Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/28/2007 LDC November 28, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE LDC MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida November 28, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Page 1 --""-- I November 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Microphones are on, everybody. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Let's rise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a minute. No, no, no, no, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We felt like getting up, it's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. And welcome to the Collier County Planning Commission meeting, November 28th, the 2007 Cycle 2 land development code hearings. Hopefully we'll start today and hopefully be done before today's over, but maybe not, depending on the timing. So if you'll all please rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Addenda to the agenda. And we're Page 2 November 28, 2007 basically going to take the book in order. Originally we take in order of when staffs here to present their particular issues. Although I notice that there are members of the public here. And our first goal has always been to try to accommodate the public. So we will defer to the public sections, provided staff are here as well. If they're not, we'll have to ask staff to come over, so while the public's here, we can finish that up today, while members of the public are here to speak. And maybe, Cormac, and Ellie, if the two of you could just come to the microphone for a minute and tell us what sections you're here for, and we'll try to make sure staffs here and we can put those first on the agenda today. MR. GIBLIN: For the record, Cormac Giblin. I'm here for the -- I believe it's the second amendment in your packet. It's on Page 3. It is LDC Sections 1.08.02 and 2.06.03, the affordable housing density rating system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, do you have people here this morning to speak on those? MS. F ABACHER: Right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. We can go forward with those. Okay. MS. KRIER: Good morning. For the record, Ellie Krier. I'm speaking on LDC 5: 103-104, the open house signs for real estate. That's the page number that's showing here. Let's see, 5.06.02, permitted signs. MS. FABACHER: On Page 43 of the packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was looking for. MS. KRIER: That I did not know, I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, n<? problem. Catherine, do we have staff here who can address that -- MS. F ABACHER: I was hoping Joe was going to show up, but I can address it. Page 3 November 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there he is. MS. FABACHER: Well, all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Then the first two items on the agenda will be those two in the order just presented to us, if that's -- okay. Now, before we get into the agenda, we have a series of other things to talk about. First of all, our next regular meeting is next Thursday. Our packets are being distributed today. Those of you -- can everybody make it to that meeting? Anybody know if they cannot. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like we'll have a quorum. The next meeting after that is on the 13th of the month. It was a special meeting that we scheduled for the Bert Harris claim involving the Cocohatchee project. That still is to go on. Yesterday the BCC talked about it. The outcome of their discussion virtually changes nothing for us. They may call it something different, but we're still going to be doing basically the same thing we were asked to do originally. And I believe Mr. Schmitt has got a tape that he wants us to see in regards to the actions taken on this matter yesterday so we can see verbatim what the BCC is looking for. Catherine? MS. FABACHER: I wanted to remind you, Mr. Chair, that we have a meeting 5:05 on December 12th, which is our second LDC meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for that. How about that for everybody, on December 12th, does anybody know -- that's in the evening 5:00. Is everybody okay with that? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I will not be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor, if someone were to pick you up and then drop you back off, would you be able to make it? Page 4 November 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Depends who it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know Brad -- I could or Brad could. Would that work for you? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Lindy, are you okay with the 5:05 meeting? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we will certainly have that on schedule. And by the way, before we go too far, during the break, which will be at around 10:00, could you have someone from facilities management contacted by that time so that after the break we can know how long we can have this room for. There's been a variety of times, and I understand the room's needed by the legislative delegation at 2:00. I don't understand why they want us out of here at 11 :30 when they're going to take a lunch hour anyway. Why don't we just stay here as long as we can and let them get in here when they need to get in here. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, I believe they have to set up the tables down here. They're going to -- the facilities probably have to get in here at least by noon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They don't eat lunch? I mean, if they -- MR. SCHMITT: We'll find out when facilities -- but they have to bring the chairs in and set up for the 2:00 meeting. So I'll find out how long you can stay. I thought we could be in here at least until 1 :00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought so, too. And I've heard different times now. And I'm kind of trying to understand why the times are changing the way they are. MR. SCHMITT: We'll check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if we seem to be running out of time, I need to finish this cycle in the month of December. So I Page 5 November 28, 2007 don't know what it takes to move other people out of this room. I think the only other people that shouldn't be moved is the BCC, because we can't do that. But other than that, I don't know why we can't have more availability on the times we need to meet to get our work accomplished. So the goal is to get this done in December, and whether we have to meet nights, mornings or part afternoons, I don't know why we can't do that, Joe, if -- MR. SCHMITT: We have four meetings scheduled. Of course the one now will be consumed with the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cocohatchee. MR. SCHMITT: Cocohatchee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But we also have our regular meetings that we can add onto if we need to if they're short enough. Okay, I believe you were going to show us what occurred yesterday. MR. SCHMITT: I still haven't got it -- this thing will not play it so -- I need to find out why it won't play it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you what, we can go into a couple of the issues, and then when you get it resolved we'll stop at the end of whatever one we're into and break for this for a minute. Catherine, let's move forward with the first one that Cormac is here for -- MS. F ABACHER: The first one we'll talk about is the affordable housing density bonus rating system. This is a private petition by WilsonMiller. Cormac Giblin is here to represent it. It's on Page 3 of your booklet, Page A of your summary sheets. MR. GIBLIN: Good morning, Commissioners. Cormac Giblin, project manager with WilsonMiller, for the record. I'm here to represent a private petition that is asking basically for three text changes to the LDC, two of them having to do with definitions only . You'll find it on Page 3 of your packet. Page 6 November 28, 2007 The county last year adopted an official definition of essential personnel housing, or ESP housing, and that was in response to Representative Davis's and the legislature and Governor's passage of the CWHIPP housing program. That program required that the county adopt and pass a definition, a local definition of essential personnel housing. The county did that last year, and it is in its official form. And it currently lives in the local housing assistance plan. (Sound interruption.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the BCC meeting? Someone gave you a bogus CD, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: That was not me, that was on cable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Cormac. MR. GIBLIN: That's all right. Some days. The -- so the county has already adopted and incorporated this very definition of essential personnel housing into the local housing assistance plan. What the first part of this amendment does is it brings that same exact definition into the LDC as well, which is where most of the county's legal definitions and land use areas lie. The second part of this definition -- or the second part of this change, on Page 4 in the middle of the page, adds essential personnel housing or essential personnel employer-owned housing to the official definition of affordable workforce housing. Again, kind of just continuing to bring this into the mix of the county's official affordable housing programs. And then the last change can be found on Page 6, a short underlined right underneath the chart, that says that essential service personnel employer-owned housing can also take advantage of the density bonus system at the gap workforce low and very low levels as well. This amendment was brought in response to a desire of major Page 7 November 28, 2007 employers in the community wishing to build more affordable workforce housing for their employees. And after looking at the current system, we realized that this change was needed to allow that to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Cormac. I have a couple of things on Page 3, just as a little housekeeping thing, under reason, the third line, the word proving. Is that intended to be approving or providing? It doesn't seem to work with proving. MR. GIBLIN: The -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See the third line of that, under reason. MR. GIBLIN: It should be providing, providing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. You'll want to change that. More importantly, though, I think we may have an issue with, on Pages 4 and 6 where it references employer-owned housing. Part of the coalition -- you have fire departments, they're precluded from owning homes or owning homes for their people, as far as I know under the law. And there are others that would be restricted. Would we not be excluding those organizations that are part of that CWHIPP program and the people we're intending to support in this case by this definition? MR. GIBLIN: I don't -- I know that -- I'm not entirely sure about the fire department. I know that the Sheriffs Department is precluded from owning housing. But other members of the coalition, both hospitals in town, the county government, the city government, basically any employer -- and just to -- you do not need to be a member of this coalition that's come together to qualify for this change. It would be any employer that meets this definition, which essentially includes anyone employing someone who earns less than 80 percent of medium Page 8 November 28, 2007 Income. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, but that's not my question. My question is really focused -- I hope is focused effectively for you on the premise of employer-owned. And if there is an issue, even if it pertains to only one group, one organization, such as the sheriff, you may actually be causing a problem unintentionally by using that definition employer-owned. Now, I recognize that some of the CWHIPP, ifnot all of the CWHIPP intent, and I'm putting that under CWHIPP, there may be others, that they're talking cooperative. And in that context maybe an umbrella group alone. But I'm not trying to get into that. What I'm trying to avoid is the possibility that we'll exclude somebody. I just wonder if you give consideration to that. MR. GIBLIN: If certain organizations' charter or mission precludes them from being able to own housing for their employees, there's not really much that the LDC can do to change that. This is just trying to give that opportunity to those that can avail themselves of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But we'll actually be going against the very intent of what we're trying to do for people then by limiting it right there. MR. GIBLIN: I'm sorry, I'm not quite following. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, here, if the intent is to provide, for instance, sheriffs deputies with housing and the sheriff is precluded from having ownership of homes, that entire group will no longer fall into the category here, will it? MR. GIBLIN: I don't see how if they're precluded today how this change negatively impacts them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe, Mr. Murray, what the clarity needs is that they currently apply under -- if they want to be under the workforce housing category, it's still there and still benefits Page 9 November 28, 2007 those categories. This just opens it up to an additional category of employer-owned. They don't have to be employer-owned to be benefiting from the workforce bonuses, it could still be done -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. And I understand. Thank you for the clarification and your premise there. However, I am aware that they are a member of a group that is intending to acquire and have housing for those people. So I think -- whether -- I think it needs to be addressed, certainly, okay. I see something that others may not see, so I'm not sure I can make it any clearer. If you don't agree -- I don't know if Mr. Klatzkow can help in this. I think he's familiar. MR. KLATZKOW: I've got different issues. I don't really have an issue with what you are raising. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, if you have other issues, what are yours, then? MR. KLATZKOW: I've got two minor issues. It refers to median. If you go to Page 3, one, two, three, four, five lines down, it says 140 percent of median, it should read median income. The same with the prior line, 120 percent of median income, rather than just median. But my question is -- my real question is, I read the last clause as may be amended from time to time the Collier County Housing Assistance Plan. And Cormac, what I don't understand is are you saying that this LDC definition is going to change depending upon changes to the definition in the Housing Assistance Plan? MR. GIBLIN: What the county's got now is that the state legislature requires that the official definition live in the Housing Assistance Plan, and any updates to it must be made there and then subsequently made here. MR. KLA TZKOW: Why don't we just say then that essential Page 10 November 28, 2007 service personnel, and just have the definition, you know, see definition in the Collier County Housing Assistance Plan. Otherwise, we're going to have to amend this LDC every time we amend the Collier County Housing Assistance Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you? MR. GIBLIN: That does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's do that then. Anybody object to it? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, were you finished? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, I'm sorry, when we went to Mr. Klatzkow I didn't ask you, are you finished? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess I am, because I'm not able to make my point. And I apologize for my inability to do so, but there is a point I was attempting to make, and I am concerned, I don't want to go through a whole process of trying to presume to educate everybody here in that. I don't have the ability to do that. I just feel that there is a danger here, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Cormac, I've got a question in the definitions. Skilled building trades personnel. Is that everyone? Every construction employee can say that they're skilled in a certain manner. So you're saying any construction employee? MR. GIBLIN: That's the way I would interpret the definition. The wording of this definition was actually created by the state legislature and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners last year. And that is the way I would interpret it. Construction industry employees. The goal -- one of the dangers of a definition like this, and I've had some conversations in the past about it, is it does tend to create discrimination or special categories. And I think what we've done here or what the state legislature have done and what we've done Page 11 November 28, 2007 additionally to this definition is to try to make it as all-inclusive as possible so as to not try to create anyone special category of employee. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: And I think especially the last line in the definition that says and anybody else who happens to be low income in Collier County also qualifies as this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I guess that's where I wanted to go. This is supposed to be a definition of essential service personnel. But there's nobody who's excluded here. Everybody is essential service. MR. GIBLIN: If you're low income, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: If you're low income, you're essential. MR. GIBLIN: Correct, according to this definition. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That doesn't make sense. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: And again, this is the existing definition already adopted by the county and approved by the state. So all we were asked to do by staff was to bring this into the LDC for clarification. COMMISSIONER CARON: Additionally, let's go down on Page 4 where you have your definition of employer-owned housing up to 140 percent. Is that in conflict with the term gap housing lower down that goes up to 150 percent? MR. GIBLIN: Gap housing must be owner-occupied up to 150 percent. And employer-owned -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Can only go up -- MR. GIBLIN: To 140. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: And again, that's per state statute. The ESP Page 12 November 28, 2007 housing is capped at 140 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, could you tell us why you think or anybody thinks we need this additional category when it seems to already be covered in the multitude of other categories we already have? MR. GIBLIN: What we have heard in the past is that a major employer in town, an essential service provider employer in town -- take -- just for example, take one of the hospitals. They may have a desire to build housing for their employees. To build that housing, they would like to avail themselves of a density bonus to make it affordable and meet their bottom line. Under the current bonus density system they cannot do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why, when you've got the percentages there that say household -- if they're going to be within the 140 percent, which is gap, why couldn't they just apply themselves to the gap standards that are already in the table inset? MR. GIBLIN: Because if it's employer-owned, by definition, they're going to be renting it to their employees. Right now the table limits gap and workforce to owner-occupied only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we don't have any provisions in our code for rental housing. MR. GIBLIN: Not at those levels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what this is doing is introducing rental housing in Collier County. Okay, that makes it a lot clearer as to why it's being -- MR. GIBLIN: As long as it's owned and operated by an essential services personnel provider. