Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/24/2007 S (LDC Amendments) October 24,2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 24, 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 Frank Halas Fred W. Coyle Donna Fiala ALSO PRESENT: Catherine Fabacher, LDC Coordinator Joe Schmitt, CDES Administrator Susan Istenes, Zoning Director Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ LDC AGENDA October 24, 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 24, 2007 CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST T AMIAMI 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 24, 2007 October 24, 2007 ORDINANCE 2007-67: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULA nONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA- ADOPTED W/CHANGES MR. SCHMITT: You have a live mike. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. It will be just a minute. We'll wait a minute, wait for Tom Henning. We've got to have four commissioners here on the dais today to be able to proceed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know Coyle is also here. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I know, but they have to be in this room, and they're both tied up with other appointments at the moment and will be with us soon. And I'll ask everybody to wait patiently. And by the way, the date today is October 24,2007, and this is the first meeting of the second hearing of cycle one of 2007. And here's Commissioner Henning, and when he gets up here, we'll all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Henning, would you lead us in the Pledge. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning. And Commissioner Coyle will be with us in just a moment, but he told us to go ahead, and by the time we get to any decision-making, he'll be here to interject his thoughts and opinion. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning. MS. F ABACHER: Glad to see you after a late night last night. Okay. I'd like to begin. As Commissioner Coletta said, this is the first meeting of the second hearing of this LDC cycle 2007, cycle one. I'd like to start on your -- I have given you a new summary sheet that Page 2 October 24, 2007 we've updated since we met on the last -- on the 16th of October. And I'd like to start on page A and see if we could just kind of go straight through. I've indicated which ones we've heard already once. So with your permission, I'd like to start on summary sheet A, page 1, section 4.02.01, our restrictions on the installation of permanent emergency generators. I guess I'll ask first -- we've heard this before -- if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the best way to do it, rather than start over from the beginning and -- MS. F ABACHER: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- work our way through. MS. F ABACHER: Great. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any questions related to this subject? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none. Now, at this time, can we just roll this all into one vote at the end? MS. F ABACHER: That would work for me, if -- does that work for you, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: It does work, if that's what you want to do. The easiest thing, for the record, is just to, as we go through these things, vote on them, and we'll -- be easier just to -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. That's fine. Okay. Well, we probably should wait, but we're not going to. I think we can go ahead with this. Do I hear a motion for -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval of 4.02.01. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) Page 3 October 24,2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioner. All right. On sheet B we're going to skip heliports, as I mentioned to next -- October 30th, that's Tuesday night, next Tuesday night. The next one that we come to is the permits for outdoor serving areas. Now, you have not had a presentation on this yet and I'm about to do one for you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do. MS. F ABACHER: This is the second rewrite that we did, but that's the original document that came from the Planning Commission, and you might note that they did -- were still unanimous to recommend denial. What this permit does is, it's a one-time permit that requires everyone, even existing restaurants with outdoor serving areas with entertainment -- in this amendment we define entertainment as -- for the purposes of this amendment, as amplified sound, which includes radios, televisions, P A systems, and video games and the like. What this amendment proposes to do is that everyone will be required by, I think it was June 30th, July 1 st, to come in and -- by that time, to come in and apply for an application. We've timed it. I think it's November 1st. Because we've timed it with -- the expiration date of this permit we have timed with the Page 4 October 24,2007 expiration of everyone's occupational licenses, and this would apply only to eating establishments with -- you know, which includes bars. I think they're defined under the occupational code as eating establishments with alcohol. But anyway, everyone will be required to come in when they renew their occupational license and file for this new permit to have outdoor entertainment and outdoor seating areas. It's a little different from the amplified sound amendment currently. This one would be issued through the zoning and Land Development Code, not through the Code Enforcement Board and -- but what we would require -- and it's a one-time thing. What we require, if you come in, you will have to go and get a -- let's see -- a report of violation history from the Code Enforcement Board, and they have a computer where they keep all their cases, and the ones from the sheriff. And they're going to run your establishment and see if you have any violations for the noise ordinance, okay. If you have any violations from the noise ordinance within the past year, then you will get a report saying that you have, in which case you are no longer eligible for an administrative issuance of the permit. If your code violation report comes back and you have no violations of the noise ordinance on it, then we can administratively issue this permit. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can almost tell you exactly what's going to happen. Competition, other restaurants, are going to put in a complaint just to make people jump through a hoop. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are you going to weigh who and where the complaint comes from? MS. FABACHER: Well, sir, it's not just going to be a complaint. You'll have to have a finding of violation, which means you will have had to go through the Code Enforcement Board or the special magistrate or the Nuisance Abatement Board, one of those three, and Page 5 October 24, 2007 have to be found in violation. Just complaints will not trigger __ CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: -- a problem. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning wants to address that also. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we voting on this tonight? MS. F ABACHER: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just a hearing on it? MS. FABACHER: We're just introducing and taking any questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We haven't seen the Planning Commission's version yet? MS. F ABACHER: No, sir. Yes, we have not. I think Mr. Klatzkow wants to address that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just -- I want to see it. I'm not interested in, you know, comment on what we have here today. MS. F ABACHER: Well, sir, I think that we had planned that, perhaps, we would ask you to defer this one until the other one caught up with it, and then -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you need a motion on that MS. F ABACHER: No, I don't believe we do, but I just kind of wanted to explain it to you today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, okay. MS. F ABACHER: And then at that point we could compare the two. We just wanted to get this out of the way. Would that be all right? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be fine by me, but let's first go through some questions and then we'll get some more explanation. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, then Page 6 October 24, 2007 Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So just for me to understand a little bit better, so say, for instance, there's -- well, I'm going to pick on Fitzgerald's because it's right down the street. And they have an outdoor bar, as well as an indoor bar, and they do have entertainment outside. Their outside faces u.s. 41, and their entertainment is just guitars or something like that. There's no amplified music and it's never raucous. It's more of a family place. Somebody like that would have to come in also to see if there's any violations and they'd have to pay $1,200 to do that? And then it says the one-time. So my second question is, now, they've had no violations, so, okay, fine, they get their clearance to have whatever it is. Say, for instance, they've had violations -- it's a three-part question -- then we know that then there's certain things that they have to meet before they can get this approval. But say, for instance, the first time around, they had no violations, but after that they've added a new element of music and all of a sudden, it is very loud and it is disturbing people. If you have a one-time only visitation, then how do you know that it doesn't -- it doesn't change after the fact? MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ready? MS. F ABACHER: I'm ready. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. MS. F ABACHER: First, this does not cover live entertainment. You still would need a special permit for live entertainment outdoors, okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. MS. F ABACHER: Now, as far as amplified sound or outdoor entertain -- we're speaking in terms of this amendment as amplified sound. Were you to get a complaint, then code -- you had your permit, you got a complaint, code investigated, the special magistrate Page 7 October 24,2007 or the Nuisance Abatement Board, whoever you go to, does a finding of a violation, then as a result of that, under this amendment, the special magistrate, or whoever the hearing officer or board is, would have the ability to suspend the permit for the outdoor entertainment, okay. Then the only way to get back is to come to the board. So they would come to the board and the board would vote either to revoke the permit or to reissue it on that suspension. So that would catch anybody that -- where the situation changed. And first off, if __ the cost of a one-time permit with no violation history, straight administratively, is a $300 permit. And I believe they're looking at $100 to run this violation report. So that's $400 if you have no code violations. Now, the 1,200 would, of course, be if you had to go through, really, what amounts to the conditional use process because you did have violations, and then it would be publicly noticed in a public hearing and the public and anyone who might have complained or reported would have a chance to weigh in on it, and ultimately the board would make the decision, or the BZA, would make the decision as to whether or not to issue it. (Commissioner Coyle entered the hearing room.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then also, does this cover like little restaurants in the industrial section like Gina's, for instance, where they eat outside and eat inside, but it's just in the industrial section? MS. FABACHER: It would cover it in any section, but if they had no amplified sound outdoors, they wouldn't be covered. So there could be 40 tables -- four tables outside and 40 chairs, but it there's no amplified sound, then they need not get a permit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. In regards to amplified sound and raucous music, is this some way going to be, hopefully, tied in with if we are looking at a different ordinance so that it doesn't Page 8 October 24, 2007 impact the neighborhoods, that some of these bars that get established after the fact? MS. FABACHER: Well, yes, sir. There are some setback requirements. If you come within 15 -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I'm saying with the -- with present guidelines that we have for measuring sound -- and a lot of times because of the criteria that we're presently using, it's hard to find someone in violation with raucous music and loud amplified music. So I'm hoping that some way or another that we can tie this in if we're looking at changing the ordinance or changing the way that we make measurements so that we can protect neighborhoods. MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, we have another ordinance coming through this process right now. I'll be before the Planning Commission Friday on it. We were before the Planning Commission earlier on this. They had some suggested changes. It includes the concerns you have. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: And you will eventually be seeing this. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, maybe you just answered my question, Jeff. But I'm also concerned about the noise ordinance and the way we measure noise. I don't believe that average sound levels are appropriate for determining how offensive noise might be. I think peak sound levels are far more important, even though they might last for a very short period of time. And I presume that will be -- something like that -- or we'll get a chance to debate that -_ MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- when that comes up with this other thing that you're talking about. But let's go back to just outdoor dining. Outdoor dining can be af Page 9 October 24,2007 problem even if there is no amplified music, if you have a large number of patrons making a lot of noise. I don't understand why we automatically let people migrate from inside a building to outside the building to conduct their business. We license them -- or we approve the operation of a restaurant, and then they decide they're going to move tables outside. And I just personally don't think we ought to be permitting people to do that. That should be a requirement to come back for a conditional use approval, or is it already done that way? MS. ISTENES: Sorry. Susan Istenes, Zoning Director. I'm sorry. I lost my train of thought. Joe asked me to explain something to you. MR. SCHMITT: This started with outdoor seating. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. Actually -- and let me just add a little bit to Catherine's introduction. We brought this forward to the Planning Commission more as an opportunity to initiate a discussion with them about some of the issues we've been having with outdoor seating. As you pointed out, you don't necessarily need amplified sound. You get a bunch of people eating outside and it can become pretty bothersome, depending on where it's located. And the version -- the other thing I want to clarify is, the version you have before you has gone through the Planning Commission. I think what Catherine was referencing was a version -- a similar ordinance to address a similar problem that Jeff is working on that got introduced late into the cycle. So I don't want you to think that the version you have before you hasn't been evaluated by the Planning Commission because it has and, in fact, it's quite different from what we submitted to them initially. And the objective was simply to initiate the discussion, and they worked really diligently on this and had a lot of great suggestions. And in fact, Commissioner Coyle brought up the exact same issues you're discussing now. Page 10 October 24, 2007 And, again, this all kind of started, we think, when the smoking laws were changed. It kind of prompted a lot of restaurateurs to expand or add outdoor seating and outdoor bars to accommodate those patrons that were smokers. And so it's now become quite popular in the community. Nobody can simply throw a few tables and chairs outside. They do have to amend their Site Development Plan to show outdoor seating. They do have to have adequate parking. Where you don't run into a parking difficulty is usually with restaurants in shopping centers, because parking is calculated on a different method for shopping centers, and it usually covers a whole -- you usually don't have parking issues with that. So nobody can just come in and do it; however, it is currently administratively approved, meaning they don't need a special permit. As long as they meet the current codes, they can come and do it through their site plan and they're all set. It is commonly associated as -- with restaurants as an accessory use, and so that's how they -- that's how they can do it. This essentially recognizes that it's becoming problematic, and requiring that everybody get an annual permit, but if there are problems after that annual permit, like Catherine pointed out, as defined in this, then they have to come through the conditional use process which requires a public hearing. I covered a large gamut. I hope I answered your question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand what you're saying. Would it be your assessment -- I mean, you understand what my concern IS. MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you believe then that the direction you're moving in with this LDC change will adequately address the concern that I brought up? MS. ISTENES: Probably not. Page 11 October 24, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: No? MS. ISTENES: I don't think so. I think what I heard you say is you probably would prefer that any outdoor seating be preapproved by the board for some public -- somebody. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm willing to compromise on that. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, your proposal that they be issued for one year and then validated, and if there are problems, then it can be withdrawn, seems to be a reasonable approach. I wouldn't have a problem with that. So if we agreed on that, you think that you have adequately dealt with my concern on this issue? MS. ISTENES: I think if, as recognized, that the amplified sound and outdoor noise ordinance gets tweaked to address, like you said, the peak or the spikes in noise rather than the constant, yes, it would. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Well, I'm happy with that then, fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We still have it going back to the Planning Commission; is that correct, Susan? MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This still going to the Planning Commission, and they're going to vent this whole thing from one end to the other. MS. ISTENES: Well, this has already been-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, it has been. MS. ISTENES: -- through the Planning Commission, yes. I think that's where it got a little confusing, because Jeff is actually working -- why don't you explain it, Jeff. MR. KLATZKOW: We have a different approach that we're vetting to the Planning Commission. We're going to vet it to DSAC after that, and then bring it to you. And probably the best thing to do is, when we're through with that, to compare this one, this approach Page 12 October 24, 2007 that Susan has with that other approach and get your feelings on it, because there are differences between the two. And I've got to say, of all the issues we've been dealing with this one, by far, has been the most difficult one for the Planning Commission to deal with. It's -- I mean, one of their issues, for example, would be Outback, where you're sitting outside waiting for a table, having a smoke. You're not bothering anybody because it's in a parking lot. Why should they go through the process, compared to somebody who's adjacent to a residential neighborhood? And so, one size fits all has been very, very difficult for us. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So whatever we do, if we move -- we just let this slide for the moment, we're not hurting anything -- MR. KLATZKOW: CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- because we'll have time to be able to evaluate everything. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm not going to say anything. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you're not going to what? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to say anything. You know, the version that we have here has changed substantially with the comments of the Planning Commission, and I would like to see that rewrite. And I don't consider this the first hearing on this topic. It's changed substantially, and we should hold two hearings on the new verSIOn. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: I think there's some confusion. MS. ISTENES: And could I clarify, try once again? This-- there was a version presented through the DSAC and the Planning Commission of this ordinance to require this annual permit. Page 13 October 24, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's what we have in the book today? MS. ISTENES: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. MS. ISTENES: What you have is the result of the Planning Commission review and their comments associated with it. Kind oflate in the game Jeff has been working on a different proposal that addresses similar issues that has not yet been vetted before DSAC or the Planning Commission but is working their way through, and we will then vet in front of you. And I think that's what he's asking you to compare is what you have now, which has been through the Planning Commission, and there is their version as they discussed with us, and then the version that has yet to be vetted. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What I have in my book is September 09, 2007, the amended ofLDC 2007 cycle, amended September 9,2007. MS. ISTENES: If you look on top of page 10 it says, other notes version/date, and it gives all the dates of the revisions per the CCPC. Do we have the same page? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the revisions of the Planning Commission is memorialized how, double underline or what? MS. ISTENES: No. We actually brought forward to you the version that the Planning Commission preferred. If you wish we could certainly bring forward staffs original version. It is different, very different. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you just email it to me -- MS. ISTENES: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- so I can understand -- Page 14 October 24,2007 MS. ISTENES: Have a basis of the difference. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the basis of the thinking on that? MS. ISTENES: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me. I was going to say, Commissioners, that we do have a hard copy of that version here today if you'd like me to distribute it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Joe? MR. SCHMITT: Ijust want to clarify. The version that staff started with dealt with outdoor seating and an outdoor seating permitting process. We discussed for hours the unintended consequences of that, the mom and pop restaurants, the small ice cream shops, the other type of people, and that gets into what Commissioner Coyle addressed. That kind of morphed into this version which became an outdoor seating permit process but dealing primarily with outdoor entertainment or outdoor sounds or amplified music. That's the version you have. Jeff is working on a version to deal with the zoning director's authority to review site plans. I think what we need to do is bring the original version, the Planning Commission version, and Mr. Klatzkow's version, bring all three so you can understand how this thing has evolved. It doesn't necessarily have to be approved this cycle. This is a -- as Jeff pointed out, this is a very emotional issue, I think, and a complicated issue, and we just need your guidance so we can begin to craft something that is acceptable, both to you and certainly to the community so you understand how this thing evolved. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's a good idea. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just make a motion that we Page 15 October 24,2007 do that then? Let's-- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, please do, and -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's bring both of these versions back once Jeff has finished with this -- MR. SCHMITT: That will be three versions. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Three, three versions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Three versions. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. If you're going to want to see it this cycle, we're going to have to extend the cycle through your first meeting in November because I want to bring it back to DSAC to get their comments, and we just don't have time to get it done properly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not critical; that's not critical that we do it this cycle. MR. SCHMITT: No. We can split the ordinance and approve all -- create the ordinance for the items you approve, and we can continue that item and deal with that item as a separate ordinance, amendment to the LDC. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Before I make this motion, let me make sure I understand the implications. Does that mean that we will not be able to do anything -- take any action against any restaurant that is creating a disturbance that is obnoxious to neighbors until this is passed through the next cycle? MR. KLATZKOW: No. You have your current law. If they're in violation of current law, then certainly code enforcement can -- or you can have the sheriffs department go down there and enforce your noise ordinance. What we're trying to do is get you something a little better to work with. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then my motion would be that we provide guidance to staff to bring back the versions that are under Page 16 October 24, 2007 development once they've been properly vetted through our advisory committees and bring all of them back to us. Hopefully you will provide a cross-reference of some kind issued comparing the various features of these different versions so we can sort through it a little bit easier, okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Coyle and second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? MR. KLATZKOW: And that's to extend the cycle to your first meeting in November so we can do this. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That, I thought, was part of your motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. It is, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And your second, too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I understand where we're going with this, but I have some concerns, if this is vented (sic) through the other areas of the county, including the Planning Commission, and they come up with a final result, do we feel that -- I'm sure it's going to be well vented by the Planning Commission, right? MR. KLATZKOW: It's been well vetted, yes, but there's still significant disagreements amongst them on this. This has been a very difficult, very difficult amendment. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. All right. I was hoping that we could alleviate some of the difficult work here and look at the plan that's been basically approved, but I understand where we're going. Okay. I'm in agreement. Page 17 October 24, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion, we have a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it. Thank you for your help on that, Commissioner Coyle. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. I'm going to go to page D of your summary sheets, and we'll be in page -- on page 15 in your blue book, and this is section 6.05.01, stormwater management system requirements. You'll recall that Stan -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion by Commissioner Henning for approval and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 18 October 24,2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, unanimously. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. The next amendment on sheet D is going to be on page 19, and this is section 6.05.02, bulkheads and sea walls, and this was the provision where they're requiring a French drain, an infiltration trench, along existing sea walls within new construction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one fast question. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yep. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's a weep hole? MS. FABACHER: It's small holes put at the bottom of the wall to allow the water to go through so it doesn't destroy the foundation of the wall. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And all those -- all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? Page 19 October 24, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, unanimously. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. Weare going to skip sheet E of this summary sheet. As I stated earlier, we'll be hearing the BMUD and the GT MUD changes on Tuesday night, October 30th. The next page is going to be sheet F of the summary sheet. And you'll notice at the top there, section 4.02.01, which would be located in page 91 of your blue book, was the dimensional standards for principal uses in the bay zoning district. Your direction on the October 11 th meeting was to defer this to the next cycle to allow time for us to have some meetings with the civic associations. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. MS. FABACHER: The next item on sheet F is section 4.06.05(C). These are general landscaping requirements. This is the native vegetation boundary. You'll recall the map. We moved it to Highway 41 instead of the coastal high hazard area to make it easier for people to know where it begins and ends. Bruce McNall explained that to us last -- on the 11 tho Any questions? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The new illustration, do we have a copy of that someplace? MS. F ABACHER: Ma'am, I believe it's in your -- the new one is in your book. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Here we go. Page 20 October 24,2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'm sorry. I'm just looking-- MS. F ABACHER: That's -- the comments, right. The earlier one had lighter shading and it was hard to tell. Yes, you have that revision in your books. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I saw that before. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. That had to do a lot with the tolerance level, frost, and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I remember now. I'm sorry. I thought there was something new since then. MS. F ABACHER: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: All right. If you go to section-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got to vote on it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got to -- we haven't voted yet. MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show the vote was 4-1 with Commissioner Henning being in the opposition. MS. FABACHER: All right, Commissioners. Now if we go on to summary sheet G. The first item on summary sheet G, which would be page 99 in your blue book, is once again, 40 -- section 40.06.05, the general landscaping requirements. This one was to modify the prohibitive invasive exotic plant list. Do you have any questions? Page 21 October 24, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Fiala for approval. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. The next item is on the bottom of summary sheet G, and that would be on page 101 -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 22 October 24,2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay, Commissioners. On-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. MS. F ABACHER: You're going so fast. I'm like -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we'll try to slow down a little bit. MS. F ABACHER: Oh, no, no, not a problem. All right, then. On page H of your summary sheet, the first item is section 10.02.04, submittal requirements for plats. That's on page 107 in the blue book. This was the one that established a specific time when subdivision plats must be recorded after they've been approved by the board, and that would be 18 months. Any questions on this? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And a second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just for clarification. The board doesn't approve the plats because we never see them. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So I mean, it's an administrative process. You know, I guess it is what it is, but somebody has to be responsible to make sure that the plat, when it's filed, is part of the board's direction under the ordinance. I just think it's -- it's really problematic, the whole platting process. We get to enjoy approving the plat, but we never see the plat to Page 23 October 24, 2007 approve it. So really what the executive summary should say -- no, because that would be delegating our authority under the platting process. We should see the plat. If we're going to approve the plat, we should be able to see it and make comments on it. MR. SCHMITT: Well, Commissioner, every plat comes up, the chairman signs the plat. It's an authority delegated to the chairman. It goes through the staff, through the county attorney for legal review, and then every plat then goes to the county engineer for signature and then comes up for the chairman's signature. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's see. The platting process is in statute 163? MR. SCHMITT: I don't know the number right offhand. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And it says -- I remember seeing it. It says the board shall approve the plat and the recording of the plat, but we never get to see it. MR. KLATZKOW: With your direction we could go that way. MR. SCHMITT: We can bring them up. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, I don't think we have the authority to delegate our authority. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we solve that by including the plat in the consent agenda of our book? MR. SCHMITT: Most certainly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that when we're being asked to approve it or accept the final plat, then we can see what the plat is, and then if we have concerns or questions, we can raise them. Would that solve the problem, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah. I mean, that -- that is our job. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you're going to get an 8 by ll-and-a-half and you're not going to be able to read it. Page 24 October 24, 2007 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if I'm going to approve something, I want to understand it, so I want the big piece. MR. SCHMITT: We will -- we will send up the large format copies, five copies -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion to try to expedite this? We have some different records that are -- I believe there has been times when we have all these budget things that are approved by the Clerk of Courts that are just a summary thing in there, and it's available for us to be able to look at if we want to. We could do the same thing with that rather than generate a tremendous amount of paperwork and have -- kill numerous trees and everything. Possibly we could have it listed in such a way that if a commissioner would like to be able to review them in detail, they would be available to him either at the front office or at your office where they could be brought forward. MR. SCHMITT: Or we could send up just one set and it could be circulated -- have it available -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At the front desk. MR. SCHMITT: -- at the front desk. It's available for review. As part of the final review process, we would put the -- a miniature version in the executive summary, or we can just note that a copy is available at community development/engineering services and in the commissioner's office, and we'll send -- we'll send one complete set up -- set up to the commissioner's office. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope, not me. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I find that I have enough paperwork I don't need that added burden in regards -- I've got other Page 25 October 24, 2007 things that are more important in regards to being a commissioner than going through other people's work and micromanaging, so that's where I'm at. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I was just going to say, I've never seen a plat and I wouldn't know, when I looked at it, what it really means anyway, and then I wouldn't know what we said beforehand or what the Planning Commission said beforehand to know what the plat is supposed to look like. So, you know, I think it's great for somebody who would know how to do it, and I applaud Commissioner Henning for saying something like that, yet I wouldn't know what I was looking at anyway, to be honest with you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, to generate that one copy, what's going to be involved with that? I mean, how many staff hours? MR. SCHMITT: It's just another copy we ask of the applicant to provide us an additional copy. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But what I'm getting at is, I don't want to needlessly generate staff time on something that no one's going to look at. That's my biggest concern. Now, ifthere's somebody that wants to see something in the way of a plat, what would be the problem with that? I mean, every plan, I'm sure, that comes through, no one's going to read them from end to end. There's going to be certain plats that they definitely have an interest in, especially when it's in their district and they have residents that are in the immediate area that have concerns, then I imagine great time and detail will be spent on it. MR. SCHMITT: Every plat's available for review at community development, and we keep records for a year on site, then we move them off site after final acceptance. As you probably are aware -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- as chairman those are normally hand carried Page 26 October 24, 2007 up for your signature, and so they're -- you know, the signed copy that goes into the plat book, OR and page number, when it's recorded, so there's, you know, no damage to the plat. So those are usually hand carried. But we can send a copy up or we can note that a copy's available in community development. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I like that better because, I mean, how many times are we actually going to go to the point where we're going to review it, and it's going to be another pile of papers that's going to be sitting someplace? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's our job. If we're going to approve something, it's our -- it's our duty to make sure that it reflects the ordinance that we -- that we approved. Now, if you don't want to do that, that's fine. It's not micromanaging. It's part of our duty. So I -- I think it ought to come up to the office. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, let's talk about it a little bit because, you know, I got this feeling it's going to be sitting there in the front desk and that it's not going to be something that's going to be utilized -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's two pieces of paper. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait a minute. Let me just finish, and then I'll turn it right back to you, sir. When was a point in time that the plats stopped coming to the commission? Who's got the institutional knowledge to be able to tell me when this stopped coming to the commission? MR. KLATZKOW: My search to the records over the years during different issues, I don't think it ever came to the commission because, you've got to understand, these plats are large. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. MR. KLATZKOW: And before photo -- before the Xerox machine, okay, there was no way really to easily make copies and get Page 27 October 24, 2007 it to you all, so that I think as I matter of custom, it just never got there. Now, technologies changed. We could shrink it down for you to eight-and-a-halfby 11. You won't be able to read it. I've got a lens on my desk when I try to read these things. They're very difficult, but it's your policy. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My concern is that we're doing nothing but generating work. I don't think it's something where we're derelict in our duty because we're not reading these great big technical documents that go on forever. I think it's been a standard practice for a long time that they haven't come to the commission. I think if somebody wants to see the plats, they should go over to community development and ask for the actual plat and sit down with somebody from staff and review it so that they can understand it fully. That's my own spin. But Commissioner Henning, back to you, and I'll take whatever direction this commission -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know what, we'll just -- I'll just pull all those plats and put it on the regular agenda so we can talk about it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, if you feel that's the kind of revenge you want to exact onto this commission, then you do just that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But we have the right to be able to go over the agenda ourselves too and to accept it however we want. So before we get into any kind of hassle -- the part that I'm taking objection on is, you're making it sound like we're not doing our duty. I think this commission's the most dedicated commission that ever came down in the history of Collier County. We spend numerous hours on it, and you're making it sound to the public like we're derelict to our duty because we won't read these large technical documents as a normal course, matter of course. No commission before us has ever Page 28 October 24, 2007 read these documents. If you want to read them, you're more than welcome to. They're available to you. Go ahead, sir, and then Commissioner Fiala, I'm sorry. We were supposed to come to you next. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I apologize that I upset you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your apology's accepted, sir. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to say, a few things that especially occurred in Commissioner Henning's district, I think, prompts him to want to carry this to the next level, especially when it says here, after approval by the Board of County Commissioners. And somebody can always come back and say, well, you approved it. And so I think that that's really prompting this, and I can't blame him for wanting to do a thorough job. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. And that's admirable, but also, too, as the chair, I sign every single check that the county issues, and I can assure you, I don't personally sign them or review each check as it goes out the door. It would be a physical impossibility. So there has to be some limits in time where we delegate some authorities. And we're getting to a real technical thing on this, but I don't want Commissioner Henning to feel in any way we're stymieing his ability to go forward. We're not. And I would encourage him that where there's a particular interest in a plat, that he work with community development and go over it in great detail and report back to us. The knowledge that Commissioner Henning has in certain subject matters such as this far exceeds anyone on this commission, and I'd love to be able to make ourselves available to it and have his opinion when the time does come up. But I do want to try to streamline everything and make it Page 29 October 24, 2007 function. That's my own feelings. What do we need here? We got so far off. You need a vote for approval of this particular item. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've already -- I think we've made -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have a motion on the floor and a second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep, and we're ready to vote on this. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion for this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was 5-0. That passed unanimously, thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. The next item is still on summary sheet H, and it is section 10.02.05, same section, submittal requirements for improvement plans. It's on page 109 of your book. This is to simply reference the provision you just made, moved on. It's a reference to this time limit above. It's in another part of the code. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. Page 30 October 24, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that -- anyone in the negative? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I thought I heard everybody say yes. So it was unanimous. MS. F ABACHER: All right, Commissioners. We're going to move on to summary sheet I, and the first item is section 10.02.05, submittal requirements for improvement plans. It's on page 111 in your blue book. This is to create a time line for the resubmittal of plats and plans consistent with SDP requirements. Any questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle. Second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Page 31 October 24,2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, unanimously. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. The next item on the same summary sheet is section 10.02.05, submittal requirements for improvement plans. Page 113 of your blue book. And once again, this is referencing the new time limit you just approved above in another section, subsection. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, I'm on page J of your summary sheets. The first item is section 10.02.05, submittal requirements for improvement plans. Page 115 in the blue book. This is a subsection that Stan commented on that the engineering department wants to require that off-site improvements, basically drainage improvements, are constructed -- Page 32 October 24, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. MS. FABACHER: Next item on sheet J is section 10.03.05, notice requirement for public hearings before the board, et cetera. This one is to provide signage requirements for the GMP amendments, the site specific in the small scale. I think David explained this -- Weeks explained this to us on 11 -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Fiala. And Commissioner Henning, you've got a comment? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not approving the one that's in our agenda today; is that correct? MS. FABACHER: Sir, the one that you got handed -- you mean you got -- received yesterday? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't -- Page 33 October 24, 2007 MS. F ABACHER: The revision. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- see that. MS. F ABACHER: That's the one we're getting to next. COMMISSIONER HALAS: 125 or something is the insert. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's -- this is the -- that's before that. MS. F ABACHER: This is before that. This is before that. But the next item is the one that I think Commissioner Henning's referring to. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We removed the strikethroughs that was -- it wasn't supposed to be stricken through? MS. FABACHER: Correct, sir. That's coming next. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let me see. MS. FABACHER: In may, sir, that's on summary sheet K, page 1 -- was on page 125 of the blue book. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I see the handout. MS. FABACHER: And we've handed a new one out, and Linda Bedtelyon is here if you have any questions about the correct version, and also David Weeks, if have you any questions on it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, since I was in a meeting yesterday, I didn't get a chance to review this, so I just have to take a few minutes -- MS. FABACHER: Certainly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to -- MS. FABACHER: Would you like Linda to give you a rundown on it or -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. Because I see some additional -- MS. ISTENES: Did you want Linda to explain it? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MS. ISTENES: Linda, could you come forward, please. Thanks. Page 34 October 24, 2007 MS. BETDEL YON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator. MS. ISTENES: Can you go over the changes, Linda, for them. MS. BEDTEL YON: Sure. MS. ISTENES: Thanks. MS. BED TEL YON: This was a collaborative effort between Ms. Fabacher, Mr. Weeks, and myself, and I want to make sure that we're all on the same page because that was a previous difficulty. I have page 1, okay. Are we -- I just -- I'm just looking for direction. MS. F ABACHER: It's the handout that they got yesterday with the cover memo. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If we're going to make references to certain pages, it would be a good idea if we use the visualizer so that the audience can see it also. MS. BEDTEL YON: Thank you. This was a -- we've worked on this right up until yesterday. I got my final copy, so -- did you have specific questions, Commissioner, or-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: What has changed in this one versus the one that's in our book? MS. BEDTEL YON: Okay. I have -- I'm hoping I have the same COMMISSIONER HENNING: What did you change in this document? MS. BEDTEL YON: It was a collaborative effort-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MS. BEDTEL YON: -- to change certain things that Mr. Weeks had brought up previously so -- MR. SCHMITT: Have David come up. MS. BEDTEL YON: -- I'm going to, yeah, defer to David because he's the expert. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with that. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. David Weeks of Page 35 October 24, 2007 comprehensive planning department. On your handout, the first change is at the -- near the bottom of the page by the capital letter F. And Commissioner Henning, you already referred to it, the fact that we've removed the strikethrough from the phrase, variances or parking exemptions, and the reason for that is because there is still text within the body of that amendment that pertains to those petitions. Next page, yes. On page 2, we delete -- you won't see it. It's with the number two that's underlined, and there's a lot of text there that's underlined. We actually removed one word. It would be at the end of your underlining near the bottom of number 2 that begins with the word meeting, and then in parentheses is NIM, we removed the word request, because it simply makes no sense. We weren't talking about a NIM request. We were talking about an actual NIM. On page 3, we made two very minor changes to paragraph D. It's on the second line. I think we removed the word "when" and replaced it with the word "the." It was just a word change to make sense. We just had improper wording there. And on the final page, 4, at the bottom we've now struck through zoning and land development review department and inserted community planning coordinator, as that is the appropriate office to which these notices should be submitted. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So just a clarification. Are we approving the handout or the one in our book? MS. F ABACHER: The handout. Yes, sir, the handout, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I guess I was asking the chairman if that's what the motion maker was making, that's all. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Were you the motion maker? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I was the motion maker. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion maker agrees. I can't check with the second at the moment. We're going to have to -- I Page 36 October 24, 2007 think at this point in time we're going to take a short break rather than hold everything up and try to come back to this. I need a -- I need a confirmation from the second to be able to move forward on this, so we'll just take our break now a half an hour earlier than normal. I think we're going to finish everything up. That was a good thing to bring up, Commissioner Henning. I'm glad you did. Thank you. Ten-minute break. We'll be right back. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're back on record. Commissioner Henning made a point that -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Correct. We're voting on page 119 and not 125. The motion was made for -- on section 10.03.05, okay? And that's what I made the motion on. I believe that's what Commissioner Fiala made the second on. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we had a -- we wanted to make sure before we proceeded with the vote on it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, is there -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I heard the changes and everything. I listened to the comments. COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I heard David giving the explanation. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What was discussed after the motion was made was on the next item before we took a vote. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, okay. Gotcha. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, we've still got to take the vote. And the second agrees with the motion maker? Page 37 October 24, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes being meaning no? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'm just saying twice -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait for Commissioner Coyle to get in here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in case you didn't hear me the first time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: What we discussed -- what we discussed is provide the signage requirements for Growth Management Plan amendment, and that was section 10.03.05. That's what I made the motion on and that's what Commissioner Fiala made the second on. What we did then is we got involved in this handout which doesn't have anything to do with the motion that was made, okay. So what was discussed prior to taking the vote -- this was another item that came on the agenda, which is LDC 10.148-149, or I think the LDC is 10.03.05, okay. Am I correct? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. We're -- we've had a motion and a second on the amendment on page 119, which is the signage requirements for GMP amendments, but then unfortunately we segued into the next one and discussed that so -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Which has nothing to do with this handout. MS. FABACHER: Exactly, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, is there any other discussion? I don't think we're going to wait another minute. Okay. Here we go. Is it? Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There he is. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There he is. So we have a motion on Page 38 October 24, 2007 the floor, we have Commissioner Coyle coming into the room. He knows everything that took place and he's prepared to vote too. So all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. Now we're going to move to sheet K, and we will discuss section 10.03.05, the requirements for a second neighborhood information meeting when a land use petition is continued for over a year from the first NIM date, and this is the one that you have the handout for that David had explained, and David and Linda are here. That was our previous discussion about the changes that we looked at on the visualizer, which were pretty minor changes, but -- from what's in the book. But -- so this is the one that we'll be now considering, section 10.03.05, page 125, a requirement for a second neighborhood information meeting when a land use petition is continued for over a year from the NIM date on page 125. Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, is this the first hearing on this or the second? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Now, before you speak, be recognized, but I want a second to the motion or else I'm going to have to recognize the motion is lacking a second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second the motion and -- Page 39 October 24,2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we'll come right back to you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- a clarification is we're approving the handout, not what's in our book. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Henning. Now, Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, is this -- we're supposedly seeing this for the second time now, is that -- MS. F ABACHER: No, sir, this is the first time you're hearing it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we don't really need a motion on this then, right? MS. FABACHER: Well, sir, but you can on -- after -- I could let Jeff explain it, but if it does not contain a rezoning or land use change, then you're only required to have one hearing on it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: And this does not have any of those. It's just an additional meeting requirement. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. Page 40 October 24, 2007 Weare moving on to sheet L of the summary sheets. This is on page 137 in the blue book. It's section 2.03.01, residential zoning districts. It's simply -- you heard this on the 11th first. It simply replaces an incorrect reference that was missed during recodification. Any questions? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. I'm on summary sheet L still. I'm at the bottom of the page on -- in section 2.03.07, overlay district, special treatment, ST. This is to remove the motel/hotel density in the residential/tourist zoning district from the TDR provisions of the TDR program. David Weeks had explained this on the 11 tho COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? Page 41 October 24, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. Moving on to summary sheet M, the top of the page. This is on page 141 in the blue book. This is section 2.03.07. Once again, the special treatment overlay, ST. This amendment changes the requirement for a title opinion to a GAP affidavit requirement for TDR severance application. As you'll recall, we heard it on the 11 tho There were some more questions, and Joe Thompson came back on the 16th and we discussed it again. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Motion-- MS. F ABACHER: Any questions? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Page 42 October 24, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, the next amendment is the same section, 2.03.07, special treatment overlay. This was on page 145 in your blue book. This is to replace the performance surety bond with a letter of credit as the instrument for a financial assurance for privately implemented TDC restoration and maintenance plans. Once again, like the preceding amendment, we first heard this on the 11 th, and then Joe Thompson came and explained it on the 16th. Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, we're now on summary sheet N, page 147 in the blue book. This is an amendment to section Page 43 October 24, 2007 2.03.07, the Goodland Zoning Overlay. We discussed this on the 11 tho This is -- this is merely a change to a typographical error. This is not the big ordinance we once had, amendment we had. This was just a change, "drive" to "way." In one little segment of that overlay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. Now on summary sheet N and page 151 in the blue book, section 2.03.07, again, overlay zoning districts. This was under subsection K, activity center number 9 overlay. What we did on this one was simply add a reference to the design standards for activity center number 9, which were located in four oh two three, but the original overlay subsection did not point to the design standards, so that's all we've done here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep, motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coyle. Page 44 October 24, 2007 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: On summary sheet zero, we're in section 2.03.08, the rural fringe zoning district. This amendment is on page 153 in the blue book. We first heard this on October 11th and this is another simple correction of an incorrect reference. We corrected the citation for the North Belle Meade overlay and the RFMU regulations. Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? Page 45 October 24, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. FABACHER: Our next amendment was on page 155 in your blue book. It's section 2.05.01, density standards and housing types. This was corrections to the density standards table to eliminate some errors, make it easier to read and make corrections to the footnotes. David Weeks had explained this to us in depth on the 11 tho CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have one further question. Permitted guesthouse in the residential zoning districts, is that above and beyond, like RSF-l, you can have a residential and/or a guesthouse? In other words, you can have a main house and then you can have a guesthouse in a residential single-family one. Was -- what does that mean? MS. FABACHER: Let's see. Trying to understand. Oh, David, you're here. MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, again, for the record. That's correct, Commissioner. Just like is allowed in the Estates zoning district, you can have a single-family dwelling that's your principal use and, if you meet the requirements for guesthouse, that is, your property has to be an acre or larger in size, there's a size limitation on that guesthouse, then a guesthouse is allowed as an accessory use, so that would allow for a total of two uses -- units on the property. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The same way with the other zonings. Like, you know, residential single-family 4, four units per acre, you can have four regular houses and one guesthouse? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. But, again, there's a size limitation. Your normal RSF-4 lot is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of a -- roughly quarter of an acre or so. But to qualify for a guesthouse, you have to have a minimum of one acre of land, so that's far larger than the traditional RSF-4 lot. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Page 46 October 24, 2007 MR. WEEKS: The point being, that you could not have these normal RSF-4 lots of a quarter of an acre or so and have a guesthouse on them. They do not qualify. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the provisions for renting a guesthouse applies throughout all the residential zoning district? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you. Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or is there already a motion? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, there isn't. Commissioner Henning made the motion, Commissioner Fiala seconded the motion. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. We are on summary sheet P, section 3.03.02, applicability. It was on page 159 in your blue book. This is simply removing an outdated reference to the coastal zone management plan that was replaced when it was incorporated into the CCME, the Coastal Conservation Management Element of the GMP. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. Page 47 October 24, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. Our next item is amendment number -- section 3.05.10(0), the littoral shelf planting area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? Page 48 October 24, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, we are on summary sheet Q. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Have a motion by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, the next amendment is section 4.06.05, general landscaping requirements. This was simply to revise the slope treatment chart to add A. At the time when we heard it on the 10th (sic), you had asked that we replace the asterisk in the chart with bullets. I had brought -- if you'd like to see copies -- there are no asterisks in the LDC. It's an existing chart. They didn't put asterisks in, so if you -- I have a copy of what's in the LDC now, but that is not an issue. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coyle. Page 49 October 24, 2007 Is -- does anyone want to see that particular document? Can we put it on the visualizer? No, okay. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. On page R of the summary sheet, section 5.05.08, architectural and site design standards. Once again, we are going to -- we are changing an incorrect reference from 5.05.08(D)13 to section 5.05.08(C)13. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 50 October 24, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, the next amendment is to section 5.06.05, signs exempt from these regulations. It's -- once again, we explained this on the 11 tho Weare cross-referencing between the sign code and sign requirements for preserves. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got two motions and two seconds. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll sort it out. Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, we're now on page S of your summary sheets, section 5.06.02, once again, in the signs section. It's on page 175 in the blue book. And once, again, it's an incorrect reference in the code changing from 1.04.04(C) to 1.04.04(B). COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. Page 51 October 24, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: The next amendment is on page 177 in the blue book. Once again, we're in the signs section. This time 5.06.04. It's the same incorrect reference that we changed earlier just in another portion of the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 52 October 24, 2007 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. FABACHER: We're on summary sheet T, and this is going to be an amendment to section 5.06.04, sign standards for specific situations. It's on page 179 in your blue book. And once again, we're changing an incorrect reference in the code from subsection 5.06.04(A) just to plain 5.06.04. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: The next amendment is to section 10.02.02, submittal requirements for all applications. And again, it's to correct inaccurate references to article 6 from the old code. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. Page 53 October 24, 2007 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMANCOLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. FABACHER: We're on summary sheet U, section 10.02.03, submittal requirements for site development plans. In this amendment we have updated and corrected state and federal agency names referenced in this section. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMANCOLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Page 54 October 24, 2007 MS. FABACHER: The next amendment is on page 185 in the blue book. It's an amendment to section 10.02.06, submittal requirement for permits. This is the one that Sharon Dantini explained to us on October 11 th where code enforcement right now is required to monitor replantings of -- or mitigations of preserve areas for five years. They asked to change it to two years, and they would make it -- extend it to five on an as-needed basis. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, we're on summary sheet V, section 1.04.03, which is application subject to type two review; section 10.04.04, application subject to type 3 review. This was the two amendments where they're updating those procedural flow charts on the review policies for type two permits and -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. Page 55 October 24, 2007 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, we're now moving on to the omissions sections. I'm on -- still on summary sheet V. It was on page 195 in your book. This was an amendment requesting the return of the old definition oflot width measurement from the old code. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Catherine, I sent you an email on this one. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. I'm trying to remember what you asked me. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You didn't respond to it. And the definition of lot width had -- from the old code, had a clarification from when we went from the land use regulations of 1982 to the 2002 oh one oh four, and that language is missing. Jeff, didn't I copy you on that also? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think you did, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Page 56 October 24, 2007 MS. F ABACHER: I apologize, sir, in didn't answer you. I'm afraid I don't -- I'm not familiar with what your concern is. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just the reference -- I'll send it agam. MS. FABACHER: Okay. I'm very sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The same references that were missing from the recodification, and that's the lots in -- from what I can surmise is lots in -- that was approved prior to 1982 were smaller, and then when they came in with the Land Development Code in 1992, they increased the setbacks, but it was giving those grandfathering of those older lots. MS. F ABACHER: In the Estates, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nope. It was just countywide, in subdivisions. