition that can -- that can -- I know we have definitions and you have to have the front desk and you have to have so many things. But is there anything to keep them a little more honest or -- like, you know, to really, really know that -- you know, it has to be so much rental bays and everything? Is there anything to more clearly define that, or have we just left it at that and -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's been an RT overlay zoning there in Vanderbilt Beach, and I believe that's covered in there now, in the R T zoning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, but what about the rest of the county? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the -- about the only area Page 64 October 11, 2007 that's got RT zoning that I know of, unless they have it down in Marco. MS. ISTENES: There's -- I think where you're going, Commissioner -- and I'll attempt to answer it. There are no regulations that I'm aware of in the Land Development Code that govern time as far as, when does something become a hotel versus a permanent facility or condominium, and I guess that's pretty much all I can add. There's a -- it's not very clear, and we do have individuals that come in that have ownership of hotel rooms, for example, and they have the -- they have a front desk and the rooms are available to rent for people on a weekly or daily basis, however, it's a little bit of a hybrid in that there's ownership of the rooms. So -- I'm probably not answering your question very well, but probably not because the code isn't -- doesn't draw really strong distinctions between those, so you end up getting mix-ups between the two. And not mix-ups in a bad way, but they're just commingling of uses, I would describe it as. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. It's kind of hard to tell one or the other, and you can't just vote on something because you have a feeling. MS. ISTENES: The code is weak. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I saw that happening around Goodland. Not in Goodland, but yet in Goodland, but it was in the Marco Island portion of Goodland where they did the same thing again with a 10-story building right at the other side of the bridge, and I -- and so I was just wondering, is there anything that we have that's more definitive, but -- MS. ISTENES: The code is very weak in that area, and if the board wishes to look at that further, it probably would necessitate an LDC amendment, and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm all about definitions lately, so-- Page 65 October 11, 2007 MS. ISTENES: I understand. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know. You guys feel the same way? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good, thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, yep. MS. F ABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's move on. MS. FABACHER: Let's move on. We're on page 159, and it's going to be section 3.03.02, page P of your summary sheet. And what it's doing -- what this amendment is asking is to remove the reference to the outdated CZM plan that was replaced in 1993 when the BCC incorporated those elements into the LDC, so -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. And the next one, if you turn the page, on 161, it's another reference change from --let's see. What page is it on? Yeah, it's on the back page, 162, and it said 5.06.03, and actually they want to say 5.06.00. Okay? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yep. MS. F ABACHER: The next one is -- we did. That's the table of buffer yards. On page 167, and this is section 4.06.05, general landscaping on page Q of your summary sheet. And staff had made up a really nice-- well, if you turn to page 170, you'll see there's some graphics there, and it says, alternative A, alternative B, and these are perimeter berm graphics and alternatives. It's alternative treatments for how to do your berm. You can -- and in the chart -- this was the last cycle or the cycle before -- I'm back on page 168. If you look on the box that tells you what to do, if your slope is steeper than one-to-one, it says, retaining vertical wall, CBCD below, also see alternative. And it just said alternative B below, but someone called to our attention that alternative A would Page 66 October 11, 2007 also work for a vertical retaining wall, so it's just kind of a scrivener's error, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the asterisk? It's on 168 going down the -- MS. F ABACHER: I think somebody just had that as a bullet. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bullet point, in the little box there. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Yeah. I think they just used it as a bullet. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a reference mark for something that was supposed to be below. MS. F ABACHER: No, you're right. I'll have them change that to a solid bullet. Thank you. Okay. And then on page 171, we're going into the architectural and site design standards, and it's, again, a minor reference change. I'm on page 172. I'm looking at section III. It says, upon repainting existing buildings, the color to be applied must comply with section 5.05.08(C) (13), not D, materials and colors. Sometimes, you know, we fool with these sections and we forget that we move it up and down and numbers change, and we try to -- I try to make everybody remember to run that reference to make sure. This is what happens when you don't. Okay. The next page is 173, and this is really to cross-reference the littoral planting shelf area signs and preserve signs to the signs section of the code. So if you see on page 174, they're just adding those signs so that the sign code has every sign, and these are signs that just go in the preserves and on the manmade lakes. Our next page is 175. And this, again, is -- it's the very same thing. If you turn to page 176, they're citing section 1.04.04, which is that section on a take where you can modify your property boundaries and your signs and -- if you're in a take. So that's what it's referencing. B instead of C. You know, if you -- if we do a take, you don't have to if you're Page 67 October 11, 2007 not redeveloping. If you're not meeting your setbacks, you don't have to move your building. But if you go to redevelop, say, and that has to do with landscaping, it also has to do with signage. You know, we take right-of-way for a road to make it less hard, but if you want to go and redevelop, then you do have to, but we're not making it hard on you because you're not the right distance because we took your land. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. Let's move on. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Page 177, and this -- unfortunately, it's, once again, another little reference change. If you look on page 178, instead of 1.04.04(C), it should be 1.04.04(B), the reference. Okay. On page 179 we have the same -- the same thing. On page 180 it says, it formerly said section 5.06.04(A) of the Land Development Code, and now it's just going to say 5.06.04 of the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. FABACHER: These are so minor, I'm almost embarrassed. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, part of-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: A good change. MS. FABACHER: Yeah. And then we're on page 181, and there was a whole section that we found that -- if you go to 182, it still -- it keeps referencing article 6, which is the chapter where the definitions used to be in the old code, and they're now in section 1.08.02, and I guess this was missed during recodification. So we're just correcting that. Okay. And then on page 183, this is for environmental. And if you look on page 184, the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission apparently changed its name many years ago to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, so we're just correcting agency names. Almost done. On page 185. This is from code enforcement. And what happens is, is if someone loses their -- for some reason a Page 68 October 11, 2007 preserve is destroyed, you know, a fire or they're building something and they accidently take out part of the preserve, then what the county does is they have to come in through code and get a mitigation plan to replant and so forth, and then code continues to monitor that for -- at present, code continues to monitor those for five years to make sure that the plants get established and the county gets back the preserve area that they once had. Well, code is asking, because they have so many of them open after five years, they're asking to make -- change that to be two years monitoring, and then if it looks like more monitoring is needed, they'll bump it to five. But right now they have a lot of open cases sitting around that people have to go around and look at that it's really not necessary . CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. FABACHER: I think their argument was, is most of the material gets established in two years enough to know, I mean, that it's going to be established. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning has a question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It was answered. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Please continue. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Now we're on page 187, and Stan asked me to do this. It's corrections to these flow charts that explain the type of process that we use. So if you're looking on page 189 -- and this came from the County Attorney's Office that we be consistent and change it because it's not a method we do anymore, so these were updated. So I guess that final plat is not a type two application, so that has been removed. If you look on page 190, that's how it's to read. This is just updating these flow charts in the book. And then if you look on page 192, this is a type three application, Page 69 October 11, 2007 and we really don't do a -- you see on the left-hand side of the flow chart on page 192 where preliminary plats is scratched out and the hearing by the Planning Commission, you know, we have kind of gone away from the preliminary plat process. I mean, you can do it informally, but we don't have a formal process, so we're taking that out, and on the next page you'll see that we've taken that out and we've just put the hearing by the Planning Commission. We've kept that. MS. ISTENES: Catherine, it looks like on the bottom the preliminary plats wasn't taken out of just the title. I see that it's taken out of the process. MS. F ABACHER: Yes. MS. ISTENES: Do you see this? MS. FABACHER: Yes. MS. ISTENES: Is that-- MS. F ABACHER: That's correct. It's the County Attorney's Office. MS. ISTENES: Oh, it's correct that it's in there? MS. F ABACHER: Yeah. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Planning Commission made some recommendations. Is that changes included into our book? MS. F ABACHER: I think this -- yes, this follows what's in the book, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Planning Commission made some recommendations on page V as in Victor. MS. F ABACHER: Uh-huh. To put them back in? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Planning Commission has been removed in all petitions. Please correct illustration number 3. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then you stated that. And then bring back September 6th with graphic illustration how each type Page 70 October 11, 2007 of lot is measured, i.e., cul-de-sac corner and all through lots. MS. ISTENES: I think you're jumping to the next item on 195. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. But as far as the Planning Commission direction on what we're looking at on page 193, if you look at the flow chart on 193, the very left-hand side of where it starts to branch out, you'll see hearing by Planning Commission, and then variance, conditional use. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was strucken. MS. F ABACHER: No. That was -- well, when we struck it out over here, I think it was wrong to begin with. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see. MS. F ABACHER: But when they took the Planning Commission out of the preliminary plat, they accidently removed it from the whole thing, and quite upset the Planning Commission to see that they had been dropped out of the process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying at page 193 is the correct chart? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Got it. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: The next one that we're going to go to is on page 195, and this is returning the definition of a lot width measurement. This one's been around a long time. We're not talking -- we're talking about the -- not how we determine the setback. We're talking about how to measure the lot width simply, and this would be by the cord method. I think we had a conversation before, the difference between measuring from the cord and measuring from the front lot line -- the front of the lot line. So this does not have anything to do with setbacks. The Planning Page 71 October 11, 2007 Commission has asked us to do a separate workshop to look at how we determine setbacks. That is not in this cycle. That's to be in the future. But what this does is just show you how, when you don't have just a rectangular lot, it's not always easy to figure out where your setback is if your lot's not rectangular. So this is basically for cul-de-sacs. And if you look at the figure on page 197, it shows you where they established the cord, and then they took the setback distance, and then they're to measure horizontally or left to right from that point to get their width, okay. And that's from the old code. We're putting it back in. We do still have an outstanding issue when we set the setbacks as to whether we're going to use the cord or a radius instead of -- you know what I'm talking about? The property line. That discussion is still to be had. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. That's one of the things, I think, we really need to address, especially when you have a lot on a cul-de-sac and you have a radius involved. That can lead to some problems, some questions. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, it can. It can lead to your front yard being in the street. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do have a question myself, too. Looking at the figure 10 on page 197, it says the back -- the setback distance and it shows E to F as the line going across. Wouldn't that be determined by -- I mean, it would be a minimum setback, but I mean, if they wanted to build a house back farther in the lot, would that setback line still -- I mean not -- the distance still apply or would a new distance be picked up to where they're actually going to build the house? Page 72 October 11, 2007 MS. FABACHER: Well, that -- the setback distance does not indicate that this is a setback, no. Once we determine if we're going to use the cord method or just the property line to determine the setback, then the setback may move back. If we use the cord method, this is where it would stay. If we use the property line method in another arc, then it would be moved back slightly. I think I'm answering your question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the Planning Commission is -- still wants to discuss this further? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And then we'll be able to get some direction from them. MS. FABACHER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Because they're our authority when it comes to land development items. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, I think we're -- it's really easy to mix these up, but it's kind of two different issues here. We've got setback issues and we've got lot width issues, and I think that's what Catherine was trying to explain. And right now we're just replacing the old lot width measurement definition that was left out of the previous code, but the Planning Commission has asked us to come back and revisit the way we measure setbacks, and that may change, obviously, through an LDC amendment, depending on your wishes, but we're going to workshop that with them first and then come back with you through an LDC amendment. I think you may have asked also -- you were asking about setbacks. They're minimum, so if somebody wanted to set back further, they could certainly do that. I'm not sure -- I thought that's what I heard you asking as well, so I just wanted to answer that if that was -- if I was reading you correctly. Page 73 October 11, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate your input. I really do. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, please move on. MS. FABACHER: Okay. The next one on page 199 is returning an old definition that was lost through recodification. It's on page 200 and it's a definition of a two-family dwelling. And we need to return this because under our code you have to have three townhouses or more. You can't have two townhouses, so that kind of, except for a duplex, you couldn't really build two condos side by side, so we fixed that by returning the two-family dwelling. Exact -- verbatim from the old code. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. And the next one's on page 201, and it's another definition returning that got lost in recodification, a minor subdivision. Same language it always was. And if you turn to page 203 -- actually, Mr. Strain, the planning chair, asked that we return the definitions of lot corner -- interior lot, corner lot, and I think it's through lot. Yes. MS. ISTENES: Catherine, what were the recommendations of the board? I just -- I see our chart's missing that information. MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. MS. ISTENES: I'm pretty sure they were for-- MS. F ABACHER: Oh, no, they all voted to unanimously -- MS. ISTENES: Approve it. I mean, it's just adding back what was. It's not really a change. MS. FABACHER: Yeah. Yes, I'm sorry. I left that out. It was all unanimous to recommend. In fact, but on this other one, on the comer lots and the interior lots, they said at some point they'd like to see some illustrations to better explain. MS. ISTENES: And last? MS. F ABACHER: Is there one left? Page 74 October 11, 2007 MS. ISTENES: Yes, the tables. MS. F ABACHER: Oh, pink book, pink book, sorry. How can I forget? MS. ISTENES: Can I -- you're doing a great job, by the way, and happy birthday, Catherine. To embarrass you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What a way to spend your birthday. MS. FABACHER: Forty-one again. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Congratulations. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've been there a few times. MS. FABACHER: Have you? It's a lovely place to stay. MS. ISTENES: I'm going to quickly just go through this, because one point I want to make is this -- we are taking our tables -- our list of uses that are in tabular form, and we are returning them to a list form. And we've put them in a tabular form as a result of the recodification of the code at the advice of our consultant who said it would make it earlier and would compress the code -- the volume of the code. They were right in one circumstance; it compressed the volume of the code. It did not make it easier for our users of the code, especially folks that come to our front counter that want to know what uses they can use in the zoning district. We have to copy multiple pages for them, and it is very, very confusing and time consuming, both from a staff perspective and a public perspective. We kind of polled our users of the code, including our public users, and they were supportive of returning the text back to tabular -- not a tabular format. A list format. And so that's what we're doing here. Do you have anything else to add to that? MS. FABACHER: Well, I would like to say, too, that you can't find it on municode -- if you do use the computer, like a lot of the consultants do -- and municode says that the tables are too large to put on their site so-- , Page 75 October 11, 2007 MS. ISTENES: So we don't even have it available on-line. MS. F ABACHER: It can't even be accessed, so it's very difficult. I also wanted to say that staffhas kind of been using this side by side with the tables for the last few months, and they keep coming and saying, my God, your tables are totally right. I looked in the -- here and I thought it was wrong, and I looked to your pink book, and everything was the way it was supposed to be. So it's been a long time working on it. I want to thank John Kelly, because he did an amazing job, but that Mark Strain commended us on the job, so -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And rightly so. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good job. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we also removing the table? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The information in green, comparable uses may be determined provided per subsection 10 -- MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- .02.02(F) where administrative discretion is permitted or pursuant to 10.08. That is throughout the book. I remember that we removed that from the Land Development Code. We didn't want to have any discretionary items within the -- and especially the commercial subdistricts. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And now we're putting it back in? MS. F ABACHER: Well, what we're doing is, I believe -- and I don't know about discretionary. But I think that if you have a permitted -- if you have a use and it is not listed and you think it's a comparable use, the method of doing that now is to really go to the zoning director and ask if this is a comparable use, and the zoning Page 76 October 11, 2007 director says, yes, no. If the zoning director says no, then you go to the BZA and you appeal that opinion. That's the formal process. MS. ISTENES: The formal-- there's two formal processes. One is through a conditional use and one is through an official interpretation. MS. FABACHER: I was going to do that next. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. F ABACHER: So then the other one is -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's actually -- doesn't say official interpretation under F; request for interpretation. That's what it says under 1O.02.02(F), request for an official interpretation. MS. ISTENES: That's what that means. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or request for an interpretation. The interpretation may be required, an effective person, resident, development, land owner, blah-blah-blah. The official interpretation is another process. MS. ISTENES: Do you want us to put the word official there to clarify? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I don't want it to be in there at all. I don't want this to be in there. The board codified any of those other uses that may be comparable or compatible. This -- what it says is, comparable uses may be determined provided by the subsection in 10 where the administrative discretion is permitted. MS. ISTENES: I'm at a disadvantage because I didn't-- unfortunately I didn't bring that other book, so -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: What other book? MS. ISTENES: You have two books and I've only got the one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you want to use mine? MS. ISTENES: My fault. Can I look at it? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile, while we're waiting for Susan to go over the wording, was this vetted in front of the Planning Page 77 October 11, 2007 Commission? Did they have a discussion on it. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And they agreed to leave it this way? MS. F ABACHER: Yeah; yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I talked to Mark Strain about this recodification, and I -- and Mark is pretty good. And he said that he didn't -- he wouldn't have time to do all the research to see if the recodifications are correct. But I specifically remember -- and it was because of an accessory use of a parking lot in Golden Gate, the board amended the Land Development Code to remove those comparable uses as determined by the zoning director. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? Maybe we should send this back to the Planning Commission for further definition. Because, you know, they did spend some time on it, they did get into discussion, and I really value their input on this. And I appreciate the fact you had a sidebar conversation with him, but -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's going to happen, we're going to have more Stevie Tomato's, more other uses, and what we ought to do is give the zoning director the ability to turn down uses that are not compatible to the adjacent property, just like we do when we do a zoning ordinance; they make that determination. MR. KLA TZKOW: You will see that this cycle, sir. We're just wrapping it up. We'll have it before the Planning Commission at their next meeting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that would be -- that would be conflicting. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me. MS. ISTENES: The previous language that existed way back when purely allowed for administrative discretion without going through any formal process and that was -- that was removed. This is -- is different because it requires -- and actually this is found in the Page 78 October 11, 2007 conditional use process under number 23. But I'm not going to belabor it at this point only because it's been a little while since I've looked at this. If you don't mind, could I take a further look at it back at the office and kind of contemplate it a little bit more, and we could have further discussion on it? I understand your concern. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you tell me -- can you tell me or email the commissioners where that codification took place? And -- MS. ISTENES: Where the text was removed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. When, where and -- MS. ISTENES: When? That will take me a little while to research -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the zoning ordinance. MS. ISTENES: -- but certainly, yes. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe you can ask the person who put that language in there. MS. FABACHER: Well, here she is. Here she is. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. FABACHER: I just -- I'm trying to recall how that got in there, but there's no problem taking it out. It could have been language that we carried forward from when we copied the stuff originally from the old code. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And see, that's my concern is, over the years the board has changed things in there. So my concern is, are we putting them all back in there? MS. F ABACHER: No. Yes, sir. Can I just say that we can strike administrative discretion. All we want to do is point you to the request for the interpretation process, which isn't really administrative discretion. It's a process where you have a use, you don't see it listed, but you think it's a compatible use or of the same nature, then under Page 79 October 11, 2007 12.02.02(F) you can request an interpretation, and then after you're requesting interpretation from the zoning director, then you don't maybe agree, you don't like what she says or he says, then you go to the BZA, and they make the final call on it. MS. ISTENES: Well, I'm sorry to belabor this but it is -- that is quasi administrative meaning if nobody appeals my decision, then it doesn't go any farther and it's final. So if the board's concern is that I'm making decisions unilaterally that they don't want me to make, then it would be proper to remove that ability. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I thought we did. So that brings up my second concern. How did we verify when things were removed over the zoning ordinances either by mistake or on purpose? How did we -- how did we see when -- on this recodification that that was actually removed because of board direction? MS. FABACHER: Well, part ofthe process and why you have all the colors is we went back and looked at all of these different ordinances. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: And if we pulled from that ordinance or we changed something from that ordinance, then that's what the color code means. So, you know, perhaps that was changed formerly in the LDC, in the old one, but perhaps we picked up a bit of phrasing that didn't get changed because, you know, like with those references we were looking at, you make a change, but sometimes it doesn't get all the way made through there. So I mean, we can -- I think at this point we can do whatever you want to do. You want to strike that or -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to feel good that what -- the other stuff that we're going to pass is really a recodification and not a reintroduction. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. MS. F ABACHER: Understood. MS. ISTENES: I can't give you any guarantees because I'll tell Page 80 October 11, 2007 you, it's a very, very complicated process -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is. MS. ISTENES: -- to take everything in a list and put it in a table and then turn around and take everything in a table and put it back in a list and incorporate all of the changes that may have been made between then and now which, quite frankly, I don't think were that many, because most of the changes we did that you're talking about were done when we still had the list format. We put John Kelly on it, and I'll tell you, he is very thorough and he -- this was his primary task for this amendment cycle. So I'm feeling pretty good that I -- he did a thorough job, but I cannot promise you that -- because we're human, we do make mistakes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely, and I appreciate that. MS. ISTENES: As we use it, as we use the code -- and that's why you're seeing things still coming back from the recodification because as staff uses the code, they realize, perhaps, this was a mistake or this doesn't sound right, or, gee, in the old code we had this and now we don't and the recodification was not supposed to change the old code but it's missing. Uh-oh, problem, you know. Now let's go back, confirm, and then we come back with you -- back to you through this process and say hey, you know, something got messed up here. So I can't commit to you that it's 100 percent because we're human and we make mistakes, but I can commit to you that we will continue to monitor, monitor, monitor and make sure that what's in there is accurate. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'd feel more comfortable if somebody can assure me that it's 100 percent correct, and that person's not here. MS. F ABACHER: Well, I'll assure you that it's 99 percent correct, given one point for human error. Page 81 October 11, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, and that one percent could get us into trouble. MS. FABACHER: Well, Commissioner, we have distributed this to all of our staff, and they've been using this right alongside this COMMISSIONER HENNING: Like this. MS. FABACHER: -- for several months now, and I don't know what else to do. We've given it to you all, we've given it to the Planning Commission, we've given it to the consultants and asked them all to review it, the DSAC's reviewed it, and they all thought it was way better and they looked for particular uses, and thank goodness we showed it to you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, when -- I know somebody on the Planning Commission looks for details, said to me, I don't have time to look at those details. It would take a lot of time to verify. I don't feel comfortable with it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Fiala, and then Commissioner Halas, and then if have you some other comments, we'll come back to you, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. First of all, when -- I've always been interested to read when they ask for an official interpretation, and I have found -- I agree with your interpretation every time, and it's like you see through everything and go right to the core of it, and very seldom do you ever say yes to anything, by the way, but that's good because you -- you know, you're going there officially, but my point is, we were talking about Stevie Tomato's. You're only as good as the information you get, and at Stevie Tomato's, says they're a one-story with no music and a quiet eating outside. You can only go by what's told to you. And I don't know how we get those kind of people to be honest with us because our staff can only do so much, but they can't, you know, read the crystal ball. I don't know what to do about that. Page 82 October 11, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I feel that since -- what you've interjected into this is that a lot of people on the outside have been using this and they haven't found any glitches of yet. I feel very -- I think my level of comfort has increased in the fact that everybody, whether it's in staff or whether it's outside, consultants -- and they feel that we've cleared up some areas. And it's not as ubiquitous as it has been, so I think that -- I feel comfortable with it, and I want to thank you very much for what's been -- what's taken place. And I think that if there is a glitch, I'm sure that staff will bring it to us immediately. I would hope anyway. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, my suggestion would be is, that when we have this come back, that we look at the possibility -- at that point in time I'll have a chance to query several members on the Planning Commission, all individually so there'll be no violations of sunshine. Make sure the county attorney knows that -- and also we'll be able to have a chance to digest this and see what direction it's going, the ramifications, and then we can carry it to the next step at the next meeting. Possibly what Commissioner Henning is suggesting is a good idea. You know, I just have reservations with the fact that the Planning Commission -- they do a much more thorough job than we ever do with this, and I have great confidence in them, and I can't believe that they haven't vetted this totally and gone through enough details to come up with a direction. But regardless of that, if one commissioner has reservations, we definitely need to be able to explore those reservations when it comes back again to the fullest. And with that, we're going to go back to Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Fiala. Page 83 October 11, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's go back to this language that refers to the process of interpretation. Submission of request for interpretation, request for interpretation must be submitted to the county manager or his designee or chief building officials. That is not Susan Murray. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, Commissioner. What page are you on with this? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I am looking at the Land Development Code 10.02.02(F) -- MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- which is referring to each request for interpretation must be accomplished by appropriate fee set by the board. So what I'm saying is, there's -- several people can make this determination if a use, comparable uses, that -- in any of the zoning categories. MS. FABACHER: Well, excuse me. Commissioner, I think if you're -- the way -- it's, perhaps, poorly written. But the building official is for the building code interpretations. The county manager or designee, which would be the zoning director, or whatever, is responsible for interpretations of the LDC. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it says, county manager or his designee or chief building officials. So we know who the county manager is. We don't know who he would designate that to or change it. But who's the chief building officials? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, the chief building official is a licensed official under the State of Florida. It is normally my building director or someone in the building department holding that license and designated to serve as the building official for Collier County. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And he would -- he would make a determination of comparable uses -- MR. SCHMITT: No, sir, that's the zoning director. The only thing the building official is legally authorized to do is make decisions Page 84 October 11,2007 or interpretations or make -- define anything that's in the Florida Building Code. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you ought to take a look at what we're about to adopt because it does say, according to this procedure, the person that issues permits is going to make zoning interpretations. And, again, we removed this language a long time ago. MS. ISTENES: We'll look at it. MR. SCHMITT: W e'lllook at it, then bring it back. MS. ISTENES: I have no objection to removing it. I make hundreds of decisions every day. If you want to remove my ability to make one more, I have no issue with that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Please look at -- MS. ISTENES: Sure will. MR. SCHMITT: W e'lllook at it. MS. ISTENES: Absolutely. Yeah, no problem. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because it is taking away your ability. MR. SCHMITT: W e'lllook at that one sentence. I don't want to throwaway the text because the text is so much better, but that specific area we'll look at and we'll come back with changes and note those changes in the next meeting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Y es. You just said it is taking away her ability. Are you saying that how it's written, it takes away the zoning director's ability to make a decision and you want it put back in; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll tell you what, Commissioner, let me find when the board took away those other compatible or comparable uses out of those and -- because what we're doing is we're putting them back, but also allowing other people to Page 85 October 11,2007 make those interpretations whether a bar or a megahome or -- you know what I mean? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I understand what you're saying. And so my second point was, I think the definition, again, is so important. And Susan has something there to put on the overhead. MS. ISTENES: Let me -- I will real quick. I just want to warn you, you have a lot of PUDs that were adopted with that language still, Commissioners. So it's not just the Land Development Code. There are a lot ofPUDs. We have over 350 PUDs. MR. SCHMITT: 374. MS. ISTENES: We have a lot of old ones, and they're -- you know, 374. Still a lot of administrative discretion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely. I understand that; we can't do anything about those. MS. ISTENES: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think sometimes what our concern happens to be with an administrative decision-making process like, for instance, this, as you can see, what they were supposed to do is maintain the village residential character which is generally low profile with relatively small, I think it is, building footprint, as in the -- as in the current appearance of Goodland and Copeland, is what it says. And then the interpretation, apparently nobody interpreted what small was or low profile or small building footprint in and so this was now built, and it's still being built, as you can see. So then that becomes the definition -- without it being fully stated in our Land Development Code, that becomes the definition for what a low-profile, small building footprint is. So I think sometimes we need to go back and make specific definitions like in this case, which I think we -- by the way, I'd like to go back and do because that certainly isn't -- in my opinion anyway. There's -- that little thing over there, that's a person standing there. Page 86 October 11, 2007 Anyway, also, I think, insubstantial change. That's another one that we might want to address as far as a definition goes. Sometimes if you -- if you don't have that guidance as far as what we think, then you can only go by whatever, you know -- so if that helps you any. Maybe the definition might help. MS. ISTENES: The -- I very much appreciate the point because, I'll be up front with you, I was very disappoint that the Goodland overlay, or the Goodland Civic Association, or whatever the two groups are that are down there, couldn't get together this cycle to come up with that because we are still in the same position that we were in with this house, and that is, I don't have any definition of -- or any cutoff -- any cutoff about what constitutes a small versus large village character versus non-village character. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MS. ISTENES: And it's very, very difficult. It puts us in a very difficult decision to make a determination when we don't have that criteria. COMMISSIONER FIALA: They pulled it. For some reason they thought that it wasn't going to get heard anyway so they pulled it. But I think that -- I would like to initiate that definition, if I may. MS. ISTENES: Okay, sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. And also insubstantial change; does that help any, too? MS. ISTENES: We do have a definition for insubstantial change, and it's a complete explanation of what constitutes an insubstantial versus substantial. We could certainly bring it back to you to look at if you want to change anything, if you think anything isn't clear. Sometimes people get a little bit misled by the word insubstantial, somebody thinks means nothing, you know, no impact, and same with sunsetting, we find, is something that people have -- they assume sunsetting means something goes away, like the sun Page 87 October 11,2007 when it sets, it just kind