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Well, I -- MR. KLATZKOW: I'll get a copy of your email from Catherine. We'll go over it and bring it back at the October 30th session. I want to make sure we get it right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think we are getting it right. We just need to do something with that old references about lot width. Thank you. I don't have a problem with this one. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's already a motion on the floor -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion on the floor and a second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, thank you. Is there any discussion, additional discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 57 October 24, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. The next amendment would be on page W of the summary sheet. It's section 1.08.02, again, definitions. This is returning a definition of two-family dwelling verbatim from the old code. Any questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. FABACHER: And the next one, again, is an omission, to return the definition of subdivision -- minor subdivision from the old code to section 1.08.02, definitions. Any questions? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Page 58 October 24,2007 Halas, second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, we're on summary sheet X, page 203 in the blue book. We heard this on October 11 tho It's section 1.08.02. The request had been to return the definitions of corner lot, interior lot, and through lot; however, your direction on the 11 th was that this needed to go back through DSAC, which we haven't had a chance to do yet. This was one that I think the planning chair asked be added after he had heard it. So if it's all right with you, I think we'll probably defer this to the next cycle, if that's okay with you, just to be able to put it through the whole range. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Your motion to approve it putting it to the next cycle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Through to the next cycle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Next cycle. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion, we have a second. Any other discussion? Commissioner Fiala? Page 59 October 24,2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question. Yesterday we were addressing an issue that had to do with a corner lot that -- you know, it's -- however the corner lot was determined, and would that -- would this amendment then kind of clear that up as to what a corner lot is? MS. F ABACHER: I'm not sure if we plan to put some illustrations in. Maybe that's something we can discuss. I don't think the verbatim, the text itself, would clear it up. I think you're talking about a special situation where -- in how to determine your setback -- front setback and how to determine your rear setback. I believe that was the issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think it was that -- it was on a cul-de-sac, so was the side of the cul-de-sac considered another street? And so then if it was, then it became a corner lot, so maybe cul-de-sacs should be defined as -- is it another sheet or a continuation of that street, which would then clear up whether it was a corner lot or not. MS. ISTENES: This is actually returning just the old language in the code back to -- because it was missed during recodification. MR. SCHMITT: You would still use the old -- MS. ISTENES: I mean, we would still use the old definition as it exists. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question though, that's why I'm hesitating because I'm not sure I understand it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I probably didn't state it very clearly, I'm sorry. I don't know how to state it very clearly. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I understand your question, Commissioner. We never changed the definition. Now, some language may have got lost during the recodification. The definition itself never got changed by the board. MS. ISTENES: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: So that this has -- will have no effect on that issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. So we possibly then don't Page 60 October 24,2007 have language addressing what a cul-de-sac is? MR. KLATZKOW: No, we do, but it -- the way we define a corner lot now has to do with degrees, 135 degrees and geometric measurements, and that's what will be applied to the issue we had yesterday. It doesn't change. MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I apologize. The -- I resent that email, and it had to do with this issue about definitions of corner lots, and -- MS. F ABACHER: Can I -- I might be able to add to this a little bit. We have -- we received direction -- well, not from you -- but the Planning Commission indicated that -- at one point we were talking about the old issue of how to measure setbacks. And if you can bear with me -- the cord method or the arc method, and that was once a part of the definition of the lot width measurement, but then the Planning Commission pulled that out, and we're directed to have some more workshops, and this would bear on that about how to figure your setbacks, and we're proposing to put some illustrations in. And I've been speaking with Stan Chrzanowski, and we were looking at a graphic that would graphically illustrate, I think, what you're asking, Commissioner, about the corner lots on a cul-de-sac, because the curve gets reversed, and how do you figure it, and sometimes it's wavey if you go over two lots. That whole issue, I'm afraid, we have not resolved in this cycle, and that will come back for discussion and a workshop. The Planning Commission has asked for a public workshop on it. So that's one of the things we'll look at. And also when we're -- when we take the corner lot, the interior and through lot back to them in the next cycle, we will look at some graphics that will probably -- hopefully clear it up for everyone, that we could add to the LDC, so I hope that that's -- Page 61 October 24, 2007 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's just -- we're trying to get some definitions in there. Like Susan has said, all she needs is definitions so that it gives them clear -- they don't care what they are, just so that they know what they are, so that then gives them clear direction. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've personally got more faith in the Planning Commission figuring this out than we will, than we'll ever get to. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. MS. FABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there -- where are we on this? MS. FABACHER: Well, Commissioner, that -- I'm going to say that that finishes it, since we voted to defer this to the next cycle. Did we finish our vote? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think we did. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think we took the vote from that. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have a motion and a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who was the motion maker? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I think Coyle was the motion maker. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Coyle was the motion maker? COMMISSIONER HALAS: To bring it back to the next cycle, wasn't it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was for 1.08.02, not the pink book. MS. F ABACHER: Well, we're not discussing the pink book. We're still on the definitions of corner lot, interior lot, and through lot. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why are we still on it when I -- Page 62 October 24, 2007 since I made my motion a long time ago? MS. F ABACHER: Did we vote? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what we're trying to determine. MS. ISTENES: I have 5-0. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're the motion maker. MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Halas was the second. Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: My apologies. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No problem. Any other discussion on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. MS. F ABACHER: All right, Commissioners. That brings us to the pink book, which I think we will update you on our next meeting, which will be the second meeting of the second hearing of this cycle, and that is to occur on Tuesday, October 30th at 5:05 p.m. And if I might recap, we were going to come back with the pink book, we're going to come back with the outdoor seating, the three different proposals to evaluate for you, we'll be coming back with the heliport amendment, and we'll also be coming back with the BMUD and GT MUD overlay land use changes. MS. ISTENES: Can I make a correction? Page 63 October 24,2007 MS. F ABACHER: Yes. MS. ISTENES: The pink book was deferred to the next cycle. MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. MS. ISTENES: So we will not be coming back with that next time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments from staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any comments from the Commissioners? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can turn my light off. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I ignored it anyways. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll see everybody back here at one o'clock. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:33 a.m. Page 64 October 24, 2007 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JIMCori~ ATTEST:' JGHT E. BROCK, CLERK . . e~. t~~~J ~ VA U.tCCIl4. Sfgn4tUrt GAl, s These minutes approved by the Board on~DueYY\\x.v 27,?/J[J , as presented ~ or as corrected Page 65