of goes away for the night. That's not the case. And so I'm just kind of expressing to you some of the difficulties we've had with some of the terminology. Even if it is defined, people make assumptions about the word just because of the word. MR. SCHMITT: But substantial and insubstantial, it's still an administrative review process of the Site Development Plan. MS. ISTENES: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: If it's insubstantial, it just means it doesn't go through as many reviewers. MS. ISTENES: Reviewers, and it has a set of criteria that make it insubstantial. So if it doesn't meet that criteria, it is substantial and it goes through a different review process, but it's still all administrative and -- MR. SCHMITT: And it's still all applicable to the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Insubstantial, the difference between two and 23, okay? MS. ISTENES: No. I understand, Commissioner, and that was kind of my point was, there's criteria already in the code. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And insubstantial would be two to three, not two to 23. MS. ISTENES: If you think that's not clear, we'll bring it back, yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's that? Takes a majority to move something forward. I'm not sure what we're talking about, two and 23. MS. ISTENES: I think he's referring to LaPlaya docks. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, that should have definitely came back to us. MS. ISTENES: Well-- and we've written them a letter that says Page 88 October 11, 2007 you need to amend your conditional use because that's what should have happened. The site plan -- the site plan approval is still an administrative process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Site plan was a substantial change, not an insubstantial change. MS. ISTENES: Well, I differ with you, Commissioner, but I respect your opinion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, did we change the parking lot? The parking up there, was that changed? MS. ISTENES: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The parking was not changed? MS. ISTENES: Not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, that's it for today. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: We'd be happy to meet back with you again to continue this first hearing of LDC cycle one of 2007 on Tuesday night, October 16th at 5:05. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, goody. We get to come back again to talk. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nice to have some job security. MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman, may I clarify one thing, because I was uncomfortable with a discussion we had earlier about subdivisions, and my discomfort comes from the fact that -- first of all, our code is very complicated when it comes to subdivisions. There are many different ways to subdivide or divide or move lines on property, and it depends on the magnitude of, for example, what you're trying to do. There are different subdivisions, for example, for agriculture versus non-agriculture. We have different processes. We have preliminary subdivision processes that we talked about today that are -- that are not required Page 89 October 11, 2007 but are there to use if you want, and we have a final -- and we have subdivision processes that come to you for approval through a board item and we have subdivision processes that come to staff for administrative review. And so I don't really -- I felt like I gave a few limited examples, and I will tell you that there is a breadth of ways to move lines on property, and it really depends on the situation. One I didn't bring up and I think, perhaps, Commissioner Henning was alluding to it was a lot line adjustment, and that is an administrative process that essentially moves a line a lot. And I think it's important that you recognize that that is a pretty popular way for people to adjust the boundary line of their property for various reasons. One is to split their property in half, for example, in the Estates, and I think I used that as an example. Another would be -- another example I'll use was -- and you may remember -- because you talked about it in part was when Jim Mudd had an issue with an encroachment on his property, and it kind of goes back a little bit. But if you remember, there was -- I think the builder caused an encroachment of his property of a screen enclosure, and I may have my facts wrong on that. But regardless, I know there was encroachment, and that was rectified through a lot line adjustment, which is an administrative process. We'll get -- MR. SCHMITT: Two agreeable -- MS. ISTENES: Two agreeable-- MR. SCHMITT: -- lot owners. MS. ISTENES: --lot owners. We get that a lot with people that live side by side. Again, you'll get two agreeable lot owners that want to reconfigure their property for whatever reason. Maybe somebody wants to build a shed or a barn, or what have you, and they want to put it in a specific location and they can't meet the setback and they get two parties together to agree to move the line between their properties to do whatever. Page 90 .---.--.,.-......--..-------..-----.- October 11, 2007 So that's very, very common, the lot -- the lot line adjustment process, so I didn't want to leave that out because I didn't feel like I really did that justice. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I never heard any objections to that process being an administrative process, and that's something between agreeable neighbors, and I appreciate that input. MS.ISTENES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, we're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :54 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL !~~ JIM COLETTA, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHTEO~lROCK, CLERK .', ( ~'....~i1~ :- ' At '~i; S;' . .:;. .,' ,to WMj ~ r 7..$ii: . 5j\ln4turt~t~ ..\,' These minutes app~ the Board on II tl ~ /61- , as presented or as corrected Page 91