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. Mr. Midney, did you want to say something too? COMMISSIONER CARON: So what it is introducing employer-owned, where you can have an income of $84,000 and get these bonuses; is that correct? That would be the 140 percent, right? Page 13 November 28, 2007 MR. GIBLIN: Right. And what we see in a lot of job categories in this income area is registered nurses who may be married to a policeman, combined income, they make the workforce and gap income levels, but still in this market they're having trouble finding something to rent or own. And so the hospitals, the school board, the other major employers in town are seeking active ways to try to provide housing for their employees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Klatzkow wants to speak. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what it means. I've read this five times, I still don't know what it means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, we're trying to struggle with that, too. I'm just wondering though why you're just now saying that to us. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just -- I've been listening to the explanations and I still don't understand what this means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't this supposed to be reviewed by all departments before it got here today? I mean, legal, too? MR. KLA TZKOW: It is a private amendment, and he's coming forward. And on a private amendment we let the private petitioner come forward and have their day. And what I'm telling you is I don't know what it means and I don't understand the explanations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean that all our LDC amendments don't have legal sufficiency review prior to coming to us? MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. I've reviewed these. But for private -- for the private ones, I don't go to the private guy and sit down and try to redo their amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So who wrote this? Staff did not write this? I know you guys introduced it, but staff didn't put it into the format that we're seeing here today? So this kind of came through in the dark, we get it presented Page 14 November 28, 2007 today and the first time everybody sees it is today. MR. GIBLIN: Well, it was submitted months ago. It's gone through the DSAC twice. It has been in staffs hands for quite awhile. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I certainly understand Mr. Klatzkow's dilemma. If he can't make sense of it, it's going to be hard for anybody to make legal sense of it. MR. GIBLIN: Maybe I can try to simplify it. The first three pages are the definition. If we've already taken the definition off the table and said just refer to the local Housing Assistance Plan, then I don't see any reason to include that anymore. Really, the core of this change is the -- one, two, three, four -- six lines added under the table on Page 6. That is the core of what we're asking for, and it is to allow major employers in town to provide housing for their employees using the density bonus chart. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the difference here is by using the chart you can apply it to rentals so you can have more density in your apartment complexes, for example, so when you have a multi-family complex, of which we're used to seeing 10, 12 units per acre, you could have a density bonus that would get you to whatever levels you can get to based on your mix on this table. MR. GIBLIN: Correct. Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? I didn't mean to sidetrack everybody from your question. Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's fine, I'm enjoying the conversation. Cormac, two things. And one thing is the concept of discrimination. So this is good discrimination. And what we're going to do -- I mean, the people that are outside this, is it open to them? I have a software company, can I take advantage ofthis? It looks like no, but what if I wrote construction-oriented software, would I then be able to? Would an architectural-- MR. GIBLIN: That would be up for the county to interpret the Page 15 November 28, 2007 definition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you see my point is there's a line somewhere. That line is a form of discrimination and that can be abused. Second thing, growing up in the northeastern part of Pennsylvania, the company town with the coal mines, is this going to create company condos, which could be an abusive environment for the employees? Is that what the intent is here? MR. GIBLIN: No, I think the intent is here, as Mr. Murray alluded to earlier, is to allow a coalition of different major employers in town to come together, provide a safe, decent, affordable housing option for their employees. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the problem is the rental, that means that they own the unit the person lives in, therefore, their job controls their ability to live in that unit. So why can't we write something that really lets them bring people to town, let them buy a unit, and then from that point on it's free market. I mean, the concern I have is that becomes a control device. Their history has shown where that's not a good handle on -- MR. GIBLIN: It was really our decision to limit this to only that ESP category, because -- rather than open it up to any employer. But I think maybe to address some of your concerns, maybe that is the angle to take on this, is just to allow rentals at the gap in workforce level to meet that market demand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And the other thing is that these condos will be then totally filled by people who work in that particular business, especially if it's a single employer owned. I mean, is that the healthiest environment, versus mixing the rest of the community together? MR. GIBLIN: It would depend on what other options are out there for the residents. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The intent of providing housing Page 16 November 28, 2007 is excellent. I think what the state is trying to do is probably good. But the concern I have is the rental part. I mean, if you brought somebody to town, you sold them a unit, that's a good idea. The fact that you're discriminating from other people using the unit could be dangerous too. It is -- can be the slippery slope. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, the more I look at this, I like it. You know, we've always been sort of brought up with the idea that if you own your own home it's better because you're going to take better care of it. That's, I think, a lot of the basis behind Habitat and, you know, the push to try to get people to own their own home. But in the current environment, just the way things are, owner-occupied is really impossible for so many people. People can't afford to get a down payment and to go through -- to get that huge of a loan in order to afford a house, you know, working people in the county. And I think a lot of people would be able to get into a rental thing where they couldn't necessarily afford to buy a house. So I think that -- you know, no one is forcing the people to rent there, but I think it could open up housing in a way that, you know, the programs that we have now that are all focused on ownership can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me try one more shot at that. If! understand you correctly, the intent of employer-owned was to allow for rentals. If the Sheriff cannot own property, that means none of the deputies can rent unless they rent someplace else at a disadvantaged rate, potentially. This is intended to cure a disadvantaged rate because of their salary. Whether we agree with that or not is unimportant. I think that premise is valid. So my question is, are we not unintentionally creating a problem? Are you representing CWHIPP in any case here? Are you representing the coalition? Page 17 November 28, 2007 MR. GIBLIN: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've been asked by staff to do something? MR. GIBLIN: No, I'm representing a private petitioner that's not affiliated with the CWHIPP. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The impact on this whole coalition could be serious. I'm concerned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Who are you representing? MR. GIBLIN: It is Vernon Ray. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. I have to go along with Brad. I don't like the idea of rentals. I think what people really want is a chance to buy and own, the pride of ownership. And if you can get people into a house, because we do have programs -- if you can get people into a house, as the house escalates, they're in the market. If people rent, they'll never get out of that rental cycle. And I'm really concerned with seeing a development of 2,000 houses, okay, called, you know, the hospital complex. MR. GIBLIN: I think what Mr. Midney's check hit on a minute ago was a valid point also, though. Not everyone is ready for home ownership at the same time. Some people may just be moving to the community. You know, this community has a need for rental housing as well as owner-occupied housing. And the current county programs, as evidenced by this very change that we're asking for, are all geared to provide only that one type of owner-occupied housing. There's housing needs across the entire spectrum in this county, and I don't think anybody is envisioning a company town or trapped employment or anything like that. I'm sure that these employers, if they would take advantage of this, they would say rent here at a discounted rate thanks to the density bonus for a period of a year, two years, three years, whatever it takes. Page 18 November 28, 2007 But by the very means that we're providing this to you at a discount, you will be on your way to home ownership sooner, because you're not being forced to pay 50 percent of your income in rent. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I understand what you're saying, but there's got to be a way to limit it. Once we open the door, I can envision large apartment complexes. If there was a way to limit it by percentage, so many allowed to be purchased, so many allowed as rentals, I'd like it a lot better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein, Ms. Caron, and then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand, for example, let's take that hospital idea. They're now able to build the homes and get it straightened out. And the idea for them is so they can rent them. And when they're renting them, these people know they have to work there in order to live there. Now, coming up with this affordable housing situation was not an idea of rental, it was an idea of a person who can eventually own a home. In this situation, if I don't like the way you work for my hospital I'm going to say you either do this or you won't work here anymore, or you can work here but I'm going to have to put you out of your house, because you're renting it. This was not the beginning or anywhere I ever read until now. We're talking about affordable housing to be bought by people who are far less financially helped than people who go work for the hospital, and yet we're still being able to put houses in their ownership and still getting along with doing it. I haven't seen very many of them who had to foreclose it. I haven't found any of them yet in the newspaper. This idea of rental is not something that's going to say we're going to do nice. The hospital is going to say we're going to make sure we hold on to our people, because they can't stay in our house unless they work in our building. I don't like that at all. Page 19 November 28, 2007 MR. GIBLIN: With respect, I think maybe that the employers may look at it from the opposite perspective, that providing the housing will enable them to attract the highest quality and best employees, and that they see it as providing an additional service to their employees. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think you're thinking it in your way from your respect, but mostly people who want to do this want to own a home if they possibly can. Almost everybody does want to. In this situation, one of the major people in our whole county here, the hospitals, are going to be able to say you're going to be able to rent here, but you aren't going to be able to buy here. And that's not the way these -- this will force the people to do what they have to do to live there. That's not what this is supposed to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn"t they have the opportunity to rent somewhere, and then when they get done, and saving enough money, they can go buy somewhere else? MR. GIBLIN: That I think is the premise here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER CARON: The one issue that did come out was you began to list criteria that might be involved in this, like, for example, people only rent for a year or two and then can move along. And I don't see any criteria here, and this is the Land Development Code, and there should be criteria, I would think, involved. This is the place for it. And it would seem to me that we would establish criteria for this. MR. GIBLIN: I agree that there needs to be some type of governing criteria. I'm not sure the LDC is the place for it. I think that that might be something for the private sector to work out. If you are offering terms that are unattractive to your employees then they're not going to rent there. If they are attractive, then they are Page 20 November 28, 2007 going to rent it. I don't know if that needs to be set hard and fast in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Midney, and then I'm going to take a few minutes to comment if I could, since everybody else has had one or two times. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, you go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go ahead, after you, and then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me give an example of a concern I have. I had a client, he had multiple operations around the state, and as we'd fly around he would brag that one of his secrets to success was that he would buy the manager their house, essentially they would live in his house. And once the garage got full of junk, he had them, because he could control them, because if they ever, you know, acted out, he could throw them out of the house. So that's kind of my concern. And also, I think congregating the same group of people in one apartment building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, it sounds as though some of the objections is that this somehow is discouraging home ownership. And nothing in this is against ownership, this is just an alternative for people who can't own. And when you look at the credit market right now, there's a lot of people who are going to be having a hard time owning something but could afford to rent. And the other thing is I don't think that you have to say that the hospital or whatever has to allow the people to only stay in the rental housing for a certain number of years and then kick them out. If the person likes it there and is working, I don't think that you should force that there be sort of a time limit on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, you hit on a point that I Page 21 November 28, 2007 wanted to make, and that is that the credit market is tightening up. And from all -- and I just got done reading some articles this morning before I came here. It's going to get worse in '08 and '09. Rentals are going to be a necessity. There is nothing wrong with a rental. In fact, the only way you save money up for a home, unless you inherit, is to rent somewhere while you put your money away and save it up. The problem with this proposal is it seems to want to define rentals to a selective group of people, and I'm not sure we need to do that. I think instead we might want to consider scrapping this whole way you're presenting here today, add an additional table that works out bonuses for the rental market. And if an employer or whoever wants to involve themselves with affordable rentals, they go to that table. Now, how they rent them out, whether it's to their employees or to the general public, they can do that through private deed restrictions, and then they can take the liability for any kind of discrimination issues that may come out of that. We don't need to. We simply are providing the opportunity to allow rentals with some bonuses. I'm not sure what they'd be. I'm not sure if the BCC and this board or others would recommend that the bonuses be the same as ownership homes, because ownership homes are a priority here. So maybe we work out a double table, one for ownership and one for rentals, and everything goes away, all the definitions apply and we're all set to go, just like we are. That's a suggestion. Ms. Fabacher? MS. F ABACHER: Fabacher. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your last name sometimes is like Nick's, but it's not quite so bad. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. I just wanted to correct what might have been a misimpression. Staff does review the private Page 22 November 28, 2007 amendments that come in. This has been reviewed by the zoning department. I spoke with the staff at the housing department. Now, perhaps it would have been better to have given you a written recommendation, but once we discussed it, they didn't have any problem with it. It's distributed to all of the directors of all the departments and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Catherine, what I think there's maybe be some disconnect is, all these laws and words we put in place seem fine. They seem fine to us, the EAC, the DSAC, the BCC even. But what it boils down to, what is fine in regards to the attorneys that analyze it when they come before us six months, a year or five years down the road, and then we end up in court battles. So from my perspective, more important than your review is the county attorney's. And then he tells us he can't even understand -- he doesn't even understand what this means, that raises a flag for me, why are we even here when we can't even get a sufficient legal reVIew. And if Jeff had a problem with this before it got here, by God, it should have been addressed before it got here. So that's where I was coming from. We have got to be able to do things that are defendable legally in this county. And the only way we do that is with legal review ahead of time. So I wasn't saying staff internally didn't do it. I just want to make sure legal review is done thoroughly before it comes to us. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to offer maybe the option that perhaps we could defer it to our next meeting. In the meantime I could get a recommendation from our housing department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- based on what I'm hearing today, I definitely think this is going to be deferred to our next meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I won't vote for it. Page 23 November 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, before you say it again, Mr. Murray did have his hand up before you, and then we'll go back to you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't want to keep on kicking the goose here, but I want to straighten some details out. What I do know, and I don't pretend to know everything that's going on, but I have some affiliation with this group. Let me make something clear, because I am a member of the board of the hospitals, and I will tell you that they are not in the business of owning homes. They are concerned, at least I know at HMA's homes, the Physician's Regional, they were interested in a right of first refusal that they could have an opportunity for their employees. They're not concerned with that. I recognize there may be some Simon Legrees out there, but I know that NCH historically has -- when they bring in their nurses, they put them up, they put them up in rental quarters. And they'd love to be able to facilitate that a little easier than what they do now. They're not interested, it's not their central work. They're interested in trying to make available clean, adequate housing for, say, a young nurse who can't afford a 1,500 square foot apartment, could afford a 700 square foot, maybe, if there was another nurse. That type of arrangement, that saves them money, they can get an opportunity to either choose to leave or they could buy a home. Focusing exclusively on home purchasing is short-sighted on this part, so I recognize the desirability of doing this. But again, I'll state again clearly that I think the coalition needs to represent -- to be here to talk about this issue, and I would ask them to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cormac, why is it important that you put in employer-owned all the time? In other words, why couldn't a private developer take advantage of this, build a rental thing with the Page 24 November 28, 2007 intent to rent to essential services? MR. GIBLIN: That was our decision to limit it and just to this category of employers, rather than open it up to the general public, because of previous direction by the Board of County Commissioners that rentals maybe were not such a good idea. But I really like Mr. Strain's idea that we should open it up to -- my feeling is that we should open it up to anyone and everyone who wants to build affordable housing, be it rental or ownership, and not get into this restrictions on who your employer is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I think the concept of employer-owned, obviously I've expressed a concern. Imagine the construction company building an apartment building with a bus that picks up all the workers every -- I mean, look where that could go. And the civil rights laws have spent a long time weeding out what that could start to bring back in. The second thing is when you do rent this thing, you pay somebody a salary, how does the value of this rental apply to his salary? Is it a benefit, is it cheap rent, is it market rent? MR. GIBLIN: Well, it would be cheap rents. The rent would be controlled by the percentage of median income that the units are set aside for, just like the current system. So it would be a reduced rate from market rate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Essentially wouldn't that add to a salary then, the reduction from market rate? And thus could that throw him out of the program? But anyway, that's a bookkeeping thing. I think the concern is that if you went through here and scrapped the word employer-owned everywhere you put it, I would be a lot more comfortable with this. Because if a private developer did it then, you know, the Sheriff could live next to the nurse, who could live next to the construction worker, which to me is healthier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, if you scrapped the word Page 25 November 28, 2007 employer-owned, basically then what you've got is the same definition practically as gap. So why add another definition just to scrap the word employer-owned? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it gives you a little bit bigger benefits than gap, doesn't it? I mean, that's why you're -- otherwise why do this? MR. GIBLIN: Again, to underline what Mr. Strain said a moment ago, perhaps the easiest solution here is, the first star under the chart on Page 6, strike through that entire line, giving the entire chart to rental, owner-occupied, public, private. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I didn't say, though -- what I'm concerned about is we are trying to encourage home ownership. We're not trying to encourage rentals in this county. But I think that rentals are going to be a necessity with the marketplace and the credit crunch coming ahead of us in the next two years. And out of fairness, we ought to supply rentals. Therefore, I'm not sure we want to provide the same incentive for rentals that we do for home occupancy, because if we're trying to promote more home occupancy, the incentive rate should be higher, and the rental incentive rates might be changed. So that's why I was suggesting a different table. And that is something that BCC direction certainly would be where they would decide where to go. But I know from listening to the meetings that they prefer home ownership. And I'm sure that there will be weighted tables in that regard if this were to happen that way. Mr. Klatzkow, is there anything you wanted to add to this? MR. KLATZKOW: The difference between when staff presents something and when the private sector presents something is I can sit down with staff and I can say what is it that you're really trying to get at here. And when the private petitioner comes in, he has a project in Page 26 November 28, 2007 mind. I don't know what that project is, and he's trying to change the LDC to get that project, and then we're trying to guess at what that project is and what the ramifications are. And I've still listened to this and I still don't know what he's trying to get at here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're in agreement with you. MR. KLATZKOW: Perhaps if you could explain what the project this client wants placed in, we could then more intelligently deal with this amendment. MR. GIBLIN: This change would be used in a --let's say in a PUD setting, someone building multi-family condominium buildings and would like the opportunity to sell maybe a block of six or 10 or 12 to the hospital, blocks of 10 to the fire department, a block of 10 to the county to provide affordable rental housing to their employees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're doing that now. MR. KLATZKOW: So this is what Ave Maria is trying to do. MR. GIBLIN: They cannot do that with the density bonus the way it's currently written. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you go down to Manatee Road and 951, there's a project behind the Coral Isle Mall called Rookery. They're renting out to the hotels on Marco, they're renting out to different employers blocks of building at a time, and then the employers put people in there. MR. GIBLIN: And you can do that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so -- MR. GIBLIN: -- but you cannot use a density bonus to make it even more affordable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure that they're not using it, but either way I understand what you're saying there. I don't think this is going to fly here today. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What is our procedure from here? Are we going to rewrite this or do we get to vote yes or no, and Page 27 November 28, 2007 he goes back and tries and tries and rewrites it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was just headed, but I wanted to give you the opportunity, because I thought you were going to -- if you have another question? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Well, then if-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- I want to wrap it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- all our questions are finished here today, I think the direction of this board is it's not going to work and you might want to come back with something better on our next time around, because that's the only next chance we're going to have before it's got to go either forward or not. MR. GIBLIN: I will see you on the 12th at 5:05 and I'll have something to Catherine by the end of this week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Keep an eye on the timing of the meeting and communicate with Catherine, because if we don't get through a lot today, I'm going to request staff to squeeze in more nights and afternoons between now and the 21st of December, because there's no reason we can't finish this cycle in December. And we will finish it in December. So there may be another date squeezed in there, too. MR. GIBLIN: Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, before we do the video, Joe, I'd like to finish the public participation here. I'd like to go into the sign ordinance with Ms. Krier as the next one. MS. FABACHER: All right. Our next one will be on Page 43, and that's going to be the -- actually open house signs. We're going to go ahead and perhaps take the speakers first. I think Mr. Poteet asked to speak first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Page 43. Page D on your summary sheet. Mr. Page 28 November 28, 2007 Poteet. MR. POTEET: Thank you. For the record, my name is William H. Poteet, Jr. I represent the Naples Area Board of Realtors, and we're here to discuss open house signs. And the reason the need's there is prior to the original adoption of the Land Development Code everybody had open house signs in town, and everybody was doing business and everything was fine. But subsequently, once the LDC was adopted, the staff over at code enforcement determined that it was not included in the code and therefore it was illegal. So now we have illegal open house signs all throughout Collier County. Not in the City of Naples, but just in Collier County. So what we decided to do is I called up Michelle Arnold and asked to meet with her to see if we could come up with some type of resolution to correct this, because the realtors are really just trying to serve their clients. We have over 12,000 clients out there right now that want to sell their properties, and one of the best vehicles that we know is the tried and true open house. So in order to get people to the open house, they have to be able to know it's open. And you need a sign in front of the building and possibly a directional sign to show you where it is, because some of the listings are at the end of streets that are almost a mile long. So we met with -- we called Michelle up, we set up a meeting with Mr. Schmitt and Michelle, and Michelle could not attend but she sent Dave Scribner from code enforcement. And we had a very, very productive meeting. We told them our concerns, they told their concerns, and what you see today is a partial draft of what we discussed. The only thing that is missing on that particular draft is we talked about the directional sign. And we're not trying to be sign crazy, because we understand one of the complaints that was out there in the Page 29 November 28, 2007 community is I see signs everywhere. We wanted to have open houses signs just during open house periods. We wanted to make sure that we limited the hours of the open houses, so you don't go by at 7:00 in the evening and see the sign still out there in the street. If they're going to have an open house sign, they put it up between 10:00 and 5:00 and have their open house and then go away after that. The directional sign, it was also discussed, but was not in the draft here, unfortunately. And I've had discussions with Mr. Schmitt about it, and he and I have been e-mailing back and forth some suggestions on how to do that. And ifhe would like to tell you what we've talked about, that would be great. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. Bill is in fact correct. We talked about this. And one of the problems also is code enforcement. We on some weekends pick up maybe 100 to 150 of these what we call snipe signs, some of which are for sale signs, open house signs. And it is somewhat a disservice, I guess, if you want to look at it, to the person trying to sell the home, because they put these signs out there. Our code mandates that we pick them up. I think the code was probably a bit too restrictive. The concern here is where do you want these signs. But the other issue is, for instance, the -- let's say a home is for sale in the Estates where you kind of want to lead somebody to the right street down a direction, but how many directional -- we'll call them directional signs, even though that is a term specifically dealing with our sign terminology, so we may have to call it something different. But auxiliary open house signs or whatever we call it. But what would be appropriate to put these out, at the corner of the major thoroughfare. We do not want these in the median, that was made clear. What this does allow is for them to be 10 feet from the edge of pavement, so the restriction now currently says they cannot be in the right-of-way at all. Page 30 November 28, 2007 The other issue here was we wanted to make sure there was a time limit and we wanted to make sure there was also identification on the sign, who put that sign out so we can make sure if they're -- we pick them up beyond the time limits or they're there and they're left there, we can certainly deal with it through a neighbor. But the intent here between Bill and Ellie and I and Michelle and Dave Scribner was trying to sort out the balance between making sure we do not stifle the opportunity or the attempt of people trying to sell real estate but at the same time make sure we don't have sign proliferation. So I guess maybe we're looking for your guidance on this as well as have any suggestions dealing with how many signs do you think would be appropriate. It's hard to describe how we would do that. A thousand feet, no more than 1,000 feet near the existing sign or in front of the open house, that property that's conducting the open house. But then how many more signs do we allow, for instance in the Estate, all the way up to the Golden Gate Boulevard? I don't know. You guys -- looking for your guidance on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a suggestion. I think they're necessary, for one. But if you put an address on them and you allotted each open house to have two or three, with that address, code enforcement could keep track of it, because each sign would have an address. And if you had 20 for one address that would be overkill, but if you had just two or three, that would be a starting point with an address to track. MR. SCHMITT: And that was my suggestion, no more than 1,000 feet apart, no more than, I believe, three, two to three? MR. POTEET: You didn't put a number. Our original discussion was we wanted one directional sign and be able to put it at the end of the street so we can get them down the street to the house. Where we run into problems occasionally is if we have more than one open house going on in the street, and so you'll have a person Page 31 November 28, 2007 halfway down the street has his open house, and the guy at the other end of the street, nobody goes to it because they thought they already got there. So we were going to allow one open house sign per open house, so they could put another one of them down the street. But he had suggested no closer than 1,000 feet from the actual house. But then you run into problems if the house is only three or four houses in on the block, people that are driving on the cross street are not going to see the open house sign because they're too far into the street. So you still need the directional sign at the beginning of the street. That's where we really want to make sure that at the beginning of the street that the open house is on that we have the ability to have a sign. And this does not preclude those gated communities, they'll have separate for themselves. This is just in the Golden Gate proper -- or not Golden Gate proper but the county. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But Bill -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- unless there's an address on each sign, there's no way to keep track of it. If at the end of a park you had two oftherm, one for each address, okay, you'd bring people down there, and they'd know if they went to each one, and then one at the house -- MR. POTEET: That could be done. I mean, what we've acquired CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, before you go too far, you've both got to wait till the other one completely finishes talking, because every word you say has to be recorded, and she can't take two at the same time. So let him finish before you start, then you start. And we'll go back and forth like that. MR. POTEET: I understand. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Again, as a beginning point, without an address on each sign there's no way to keep track of them Page 32 November 28, 2007 for code enforcement. And if you allow two or three maximum, then Joe could work the space limitations out from you, I feel more comfortable with it. MR. POTEET: Now, on the address, you just want the address for information for code enforcement, is that the purpose? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, the address for the people driving down the street. In other words, open house, 125 Jones Lane, on the particular sign. So now when they see an open house sign there's an address tied to it and they'll go looking for that. If there's a sign next to it saying open house, 425 Smith Street down the same road, they'll know to go to Smith street or Jones Lane. It would be an advantage for you because it will help solve that poor guy down at the end of the block that never got visited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Morning, Mr. Poteet. MR. POTEET: Good morning, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How do we feel about multiple signs at the corner of Jones Lane and directing people to seven homes that are up for sale? How do we feel about that, the proliferation of that? Well, that wouldn't be a proliferation, just their being there. That's a problem, too, isn't it? You would recognize that as an issue. MR. POTEET: It could be a problem. There would be times that you would have multiple open houses on the street, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I live in a condominium and there are multiple homes for sale and multiple open houses. I don't object to it personally, because people should try to be able to sell their property if they want. But it does -- I've also passed places in the Estates where I've looked and I've said oh, my, there's six signs, there's six signs suggesting that there are people selling homes on that street. I think that hurts the character of the neighborhood to some degree. So I don't know if that impacts on it. MR. POTEET: The reason we went to code enforcement and Page 33 November 28, 2007 through community development is to come up with a plan that the community may accept in order to resolve a problem that's out there already, because people are violating the rules as it is right now. We want to cure it. We want to be able to go back to our folks and tell them these are the rules. Now these will also apply to the FSBO's. They will have the same responsibilities and the same opportunities that's out there. Because currently what they're doing is illegal also. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wonder if a single sign, for instance, a sign that directs people down Jones Lane that might say open house today with a little tab that could be used to get an S in there, open houses, or however it might be done, that would be a single sign as a directional sign. And the specific signs at the property might be useful. Does that have any credence, any credibility? MR. POTEET: I could see us saying that we could have one open house sign at the beginning of a street -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes sense to me -- MR. GIBLIN: -- and whichever realtor gets there first puts up the sign, and that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question of staff. Is this a private-driven LDC amendment? MS. F ABACHER: No, this came from community development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. Poteet is speaking as a member of the public? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so are the other people, Ms. Krier and -- okay, so this wasn't private like Cormac. MS. F ABACHER: Right. Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac initiated a broad request for an LDC amendment as a private sector individual. How does that differ from what I'm hearing here now? This is being done for a private Page 34 November 28, 2007 sector as well. How is it any different then what Cormac came before us? The reason I'm asking is we're directing all our interaction between the citizens' comments and we should be directing them to staff for analysis. And I'm just wondering where the fine line is. Mr. Adelstein, I'll get to you in just a minute. MR. SCHMITT: The fine line, Cormac's dealing with a specific issue dealing with a specific client to amend the code for a particular situation that he wanted to solve. When I -- we've been talking -- I've been talking to NABR about this probably for over a year, different times, about the problems. It's a problem for code. And from a community development perspective, when NABR asked to meet again with staff, it is a mutually -- it solves mutual problems, for them as well as us. To me it alleviates some of the resources that I have to devote on weekends to go out and pick up signs. So that's the fine line. It's an amendment that we proceeded with because it does give me some -- it basically relaxes some of the restrictions that are in place, and then it gives me the opportunity to use my resources elsewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just trying to make sure that when we get down to this, the direction we have to respond to basically is staff and how they're putting this together and they're going to interpret it. And the public input is needed more so that we go in the right direction. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. It's a staff-initiated, mainly because of the resource issues, and frankly, from that standpoint that's -- I'm looking at it strictly as I can use resources elsewhere, especially on weekends, when I'm looking at code enforcement, rather than go out and picking up 100 signs. I can pick up 100 snipe signs and not worry about the open house signs. I mean that's, frankly, that's the Page 35 November 28, 2007 Issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's a snipe sign? MR. SCHMITT: It's a nickname for these little signs they pull on the road, you know, call me if you're going to get foreclosed, or cars for sale, or -- isn't that what we call them, Michelle? They're snipe signs, they're just -- MR. KLATZKOW: Signs put on other peoples' property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've never head of that before. MR. SCHMITT: You see them on the road, carpets for sale, open house, garage sale. We probably pick up a hundred of them a weekend or more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, would you ask your question please. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I'm talking about Palm Drive, which is the first street up this way. Up now we have almost all the realtors going up to one end and stating which ones are open, and at the back end, the same thing. And then on the additional spot, the same thing. This goes on from approximately 11 :00 in the morning and then till about 3:00, 4:00 in the afternoon. But at the front of the place, you see where they are and you can write it down. Coming out the other way you can do exactly the same thing. Now they can go into this home with usually a realtor involved, and that way it doesn't seem to bother any of the other people that are living there. It's a very simple thing, usually on Sundays. And by 5:00, 5:30, they're gone, the signs and all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I actually was just going to talk about the actual language here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to get past the public speakers so we can get to the staff who wrote the language, and then we can go from there. Page 36 November 28, 2007 Any other questions of Mr. Poteet? MS. KRIER: Good morning, Ellie Krier for the record, representing the Naples Area Board of Realtors. Just two things. If you look on your Page 44 and 45, you'll see on 44, on items 2.A and 2.B, the final paragraph, in parens, no building permit required. I would ask that that be added to whatever your final language is. I'm sure that was the intent, but I think that needs to be in there. And I would like to address briefly Mr. Strain's comments. Unlike the prior petitioner, we're here to solve a problem for Collier County residents. Yes, they're our clients, but there's no unknown project lurking behind us, it's people trying to sell their homes. And with regard to multiple signs at the end of the street, which Mr. Adelstein referred to, as well as Mr. Murray, if a realtor or that street chooses to have six open houses on one day, it may indeed hurt them, but that's what the free market allows them to do. It's a public information that we're trying to convey. They can choose whether they want to be one of seven or wait till the next Sunday and show it themselves in isolation. I don't think that that's the county's need to get into what should be a free market situation there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd just like to ask Ms. Krier a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think you misunderstood me, anyway. I was referring to places like the Estates where you're driving and there then would be, say, six or seven signs at a street where the homes are way down. I have no objection to home after home after home having their own sign. I thought that it would be not beneficial to a community to have all of these signs on a single thing. It draws a negative attention. Recognizing that yes, it is a free market issue, I have no problem Page 37 November 28, 2007 beyond that. MS. KRIER: Finally, in answer to Mr. Schmitt's question about the word directional, you could always use off-site open house sign as language that would adequately describe what they are. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, back to the language ofthe document. We have it several pages, starting on Page 43. Does anybody on the planning commission have comments or questions about the actual language, now that we've heard the discussion from the public? Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question about the term erected. I believe that the signs that we're talking about are these signs that you just stick in the ground. They're like -- they're essentially cardboard signs with little metal posts to get them into the ground. I don't think that they require construction, which seems to be the term here. And I just want to make sure that I am correct, and perhaps we can change that word to may be placed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, if you look in D and others, you've got a good point. They use the words located. COMMISSIONER CARON: Or located, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another word would probably be better there, certainly. So I'm sure staff can come up with a word for that. Is that okay, Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, it's fine. Located is good, installed. I agree if the other text says located, that would be good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Mr. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's fine for now. I think we've made a couple of other comments that will come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my suggestion is I think Page 38 November 28, 2007 obviously the two-by-two sign is good at the location. I like Bob Vigliotti's idea of actually putting the address. So maybe what we'll do -- I would suggest that we add another sign, I think, calling it an off-site address sign where you allow an additional two square feet, which essentially is one-foot by two-foot where you do put the address. And then that way the realtors can have their normal two-by-two and then have something that's adjustable with the address that they could stick on the top or bottom. If we allow just one of those at their prime intersection with the address, then not have a whole series of arrow signs leading down, I think that would be good. I think the size is important to the people that are going to be in vehicles reading it, you don't want people stopping on right-of-ways to take addresses off. So again, one sign at the premise, the two-by-two, and then an additional one-by -- well, I'll make it two square feet, that would have the address to be attached to it off-site. And I guess we can call that the off-site address sign, and that would do it. Second thing, Joe, I wish you were in my Boy Scout troop with this snipe hunt. We would have a lot of fun with you. But unfortunately you would come back with something and spoil the whole thing, so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments on the language? Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: On Page 44, number 2.A, one ground sign with a maximum height of six feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is existing language. The only language for discussion today is the language that's underlined. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under G, during supervised real Page 39 November 28, 2007 estate open houses. I'm just wondering why we need supervised in there. If! were an owner, I would think I would be there. If! were an agent representing an owner, I would be there. That's the supervised, I would assume. Is there anything other than supervised real estate open houses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, you were just asked a question. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, excuse me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are there any other -- is there any other thing than a supervised real estate open house? MS. F ABACHER: I would think if you leave a lock box and some brochures, you could put an open house sign, people could wander in and look around themselves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure you'd want that. I think if you leave the words -- MS. FABACHER: I think that's what supervised means, is that there's staff available to show the house. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I understand that. But you're requiring it as supervised. Suppose somebody -- it says during supervised. So you're just suggesting that if there were no supervision, what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It couldn't have a model (sic) home sign MS. F ABACHER: You couldn't have this sign. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You can't have a sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would they need one ifnobody could get in to see the house? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree, I would never want anybody going in without -- I don't know if it was superfluous language, that's all. I'm glad you qualified it. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. Page 40 November 28,2007 MS. F ABACHER: Mrs. Arnold just pointed out that the sign that we've allowed with the existing language is technically also off-site, even though it's in the right-of-way adjacent to the parcel. It's still not on the property. It's in our right-of-way, 10 feet from the pavement. So just not to be confusing, because this would be a second off-site. When you say one off-site sign, she's correct in saying that the sign that's going to be at the property is actually off-site because it's in the right-of-way and not on the property. And so then you may just -- work with the words on that, that's all she'd like me to point out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd been wanting to get to two points. Number one is how many model (sic) signs are we proposing per lot? MS. F ABACHER: Open house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many open house signs are we proposing per open house? MS. FABACHER: We're proposing, as I understand now, we're proposing the one that's going to be adjacent and abutting the lot, and then there's going to be the one we call the off-site address sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that's adjacent, abutting the lot, how are we limiting it to one? Is there somewhere in here that says one? I might have missed that. MS. FABACHER: It says an. We can change an open house to one open house sign. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think so. Because in the following sentence you refer to plurality of signs. And I would -- I wouldn't want anybody to mix up and come out there with 20 signs just to cause attention to the open house. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you for pointing that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, before I get finished, did you want to say -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's fine, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The directional sign that's been talked about, off-site and all that. We're back to where off-site means. And I Page 41 November 28, 2007 understand it's in an intersection near streets that are leading to -- with an address on it. But we don't want them in the medium, we don't want them hanging from the light pole. And if they're off-site and they're not in someone else's front yard and they're at an intersection, where are they going to be? MS. FABACHER: In the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but the right-of-way abuts someone's front yard. So if I happen to have a corner house on an intersection, I can expect to wake up in the morning when I'm trying to cut my lawn and stuff and see 20 real estate signs stacked up out there with directions to my model home -- or to an open house down the street? Is that what we're trying to say is okay? MS. FABACHER: No, I don't believe so. I think Ms. Krier suggested that first come, first serve. And that we maybe write something and say that no two can be within 1,000 feet, you know, have a distance restriction or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That still doesn't address my question. I'm still trying to find out, corner property owners have just as much right to their piece of the earth as the rest of us do. Just because they live on a corner, they shouldn't be inundated with signage placed in their front yards, whether that front yard is part of the right-of-way or not. My front yard or everybody's front yard is part of some right-of-way. And you treat it like -- you trim it, you put landscaping there, you take care of it. It would be hard to give someone a right just to walk up and stick a sign in the middle of your lawn or landscape bed and say there's an open house down the street. So I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm trying to figure out how we regulate the placement of it so we don't intrude on someone else's privacy that we shouldn't be doing. Page 42 November 28, 2007 That's just those two comments are what I had. I think if we limit it to one on-site -- or, say, off-site, but a contiguous to sign, as we've done with this language. And by the way, I think the point was well made, no building permit required. It should be added to the end like it is on the others. And then if we study further this idea of where this directional sign should go so it's not intruding on someone's privacy, I think that would be the second way to take a look at it, so. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The idea that I have watched on this situation is basically we have the sidewalk that goes to the curb, and that's where the sign goes, not on their property. In fact, I've watched it now almost every Sunday. And in most situations, that is always on the curb-in side, and the For Rent, whatever -- For Sale is on the wherever they want to do it. But the answer is you always can see it as you drive by because it's there. And it doesn't really offend anybody because it is not their property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately a lot ofthe county doesn't have curbs and sidewalks, and where a lot of the real estate is being sold, in Golden Gate Estates, which is the biggest selling part of the county, there are no curbs and sidewalks. So that wouldn't fit that scenario, and that's why I was bringing it up, because all of us out there have -- could have corner lots and the signs would have to be stuck on our lawns. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're not going to sell it to them so they so they can get it done? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not. So anyway, that's why I -- I think it needs to have more thought on where that directional sign will go. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is to Joe, a question. Page 43 November 28, 2007 Do you have any complaints on -- from the citizens on this or -- MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to have to turn to Michelle on that, because I -- dealing with signs -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because my point -- MR. SCHMITT: Mostly they are -- the complaints are dealing with them, the signs not being in the right place. So if you want to give a little history on this. MS. ARNOLD: Because we normally -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle Arnold for the record. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, Michelle Arnold for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You should be used to this by now. MS. ARNOLD: I should definitely be used to that. Because we do this on a regular basis in terms of enforcement going out and picking up these signs, we don't get a lot of complaints. I think if we don't do it regularly on the weekends and during the week, we would probably get lots of complaints. So we don't typically get lots of complaints on this particular issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the question is that it -- this isn't being driven by the citizens complaining, this is being driven by the fact that you have been having these snipe hunts and you keep picking these up. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think it's partially driven by, you know, NABR concerns there, and the market the way it is currently, too. There's been a concern -- there's been discussions with NABR over the years of how do we address open house signs so that it can be sensitive to the citizens as well as that particular industry. And this is our first attempt to try to address the open house signs on properties that are being sold. I think that there is still a concern from NABR's perspective about placement of off-premise open house signs to attract the public to those properties. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point Mark made, are you concerned about that, that if in fact somebody lives on a popular Page 44 November 28,2007 corner, they could wake up in the morning with a forest of open house signs? MS. ARNOLD: That is a concern. Some of the areas that are prominent for a lot of these open house signs are -- the end of the street would be commercial, for example, Naples Park. So you're dealing with commercial property as opposed to residential. In the Estates, however, you will have that problem where you've got tons of signs located on somebody's residential property. That's part of my concerns of proliferation of signs at one particular corner. And if we could come up with a way to address that so that it's, you know -- we're not having to pick up ten signs. And if they are out there beyond the time period that they're allowed, there's just one sign to pick up, that would be great. Plus it would be something that addresses the industry. I don't know how we do that, because you've got real estate -- various real estate companies, so it's not like all of one particular company is selling the homes that may be on a particular street or in a particular community, so it is a difficult-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, Michelle, we're at a point today where we don't have the complete language to this, and that's been well documented. But I think direction's been given about our concerns for better language. Some minor tweaking to the language that is here, but I think generally G is somewhat in pretty good shape. But I think what we really need now is to have staff get together with the real estate people and come back with some refined language on the directional sign at our next meeting, and we can get this thing over with and move forward. That might be the most productive way to resolve this. Ms. Murry? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have one other thought. Commissioner Caron brought up the issue of erection of a sign, and I recognize that this would be a responsibility of the condominium Page 45 November 28,2007 association, but it could apply anywhere. We had an individual who chose to have installed on the common property a four-by-four stick in the ground, deep in the ground, with a post, an extension and a hanging sign that said open house, you know, for sale by owner. And this was intended to be left there. And of course, you know, we compelled him to take it down. But that was in condominium, in common property, which is the responsibility in my view of the association. But you also might have that circumstance arising in other locations where private homes would be for sale. So I think erection or some language that relates to that is important because not every open house is going to be simply that. That's a thought you might take into consideration. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the size criteria currently contained in there would probably alleviate that particular problem, a larger than the current provisions for smaller -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The sign itself was probably within the signage -- MS. ARNOLD: Oh, it was? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- but the post stood up probably six feet, five feet. And so it was clearly visible. It was intended to be there until that person sold that property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under this criteria, though, the height would be exceeded then. And the action of re-digging that hole and putting it in the ground, tamping it in and removing it every day, they'd probably wouldn't want to do that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They didn't do -- intend to remove, they intended to keep it there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This regulation would prevent that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I do want to wrap this up. But Page 46 November 28, 2007 Mr. Murray brought up a good idea. At the end of the street, the first sign up could say open house. Now, if you have another realtor coming in, they would have to either come up with a different sign that says open houses or some kind of different -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A little tab that reveals S -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- something, okay. So one sign at the end of the block for an open house. And do a tab, we'll come up with some kind of idea to add an S. So now we have one and then one at each, in front of the houses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It sounds like the -- realtors are going to get along and cooperate in sales like that, like the Palestines (sic) and the Arabs, so good luck in seeing that happen. But anyway, let's just go ahead and leave it with -- as we've stated with staff. They'll come back to the next meeting with some revised language and we'll go from there. And at this point let's take a break until 10:00 and when we get back, we'll resume with the -- whatever kind of cartoon we're going to see. I'm not sure which one now. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Ifwe resume our seats. Yesterday was the Board of County Commissioners meeting in which the representative of Cocohatchee had asked one of the commissioners to discuss the possibility of how we should be looking at this particular issue that's come before us or it's been remanded back to us. That discussion ensued, and I think I watched it -- I was pretty clear on what they said, and I think Mr. Schmitt has got a tape for it for the benefit of everybody here so we can see it again at to providing direction to this board on the 13th Cocohatchee Bert Harris claim Issue. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and Environmental Services Division. Page 47 November 28, 2007 I asked the chairman if I could take five minutes -- I think, no less and no more than about five minutes so the board planning commission can hear the guidance of the board. Mr. Strain is in fact correct. It was brought up yesterday during discussion. In front of me here is resubmittal number seven. I received it on Wednesday and it was distributed to the staff on Monday. And this is in comments back from the applicant on our latest rejection. I'm going to have a meeting on the afternoon of December 7th. The entire staff involved in the review and anybody and everybody involved in regards to the applicant, the public, anybody that wants to come, we are going to review this thing in detail prior to your meeting on the 13th. But let me play the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go-- MR. SCHMITT: I'll pause. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was talking for a minute. But you said something about reviewing it in detail and everybody is welcome to come. What were you referring to? MR. SCHMITT: I opened the meetings up. Certainly it's open to the public. Anybody that wants to come and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which meeting? MR. SCHMITT: This is -- I'm going to meet -- my staff is meeting with representatives of the petitioner, the applicant for Cocohatchee, their design team, anybody that's been involved in this SDP process to go and review in detail every comment of staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Joe, when? MR. SCHMITT: This is December 7th. I'm reviewing that prior to your meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then we have a problem. What you just did is invited the planning commission. We can't show up there without an advertisement. So are you going to be advertising the December 7th meeting? MR. SCHMITT: It is not an advertised meeting. If the planning Page 48 November 28, 2007 commission wants to send somebody there as a representative. But it's a meeting that -- I would have to ask the county attorney if you all come, certainly you wouldn't be able to participate, you just would have to sit and listen, unless one member wanted to be appointed to sit and participate in the review process. But I opened it up to the applicant, I said you can invite anybody you want, because we are going to devote the afternoon to review this plan in detail so you could be prepared -- we can be prepared to discuss this at your December 13th meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Joe, if you -- if the planning commission attends, we have to -- that has to be a public notice meeting if more than one of us attend. The information that's going to be provided at that meeting is going to be relayed to us by staff anyway. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all we're going to do is fill the room up, and you would have a room this big if you're inviting the public by announcing it now at this meeting because you're going to have a lot of people from North Naples who possibly want to be there. I, under all conditions, want to avoid any problems with the Sunshine rules in regards to this planning commission and this issue in particular. It is a litigation issue. And I'm sure that any mistake made will be used in any manner it want's to be used in. And we don't want to make any mistakes by attending that meeting and taking a chance of a Sunshine Law violation. So with that in mind, I'd like to ask this commission, does anybody here intend to attend that meeting? But. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I'd like a confirmation that none of us will, including myself, we will not attend the meeting then, and put any kind of idea forward that could cause us to have a cloud over our 13th meeting. Page 49 November 28, 2007 So fine, you have a clean meeting on the 7th without us. We expect that staff will give us a full report, and we'll have our own ability to analyze this stuff when it comes to us for the 13th anyway. I think everybody here is good for their word. Everybody says that -- nobody's going to attend, right? Then that's the way it will be. MR. KLATZKOW: Quite frankly, if two of you attend, either one's leaving or the meeting's been canceled, so it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're going to get a full report anyway. There's no need to get into that minutia at this time, so. I appreciate that. Thank you. And now we'll go forward, Joe. (Video presentation begins.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- input from the planning commission on the Cocohatchee settlement. That the agreement that we were negotiating at that point in time. There continues to be a lot of confusion about what it is we want to do, and I'm not at all sure that it's been properly implemented yet. It has been postponed at least once. And I'd like for us to give some guidance so that we can get this moving along, otherwise it's just going to linger for a lot longer period of time. Basically this is my concern: When I read the settlement, it is difficult for me to determine what the potential impact of the settlement will be on our Land Development Code and its interpretations and whether or not we're going to get back into a situation like Cap D'Antibes. So I would like to get the planning commission to take a look at this so they can tell us what those provisions in that agreement are likely to do, both negative and positive. I am not interested in the planning commission telling me whether I should have a settlement or not, that's not the planning commission's job. The settlement issues are legal issues and they are issues to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners. I Page 50 November 28, 2007 don't mind if they venture an opinion on it, but that's not my reason for getting it to them. My reason for getting it to them is for them to look at what we are saying in that settlement agreement and advising us whether or not there are disadvantages to the county contained within that agreement. And I'd just like to understand that. So what I'd like to do is to get us to say to the planning commission, look, schedule a workshop so that you can all get together and talk and share your ideas about this in the public. And then after that's happened, have the chairman come here to our meeting where this will be discussed to provide a summary of the consensus of the members of the planning commission. And that way we get the benefit of their input. They can also talk with any of us and all of us independently, and I would encourage them to do that. So basically that's where I was thinking we would go with this. And I just -- I wanted to bring it up because it just seems to be lingering and going on and on and on. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I like what you're saying, there's only thing that troubles me a little bit is that we do put a lot on the planning commission. I would think that their written opinion would be more acceptable than having to have another person leave work to be able to come in and explain it to us. They might willingly do it, but I'm afraid we're going to get to the point where we're going overburden a voluntary group -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. As long as we get their input, whether it's in writing or in presentation. I just want -- they're good at their job, they know what they're doing, and they do it more thoroughly than we do it. And I don't want to miss the opportunity to let them review this agreement. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fellow commissioners, I agree with it. How do you feel? Page 51 November 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was going to chime in, that's why I got my light on. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good. Commissioner Henning, I don't know if you came before Commissioner Halas or not, but -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was next. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Since this is in my district, and of course all of us on this dais, we spent probably the better part of two and a half hours discussing negotiations to move this thing forward. At the time we assumed that we had a logical agreement, all parties that were sitting here and going through the motions of discussing what needed to be done and directed. It was voted on. Everybody concurred with it. Then of course it came back and I believe at that point in time is when Commissioner Coyle made the suggestion that this be moved on to the planning commission. And obviously we've run into a stalemate here. I believe that this needs to go to the planning commission to be vented (sic) and, as Commissioner Coyle brought up, is to make sure that the LDC as it was written at the time this was approved along with the GMP, that everything fits accordingly. I think that's where you're going with this thing. So I feel that -- and I think that the planning commission is looking forward to looking at this issue. I know I've had a number of calls from different people on the planning commission that would like very much to look at this whole SDP, so -- I hope that we've got support here so that this moves forward. And I believe there's already a date established, and I believe it's been advertised or about to be advertised, December the 12th, isn't it? MR. MUDD: The 12th or 13th of December. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I would hope that we can move in that direction. Page 52 November 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, our staff could evaluate and on seeing if there's any deviations from the Land Development Code and the impacts of it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want to really discuss that here now? I would -- if! can respond? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll be quite honest with you, I don't trust the staffs evaluation on these. It was the staff that made the decision on Cap D'Antibes. Now, I'm not trying to be personally insulting, but I want somebody who looks at the larger issues. Time and time again we have had people come before us and tell us that there's a certain interpretation that should be applied of our codes. And just recently I saw one where there was a difference of opinion between the staff and the county attorney's office. And the county attorney was good enough to point out, no, that's wrong. Now, we all do that, you know. None of us has a perfect interpretation of these codes. And so I don't want to sound like I'm being critical of staff, because I think the comprehensive planning staff does a pretty darn good job, and they've been carrying a heavy load. The problem is, I want the broadest possible interpretation, or broadest possible review. That's all I'm saying. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you accept staffs recommendations also in addition to the planning commission? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of course. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand where you're coming from, and I'm glad you clarified it's not demeaning to the staff, because some of us up here don't like that. But I understand where you're coming from now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's why I didn't want to discuss it, because I didn't know how to say that without having it Page 53 November 28,2007 interpreted as being critical of staff, and that's not my intent. I just think that a lot of times we all focus on things that are specific to our job assignment, and we don't necessarily look at it from a broader perspective. I do that. I think lots of other people too that, too. And so I just want the planning commission to have a shot at this. They are very capable. They delve into these issues in details. I want to know if there's any inconsistent language, anything confusing about this that's likely to be misinterpreted. I am right now somewhat confused about how the agreement and the PUD document correlate and whether or not there are any possible ways to interpret changes there. And I need to get that sorted out. And I'd like to have the planning commission's help. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you have enough support to have that happen. Mr. Mudd understands. There's no questions? I think we're clear enough. Anything else, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's it for me. Did we resolve that? I mean, is it okay? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's where we need to go. (Video presentation ends.) MR. SCHMITT: Again, that's the board's guidance. As far as the conduct of the meeting, I do have -- you have your books, we're going to provide you additional copies. I don't believe you want a complete set of all these. We'll give you the pertinent documents that are related to the plan review. There's three different SDPs here, some of it very detailed. And I don't believe you want that. If you want that, I'll certainly entertain any opportunity. I'd prefer, if you can make an appointment or we just come down and look at this, because these are fairly costly to reproduce. And if you Page 54 November 28, 2007 want to come down and we'll set up a time. Any time for you to sit and review this with the staff is fine, if you want to look at the complete set. The specifics regarding the settlement agreement, that's the settlement agreement as drafted by the county attorney, and then that portion will be presented by the county attorney's office. By whom, I do not know. But that settlement agreement is the county attorney's document to the Board of County Commissioners. So with that, any questions, and we'll -- that pretty much concludes what I wanted to make sure you heard the board's guidance in regards to what the board is looking for from you at that December 13th meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, who is the CDES staff liaison on this issue with us? Who do we -- here's where I'm trying to go. I would want that our meeting on the 13th to be extremely productive. I would hope we wouldn't answer a lot of questions that are on the plans that are questions that are irrelevant in regards to whether they can be changed or not. If we have questions that are questionable in regards to why is this pipe here, why is that there, call staff up and ask that question of them first rather than try to beat that to death at a public meeting. So I would like to know someone on staff who could be responding to questions that hopefully the commissioners would ask in regards to issues that may not need to come up in that kind of detail. MR. SCHMITT: I have different planners assigned for each of the three SDPs. So the person you would call -- there's three separate __ there's the golf course and there's others. But I -- to make this simple, I would prefer if you want to ask those questions, contact me or Susan Istanes. Either one of us or would be Ross Gochenaur. He is the chief back there responsible for plan review from that standpoint. But one of us three, to contact us and we'll get you an answer. And, again, if you want to set up a time to come and look at these Page 55 .-"'--"'----- -~_.- .., November 28, 2007 plans, or just let me know 15 minutes before you come, and we'll make somebody's there and you can look at these plans in detail, if you so wish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that these plans will be much more detailed than what this board normally receives. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would just not want us to have to go through a lesson in blueprint reading at our planning commission meeting on the 13th. I would rather that lesson be accomplished privately by each member with the staff people, if they see they need to do that. I certainly don't see that need myself. I've reviewed all these blueprints in detail. It's more a matter of interpretation of the settlement agreement language versus the PUD language and how that reflects in the blueprints. And you really don't need to get into some of the fine print of those blueprints to get to that point, so. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: In reference -- Commissioner Coyle made reference to Cap D'Antibes. I'm not familiar with that issue. Can you summarize how that relates to this subject? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is that, anyway? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You talking about a writ of certiorari? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I think it's best -- that's a long story. I could get with you off-line and discuss the whole background of it. It's an issue from several years ago, almost five years ago or longer. It had to do with a high-rise development in Pelican Bay. The last development -- it's the Water Park Place. It's the last developable property in Pelican Bay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The only reason I bring it up, he Page 56 November 28, 2007 mentioned it in his directive, and I want to be sure that I understood what the direction meant. MR. SCHMITT: I'll get with you on that, if you wouldn't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it's -- would be an interesting story . Mr. Adelstein, Mr. Murray and Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Basically, this place is going to be held as -- by of the Supreme Court of State of Florida under a Certiorari. Now, in that particular issue, certain things have to be done. And what I've read is the history of this. But the Certiorari itself can go on for another year or two years. We don't want to do that, we want to get rid of it. So the answer is to find out exactly what is the key that's going to hold it, because they will keep it open. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, this is a Bert Harris claim that was filed. Under the statutes, a Bert Harris claim has to go through a settlement discussion that can take a certain amount of time. That's all this is. The county commission offered a settlement. The applicant countered the settlement. The commission said, you know, let's have the planning commission look at the settlement agreement. All we're looking at is the language of the settlement agreement, nothing else. The rest of the legal issues are way beyond this board's ability to be involved with. So the documents you get will be the proposed settlement agreement. Our objective is to read it, see where it's inconsistent with the PUD and the Land Development Code or where the terms in that agreement could have different impacts than that were intended in the other documents. And that's all we're supposed to be doing. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Page 57 November 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We're getting our packages sent to us today, I believe? MR. SCHMITT: You have your books from the August meeting, which contain most everything you need that had the PUD. Then we sent a supplemental package in preparation for the meeting three weeks ago. I believe you got the updated version of the settlement agreement with that packet. We just had got this resubmittal. We'll go through and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't three weeks ago. I have my packet that you provided, but it was provided to us but it was much more than three weeks, it was more like two months ago, when this first got remanded to us and it got canceled. So a lot of the members here may have misplaced their document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One packet or two? MR. SCHMITT: You have original -- a notebook, a large notebook that was from the August meeting. Then when it was rescheduled again, part of that we sent out a supplemental packet that included the revised settlement agreement. You did not get that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may be the one, I'm not sure -- I know everything you gave us, I have kept in a file box, and I have all mine, but I don't remember the second packet. MR. SCHMITT: We may still be holding that, but I thought the zoning staff sent that out. I'll check with Ray Bellows. When I get back this afternoon, we'll check. And we're going to get -- we'll make -- because there's a supplemental packet. There's a revised settlement agreement that is different than what you were given in August. The August one was much more detailed. This is now the revised one that was prepared by Mr. Pettit before he left employment with the county. And that was the final version. Page 58 November 28, 2007 Jeff, I'm thinking Labor Day, around that time frame? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: And then we have additional drawings that we were going to provide to you. One of the things we still need to get to you are the elevations. But we did the site plans that showed the building separations, the setbacks from the various points of measurement for the property. Those are the documents -- I thought that we sent those out to you already. I'll make sure we get back today and they'll be sent to you so you can get prepared for that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think even -- since it's been 90 days, that would be helpful to do it again. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Just so I'm clear, we're supposed to have a notebook revised from August, and you're going to send us -- MR. SCHMITT: I see the look on your face that nobody got that packet. So we may still have that or we held onto it when you continued the other meeting. But just for the record, just so you understand, we'll prepare another packet with the revisions that will go out to each one of you that will have -- I guess what I would call the documents that you need __ the pertinent documents that you may need in regards to the site plan and site layout and some of the things that you are going to deal with specifically with the settlement agreement, and make sure you have the revised settlement agreement as well. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And what are we getting today? MR. SCHMITT: Nothing today. I'm just showing you today, this is the resubmittal packet. I would doubt you want to go through this entire packet. It's very detailed. As Mr. Strain mentioned, everything from -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your utility -- MR. SCHMITT: -- water management to landscaping to all sorts Page 59 November 28, 2007 of aspects of the site plan process. All you really need is the layout and the elevations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those plan contain like your manhole cuts, your pipe cuts, your embedments for your gravel underneath your water lines. We don't need all that. That's a requirement of the SDP. But Joe, I think that the site plan-related information is the most critical. You have buffering information because buffering is an issue as well that's both in the PUD. And I think with any buffer plans, and most critical to show how the interpretation of the settlement agreement occurs is the elevation drawings which you haven't got yet but which we'll need. So if we have those along with the settlement agreement and a copy of the most recent PUD with any amendments, we're off and runnmg. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Joe, any reference drawn, please make them to full scale, not reduced, okay. In other words, if it's a 24 by 36 original, send us that. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, this is more for Mr. Klatzkow. I remember Marjorie telling us that the settlement agreement essentially subordinates the PUD. And I'm trying to understand when I look at this, should I take that into consideration or consider them separately and then resolve the issue. MR. KLATZKOW: I think the board gave the planning commission some very specific direction. The board wants you to look at -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Everything. Page 60 November 28,2007 MR. KLATZKOW: -- everything. And to comment on everything. And -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, and that's what I will attempt to do. But it was haunting me that somehow this subordinates. So the issues that would be raised up in the PUD -- MR. KLATZKOW: This has more issues than an onion, quite frankly, this settlement at this point in time. But I think your direction is very clear, and I think it would be very helpful for the board to get that report. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the things that the settlement agreement does, it has language that explains what the PUD already explains. The problem is the way it's explained in the settlement agreement is different than the way the definitions are occasionally in the PUD. Those differences are what we have to understand how they will work on these plans and then tell the commission how that may differ from what the PUD intended. I'll give you an example. Measured setbacks. They're referring to habitable space. Well, you know, we don't refer to habitable space in the LDC. We refer to different points, surfaces of the buildings' walls. Well, if you measure from habitable space, that may have a different outcome than the measurement, if you were, to wall surfaces. Those are the kind of things when you read the settlement, and I've read it at least five times. If you read that agreement and then see how it fits to the PUD and the Land Development Code, you may find the language is not always identical. If it isn't, the BCC seems to want to know what does that mean, what are we getting then if we improve the settlement agreement and it changes those definitions? And if we feel it is an impact, we need to tell them that. And I think that's where we need to be going on the 13th. Page 61 November 28, 2007 Mr. Klatzkow, if there's anything-- MR. KLATZKOW: No, I think that's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, then we will look forward to the 13th on that one. I had asked -- we just got over a break -- and I had asked -- Cherie? I keep forgetting to slow down. I am sorry. I will try again. Ifhe could have someone tell us when we have to be out of here. Now, I just got -- someone checked with Mary Joe downstairs, and she said we're scheduled in here till 11 :30. That wasn't the answer that I was looking for. The answer I was looking for is when does facilities management need to get in here. Because if they're going to take a lunch break like everybody else, we could work through lunch and get an extra hour in and be out of this and still have a late lunch for us, and they get in here on time. Is there any way by 11 :00 or 11 :30 we could find that answer out? MR. SCHMITT: I'll check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, Catherine, we're back on to the Land Development Code -- MS. FABACHER: Okay, we're going to go to Page 47, and this is going to be amendment to prohibited signs. Let's see, that's on Page 47. And Michelle Arnold's here to explain if you have any questions. I'd just like to say that on Page 48, there is a corrected reference on number E there, rotating signs or displays, except barber pole signs, complying with Section 5.06.04.C, cross out 12, add 13.B. And then on Page 50, under Subsection X, we added an exemption, or an exclusion for county transit vehicles, government vehicles providing information. That's an exemption from the prohibition against mounting signs on truck beds and other vehicles. Michelle Arnold's here, if you have any questions. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. I did want to point out an additional corrective on Page 48, Page 62 November 28, 2007 Paragraph C, same reference, just correcting them both. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Any questions of -- Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michelle, on X, when you say county transit vehicle, is this where we're going to start putting billboards on the sides of buses and stuff? MS. ARNOLD: No. What kind of brought us to this amendment was we do have a code case where there is billboards on trucks driving through the community. And when we were reviewing the ordinance, the LDC, it was brought up that we need to take into account that our county transit buses do have small signs for informational items for the public so they know which bus to get on. And those are removable SIgns. So we're just including this exemption in there to recognize the county's bus system and the signage that is on there for informational purposes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the way this is worded, how do we know that it wouldn't allow an advertisement on the side of a county transit vehicle? I mean, the thing I fear is, so many buses where they put a screen on the side of it, you look through it, and then you have a -- MS. ARNOLD: Because it says providing information, not advertising. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Distract attention for the purposes of advertising, da, da, da, da, da -- excluding. So you're sure that that could never happen? MS. ARNOLD: This section is for prohibiting signage on vehicles. And the verbiage that we're adding is to exclude county vehicle -- transit vehicles for governmental vehicles providing information. So this is being included in the prohibition section, but we're Page 63 November 28, 2007 excluding the prohibition from government transit vehicles providing information. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But doesn't that then mean they can do it. In other words, and I'm paraphrasing, and that may be a mistake, but it's -- you're not allowed to provide, for the purpose of advertising a business, products, service, et cetera et cetera -- excluding. And then in the exclusion is a county transit. So essentially could a county I transit be able to have advertising on the side of it? MS. ARNOLD: Maybe what we can do is take that comma out of there. And -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you'd say county transit vehicles or government vehicles providing information. MS. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm not against advertising, but I think Collier County is not a place where you want a 10- foot head sitting next to you in traffic looking at you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Michelle, why are you writing this, because you want to disallow the vehicles running around advertising now but yet let the county do it; is that where you're going? MS. ARNOLD: No, we already have a prohibition, in our opinion, in the code against vehicles with moveable signs driving around the county. This request is to recognize that the county has a bus system now, because this code was written prior to the county's bus system, and on that bus system there are moveable signage, but it's smaller and it's only providing information to the traveling public that is utilizing that system. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, because I'm concerned, as Brad is, to wind up with advertising. I don't want the county to do Page 64 November 28, 2007 advertising. MS. ARNOLD: That's not the intent at all. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Now could we tighten it up? Providing public information, instead of just providing information? Public service information? MS. ARNOLD: I guess I'll look to Jeff to see whether or not he feels that if we change it to county transit vehicles and governmental vehicles providing information -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm just trying to tighten it up. MS. ARNOLD: -- do you think that tightens it up or -- MR. KLATZKOW: I'd have an issue the way it is. I don't have an issue with what you're suggesting, policy decision. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I just want to be reassured that it's not interpreted so they can do some advertising. So if it's information, it will be directional or public service information. MR. KLATZKOW: The way this is written, we could do advertising. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. Vigliotti's suggestion then would tighten it up. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Public service information. MR. KLATZKOW: Which could also be a form of advertising, if you like. Collier County wants you to recycle every day, whatever, you know -- if you're okay with that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, no, let me go backwards then. Michelle, you're saying directional signs, like for instance we're going to a current destination? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, that's what's on the current bus system. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And that's what you need? MS. ARNOLD: I just don't want to get into a situation -- I'm just looking for the benefit of the county. I don't want to get into a Page 65 November 28, 2007 situation where they're looking at -- they're pointing to the signage that says on the CAT system Golden Gate Boulevard and, you know, someone conflicting that with advertising, because that's not the intent of it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Instead of providing information or public service information, providing directional information, will that work for you? MR. KLATZKOW: You could say -- if you want to just limit this to county transit vehicles -- if what you're getting at, Michelle, is the CAT buses -- MS. ARNOLD: Right, that's all it is. MR. KLATZKOW: Then eliminate government vehicles providing information, okay. And then for your county transit vehicles, include language directional or route information. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm okay with that. MR. KLATZKOW: I think that gets to your concern, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After Ms. Caron. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hey, what about me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Mr. Schiffer after Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: I was happy with adding county transit vehicles or government vehicles providing public service information. I think that gets everybody to where they need to be. I think that's pretty simple. MS. ARNOLD: The language I have now, based on what Mr. Klatzkow indicated, has county transit vehicles providing directional and route information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, well, I'm going to -- sometimes the county will take one ofthe -- I think it's probably, I don't know, facilities management has these signs, sometimes the Page 66 November 28, 2007 police have them where they can check speeds and they can put it up and they can make it provide information about Town Hall meeting or whatever. MS. ARNOLD: Right, that would not be mounted on a vehicle, that's stationary in the roadway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It is mounted on a vehicle. It's a trailer. MS. ARNOLD: But when it's being utilized, it's stationary and not moving through the community. Those speed signs, to get there they'll mount it to locate it to whatever street location for the signage. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so this is clearly intending to -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michelle, there's a trolly that runs around with tourists, is that thing in compliance? MS. ARNOLD: The trolly? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a vehicle that has advertising. MS. ARNOLD: These are considered -- we're talking about moving signs. And the trolly I don't believe has moving signs on it. It has just stationary signage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this is signs mounted on a vehicle, you got it right there, be it on the roof, hood, trunk and so on, that are intended to attract or distract the attention of motorists. MS. ARNOLD: Well, a trolly when it's driving in Collier County would be not in compliance with this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's not fair. MS. ARNOLD: Well, we're not addressing the trolly or -- we're not changing the language that it's currently in place. Weare addressing just county transit facilities. And if you want to modify it to allow the trolly and not the CAT system or some other business, then that's something that you guys Page 67 November 28, 2007 would need to determine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is how would you grandfather in a vehicle? Because if they bought a new vehicle -- essentially we know, and that trolly does operate outside the City of Naples. I mean, we don't want that thing pulled over. I mean, that's-- so essentially this would cause that trolly to be not in compliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle, you had said something in response to Mr. Schiffer the first time which I thought covered it, but -- and he's right, I didn't see it in here. You're talking about motion signs on vehicles. And if that is the intent of X, maybe if we clarify that, that solves the problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. If the intent from your comment was that this was signs that, you know, that -- I've seen that truck when it came through Collier County, and it was an absolutely eyesore. Anybody advertised -- I was shocked by seeing this thing, and it was certainly a distraction that would only lead, I think, to more accidents and more people being distracted on the road. I'm glad we're putting a stop to it. But I'm wondering by your comment, though, how this helps. Because your first -- by your comment it was motion signs, but if this doesn't read that way, maybe we're not getting where we need to be. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just recalled that one day I was driving from way up north on 41, driving down, and I was surprised on the right-hand side there was a moveable sign such as on those vehicles, but it was stationary. And I was just wondering what -- I know that's outside of the scope of this at the moment, but I think it bears talking to and relating to, because it represents a distraction, and I don't know whether you want to embrace going further with this for that. Page 68 November 28, 2007 And it was, I think, an organization like Moose or Elks or something of that nature, and I can't remember the organization. But I was very surprised to see it. And you might want to have somebody go look. I believe it was stationary, there was no trailer or anything with it, it was a structure. So if you're getting at that effort, I would think you might want to take a look at that. Just a thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, Michelle, with the input you've got from us, maybe you could take a second look at this language and make sure it's really addressing what it is that we're supposed to be here. MS. ARNOLD: I think the language as it's been modified today would be all inclusive to whether or not the county's transit system has a stationary sign or a moving sign. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you, but aren't you trying to get rid of motion signs on those vehicles and -- MS. ARNOLD: Well, no, the intent of this amendment is not to address the motion signs. I guess I wasn't real clear. When we were going through that particular case, we were doing a full review of our sign code. And it was brought up that, you know, we don't really have anything in our sign code for the transit system. And so we're just simply trying to have that inclusion in there. We're not trying to modify or clean up our ordinance to address motion signs at all, because we already have a pending lawsuit and we don't want to give the impression that that's the reason why we're doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. And I understand now. So the review of the code for one reason sparked the concern over the other -- MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the other simply was to have county transit vehicles legal for providing directional routing information. Page 69 November 28, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we focus on just that issue, we could pass this form of the LDC, and any other questions we can bring up at some other future date. Does that work for everybody? So the language suggested to be changed is simply to be county transit vehicles providing directional or routing information. And then we'd strike the words government vehicles providing information. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, I think we have an acceptable language situation here in this amendment? Is there a motion that we recommend approval of 5.06.06, Prohibited Signs? COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Caron, seconded by Commissioner Midney. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I ask Michelle a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course. Page 70 November 28,2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michelle, so that means that the trolly, I guess, really has always been out of compliance, then; is that right? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, Brad, you're making it an issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was afraid of that. That's why I was trying to get past it, Michelle. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, we have one more short one for Michelle to discuss, on Page 137, and that is going to be in Page 137 of your book, and it's Section 5.03.02, Fences and Walls. And basically we had noted that the old coded had required a building permit for fences and walls, and it was omitted -- that provision was omitted during recodification. And staffs requesting it be returned. Page 137. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions on page -- starts on page 137 and goes through page 139. Basically, the item number ten is what the whole issue is about. Nine has a little bit of language added. Any questions or concerns? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The building code always has and always will require a permit, so why is this necessary? MS. ARNOLD: I think because there's language currently in our Land Development Code that confuses the issue about whether or not a permit is required for a fence. And we're just wanting to put it back in so that there's clarification that yes, you need a permit for a fence. It's a building code -- it's more just for simplification purposes. It was there before, it wasn't hurting anything before it was omitted. I think it just created more confusion with the omission out of the LDC than simplifying it for the public. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So somebody actually came forth and said oh, I don't need a permit for my fence? Because the Land Development Code is silent on it. Page 71 November 28, 2007 MR. KLATZKOW: I think this could become an issue in a code enforcement case, where somebody would get brought into because they failed to get a permit for a fence and the LDC is a little bit hazy on this. So that would just end this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't hurt to duplicate in this particular case. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: However, I remember Mr. White making the point that the purpose for recodification was to eliminate redundancies and other things. So it's a balancing act, isn't it, it really IS. MR. KLATZKOW: We eliminated a lot more than redundancies, unfortunately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the redundancy that he was looking to eliminate was within the LDC itself -- MS. ARNOLD: Within the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And this is not a redundancy in the LDC, this is a clarification to the LDC that fixes the redundancy of the fact that we have to have it now reviewed by the LDC as well as the building code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I agree. But I was also aware that he was talking about taking things out of the LDC that were properly in the building code. So that's what I was making reference to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, anyway. Are we -- anybody else have any comments on pages 137 through Page 139? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, go ahead. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion for approval with the changes we just discussed. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is for LDC Section 5.03.02.A? Page 72 November 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Ms. Caron. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Thank you, Commissioner. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, our next -- I know we had given out a tentative agenda, but we've swapped around again a little bit because Nick could join us. And we'd like to go next to street system requirements. That would be on Page 53 in your book. And it's going to deal with Section 6.06.01 and Section 10.02.13. And just to give you some background, at your request when we revised the PUD document we asked everyone to take out all the redundant language. Well, transportation had some issues with their comments, because they were not included in the LDC. So this is an attempt by the transportation department to comply with your direction to put more or less their boilerplate language into the LDC so it doesn't need to be repeated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Finally. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida. I Page 73 November 28, 2007 want to give credit to -- John Podczerwinsky's worked really hard on this. He's on the development review staff in the back. There you go. As you go through it, the only thing that's really different that you've asked us to include is on Page 44, number three. Commissioner Strain, you repeatedly said why are sites under construction and don't have the appropriate turn lanes in there. So we've added that language that we've been sticking into the PUDs currently to date. The rest of the language is pretty much consistent what's in our standard boilerplate PUD language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was pleased to see this. It wraps up or cleans up -- Ray Bellows has been for a long time attempting to clean up the PUD process, and this was one lingering problem. So this works out real well. Anybody have any questions, comments? Starts on Page 53 and goes through Page 57. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Page 55, it's H.3. What exactly does that mean? Or let me tell you what I think it means, tell me if I'm right or wrong. If somebody has to put a turn lane, if that turn lane is being built on land within the county right-of-way, that that person would have to pay the county for that land. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They would reimburse the county through providing right-of-way adjacent to that turn lane. In other words, you have a utility line or, you know -- what happens often is you put in a turn lane and you're now reducing the ability for the county to provide either a sidewalk or utilities. So you have to provide compensating right-of-way for that turn lane. And that's been standard PUD language since I've been here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question isn't expanding the right-of-way. That I fully understand. It's that this is talking about within the right-of-way. Page 74 November 28, 2007 So are you essentially paying them to build that portion of a turn lane within the right-of-way? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. What they're doing -- if they have to put in a turn lane in the county-owned right-of-way that we've acquired or has been dedicated prior, they have to provide compensating right-of-way for that turn lane. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure it really says that, though. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If any required turn lane improvements requires the use of existing county rights-of-way or easements, then compensating right-of-way shall be provided at no cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement upon final approval of the turn lane design during the first subsequent development order. That's standard PUD language that we've used. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. So if you're going to use up 10 feet for a turn lane, you've got to add 10 feet. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You've got to, in your property, dedicate 10 feet back to Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A master plan is created, eventually a development order is issued. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Page 54, number two, where it says access points shown on a PUD master plan are considered to be conceptual. My note is until when? Is it pertinent there to have a clarification, or it's understood? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's understood. The PUD master plan, we don't like to have too much specificity. It's always the Catch-22. You'd like to see a site plan at that time, and it's hard for staff to review a site plan at the same time there've reviewing the PUD, because things change. Page 75 November 28,2007 So just to say to the applicant you can show the arrows on your PUD master plan and when you go to do your actual site plan we'll adjust that based on what you're putting on the site. Different projects may require different site access requirements. But you're not going to get any more access points unless you amend the PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Good, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions about the transportation issues? Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion, if there's no other questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any speakers of the public? MS. F ABACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, go ahead. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to approve with all the changes here. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the motion you're making is to approve the changes in Section 6.06.01, Street System Requirements and 10.02.13, Planned Unit Development Procedures. Is that right? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As on Page 53, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Caron was the second, Mr. Vigliotti was the motion maker. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Adelstein, if it matters, then you can be -- it's irrelevant. Everybody would be willing to second it, so let's just leave it like that. Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 76 November 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. Just in case we're not going to get another chance to take a break or we go longer, we'll take a lO-minute break now for the court reporter. And then when Joe gets back maybe we'll be able to find out when we can officially stop. (A break was taken.) (Commissioner Kolflat is absent from the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back from our break and during that amount of time Mr. Schmitt found out we can stay here till 1 :00 today, so we will continue. If the planning commission so agrees, we'll break at 1 :00 and that will be -- we'll just go right through lunch and stop at 1 :00. Is that okay with everybody else? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll be leaving earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that still leaves us a quorum, so we will still continue. Okay, Ms. Fabacher, let's go on. MS. FABACHER: Okay, Commissioners, thank you. We're going to move next to interim watershed management regulations. That's on page 7 in your book. And that is going to be a list of section Page 77 November 28, 2007 numbers. These would be amending Section 3.07.00. It's on -- I'm sorry, it's on Page 17 in your book. Forgive me, Page 17 in your book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, you're going in and out on your mIC. MS. FABACHER: Okay. All right. This will include Section 3.07.00, Section 6.05.01, Section 10.02.02, Section 10.02.03, Section 10.02.04. And thank you for your correction, it is on Page 17 in your book. And Mr. Wiley is here to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Wiley, welcome. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are you? MR. WILEY: I'm doing fine, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions? This starts on Page 17 and we go all the way, looks like it's a long one. But a lot of it is existing language. MR. WILEY: Correct. What you'll notice, this is Robert Wiley for the record, with the Engineering Services Department. You'll notice that at the very front is the addition of the new language under 3.07.01.02. That's the new language. The rest of the stuff, basically you go all the way to the very ends of each of the sections, you'll see just a reference to go back to 3.07 in the different areas of development applications that would come in. There's a lot of paperwork, but most of it is just a copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Since most of the language is on Page 18, do we have any questions from the -- this particular document from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark, one small one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and we also have more continuing language on 20. Go ahead, Brad. Page 78 November 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On 18.C at the bottom of the page, the intent there is it's only within those zones that you are to provide this; is that right? MR. WILEY: No, sir. No, sir. In C, what we're saying is when you are within these three flood zones A, AE and VE, you have to evaluate it. We're not saying you have to provide it. And the difference being that there are some coastal properties that there's no way we would have any reason to claim a benefit by trying to keep out the Gulf of Mexico. But we want the evaluation, because some of those zones are also from freshwater inland flooding which is trying to come towards the coastline. So that's why we're simply saying they would do the evaluation. Now, there is the stipulation that says they should also be evaluated for areas known to be periodically inundated by intense rainfall or sheet flow conditions. And those would be areas that may or may not be in an A, AE or VE zone. They could be other areas throughout the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So obviously the intent is not to maintain storm surge, although that would be nice for the county if they could. But I'm still -- so where does this not apply then? For example, if you're in an X zone, what do you do? MR. WILEY: In an X zone, if it happens to be an area that we know has a flooding problem -- remember, our X zone is strictly limited from coastal surge flooding. There is no current flood map produced by FEMA which identifies rainfall induced flooding. Some of our known areas of flooding problems, street and yard flooding, are in the X zone portion of the county. So we're saying if we know these areas are out there, we also want those to be evaluated for floodplain storage compensation. It happens to be because the way our floodplain map is Page 79 November 28, 2007 delineated by FEMA. Now, as you know, we're in the process of producing a new flood map which will address rainfall flooding, but we're not there yet. And if you want, I can show you a map, just to give you an indication of what we're talking about. Let's look at your visualizer now. What we did was we took the map that we currently have available, we called it our bubble map. Those little circled bubble-type type of red circles, those are areas that we know have a problem with a lot of street and yard flooding, sometimes even house flooding. Then we also took an evaluation off the GIS to just identify where are the areas which have, on the GIS evaluation, a hydroperiod of two months or greater to show you the big flowways. These are the types of areas that we are talking about. As you'll notice, there's a lot of the county that would not be here. But this just gives an indication to you. Again, this map doesn't show you the A, the AE and the VE zones, because that's another layer we could have added but it sort of cluttered the map up. We're trying to show you other places that we would be wanting the evaluation to take place. And then it's up to staff and the applicant to come to an agreement on whether an evaluation is provided or not provided. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is that map available to the public? MR. WILEY: Well, I got it yesterday. So that's how draft this thing is. We are not really set on adopting this map. This was just sent up here for an example for you to see. But this is in our county GIS system. We can make it readily available for anybody who wanted to look at. This would be the type of mapping, once we really narrow it down, define the areas to make sure that we're satisfied with particularly the green areas that are identified as wetlands on here, Page 80 November 28, 2007 meaning they have a hydroperiod of two months or greater, you'll see those are your flowways. This map could be made available. It's no problem. I would be on the GIS layer system. But this is just to give an indication since we have had the question asked us by other people, well, is my property in or out of it. This is the type of consideration we would wanting to work as a tool to help everyone understand why we would consider the evaluation necessary . And of course this being in GIS you can superimpose over property lines, it's easy to work with at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Question. Based upon the -- I'm sorry. Based upon our ability of sight conditions, some projects may incur substantial fiscal impacts. Could you explain that and maybe give me an example from the beginning. MR. WILEY: The fiscal impact that we're talking about here deals with a situation, a property -- for instance, look at this map here -- happens to be in an area which is identified as a flowway. And the property comes in and it is required to set back a certain portion of the property just to allow the water to continue to store on that property. They could not develop it. It's called an importer property. You import more water onto your property than you actually create from the rainfall. That can have a significant impact. That can affect sometimes 20, 25 percent of your property's buildability under the scenario that if you do not have a current condition that's being evaluated and you're anticipating just going in and filling the whole property. And we've had that particular situation arise already. And we addressed it through the South Florida Water Management District permitting criteria that we use for regulating it by anyway. But that's where we say it can have some significant impacts to certain properties which are entirely within flowways or depressional storage Page 81 November 28, 2007 areas. It would affect their ability to just construct under normal fill and build type situation. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is this only for new projects going forward? MR. WILEY: This would be for new development and for redevelopment. And in the case of redevelopment, it's probably not near as applicable, this particular scenario would not be. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So it doesn't or does not apply to? MR. WILEY: It would apply for redevelopment, yes, sir, as well as new development. But we're not saying that you would have an existing development where nothing is transpiring, they would not have to all want to be found in default and have to provide it. But it's if they come in for any kind of development application, we would evaluate it. The situation that we're looking at is if we know we have a problem, let's don't make it worse in the redevelopment issue. If you have a development which is low, it's already flooding, you want to come back in, redevelop it, just fill everything up, well, if you're already bringing water offsite onto the property, make sure that evaluation takes that into account, because you don't want to pass that property (sic) onto another neighboring property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Wiley, on Page 18 you're talking about increasing the treatment area to 150 percent, that it goes from one to one-and-a-half inches. It's volumetric, I assume, so that would be done by depth? MR. WILEY: Depth and/or area, depending upon the vertical distance you had in your system design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So by doing this, you're creating more holding water, but you're going to require more clearing. MR. WILEY: More -- by clearing, you mean removing vegetation? Page 82 November 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can't have this area used-- you can't utilize the preserve or native habitat areas for your water retention, so you're going to have to increase your water retention area. And if you do it by excavation to get the volume area you're required, would that increase the clearing needs for a project? MR. WILEY: Potentially it could, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under C, where you have the word evaluated, the GMP is our conceptual document in which we state that we have to perform certain ways, and the LDC is the implementation document. And I'm wondering where the word evaluated is -- how is that? Who knows what the -- I just come to you and say I've evaluated this and it's okay, or what's the evaluation criteria? MR. WILEY: There's a process that you go through, the engineering community knows about it. Where already doing it through the water management district regulations to where you're making a determination of the amount of water that is stored on your property predevelopment. And if that amount of water is more than what your development creates by simple rainfall coming on it, you're considered an importer. If you're within an area that goes through an inundation state, you're either an importer or an exporter. So the criteria is already out there through the district. That's the evaluation we're talking about, so that you're showing that the floodplain storage is not being diminished by the development on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't think the word evaluation is a good word to have, because it's ambiguous. It may mean something to you, but I bet you with just that word, I could argue it would means something different to me and probably be on the same ground you're on. So I'm wondering if you have a way of putting in here a more precise reference than the word evaluated to what you just tried to say. Page 83 November 28, 2007 Is it like an ERP process with South Florida? Is there wetland juris -- is there some process that you go through that -- you just said the engineering knows this. So what is it that they know, what is it called? When you ask an engineer to do this work, what would you specifically say as a type of evaluation you're asking for? MR. WILEY: It's simply floodplain storage compensation calculation. But I put the word evaluation in here because we also, talking to Mr. Schiffer at the initial discussion here, there are some situations that because it's coastal surge coming in and a VE zone, you're not going to hold out the Gulf of Mexico by development, because we're not designing them to withstand that 100-year event from the coastal. So that's sort of where the word evaluation, you look to see is there a need to do the calculation. And then if there is a need to do the calculation, then the system for doing the calculation is already predetermined. If we need to clarify that just to state that, I'll be glad to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, it all boils down to what is legally defensible. If Mr. Klatzkow has no problem with the word evaluate, I don't have a problem with it. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last sentence you have, areas known to be periodically inundated by intense rainfall. And I now know that the way it's known is by this map. How does that map know? Where do you get the data from the map from? MR. WILEY: This is information that we have within the county's GIS system right now. And there are various layers that we have for periods of inundation. And Mack Hatcher is here, he can explain a lot more detailed about it than I can. But we took an old map that was developed by the stormwater Page 84 November 28, 2007 management department, which we call our bubble map, that's the little red circles you see on there. And that's just areas that we traditionally, historically, whatever words you want to use for it, when you get a big rain event you know you're going to start getting telephone complaints from properties in this area that streets are underwater, my yard's underwater. It's up against my house. These are areas that we know that if you start filling in that land, you want to pass water onto some other property that's not having as bad a problem today as it may tomorrow. We then superimpose the two maps together. And again, the periods we used here for the areas of green are called wetlands, that's the information for hydroperiods of two months or longer that we have within the GIS system. And it's calculated based upon elevations and mapping and things. That's where this example map comes from. Not that we are suggesting that this is the exact final product map. This gives an indication to help people understand we're not saying that if you're in Collier County, that's automatically you're within this area. We're looking at the serious areas where you know you have the major flows and storage of water in the big rain events. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of that what I heard you say in the beginning is some of this map is created from people calling in with complaints that there's water in their streets? MR. WILEY: That's where we got the little red circles off our bubble map. That was years ago that we did that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason is, I mean, I've driven through those areas many times, and I've watched the county crews come in and they clear out a clog in the pipe and all of a sudden there's no flooding there. But yet 100 people may have called in about their street being flooded. I also know that streets are designed to flood. That's where some of the water is supposed to be held in your irregular storm events. And Page 85 November 28, 2007 you might lose a lane on a four-lane road, so the two higher lanes on the inside are up higher. But I'm not sure that's -- I hope you didn't use that kind of criteria or you balanced that out when you took these phone calls and decided an area was prone to flooding. MR. WILEY: If it was area that was limited strictly to a lack of maintenance -- I mean, I've got to be careful how I say that, because sometimes there's a region which has an overall pattern oflack of maintenance, which causes the water, it's not just a single pipe. In looking at this, these are areas that while -- went to sleep again __ it -- sometimes these areas can be cleared up if there is a serious capital project-level type of replacement and maintenance. And sometimes they can't. Other areas, you'll see on here are just areas that always go underwater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I don't want to belabor the point, I understand what you're saying, I just wanted to understand how the map points got there. And I think you've clarified that for me. On Page 20, Item D, the fifth line, you talk about wetland or wet. And this is probably better for Mr. Murray to respond to than you even. That word, I don't even know how to say it rather than understand what it means. Is that such a word? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What, the fifth line, what is it? MR. WILEY: Wet facultative. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, facultative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, you even said it wrong, Mr. Wiley, or somebody did. What in the world does that mean? Is that not a misspelling or is that a real word? MR. WILEY: That is a real word and it is a wetland plant, but it is able to live wet or dry. It can live in either environment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nice way of saying it, I guess. MR. WILEY: I did not make the word up. I have been accused of Page 86 November 28, 2007 that, but this one I didn't create it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under E, it says all new development and redevelopment projects shall ensure surrounding properties will not be adversely impacted. Well, the word ensure has always been a problematic word, from what I can tell. I'm just wondering why the word ensure needs to be there. MR. WILEY: We talked about this in various other meetings that we've had, and we're not providing insurance, I-N, but it's an assurance that the design has taken into consideration where the water's coming towards the property predevelopment, where it's going after development, so that you don't pass it on to someone else. If ensure is not a good word -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Use assure. MR. WILEY: Assure is A-S-S-U-R-E, if that's a better word, I'm agreeable to that. We just want to make -- the purpose is to put forth the effort in the design and the approval process to -- here I'm starting to use the word ensure again, but to address the issues sufficiently so that that's not going to be a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know why you need the word ensure. Why can't it read all new development and redevelopment projects -- well, I see, okay. Shall not cause any impacts from that project's influence on stormwater sheet flow. I think you could reword it to take out the word adversely and the word ensure. I think both of those words might be arbitrary. That's all I'm going at. If you can figure out a way to do that, I think it would help. But that's my thoughts on it. And then F, isn't that already in the code? In the LDC? MR. WILEY: I think it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't get it-- MR. WILEY: I'm not certain, that's why I stuck it in here-- Page 87 November 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a development order without -- and this is the redundancy that we talked about earlier. This is under your SDP permitting and your platting and all that. You can't get final development orders without your state and federal environmental permits. So why would we repeat it here? You have a process section, Section 10 of the LDC. MR. WILEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And all that's required in that process section. So I don't know that that needs to be repeated within the code itself. MR. WILEY: I would have to defer to someone who knows the code better than me. MS. FABACHER: We'll double check on that, Commissioner. MR. WILEY: I'm not trying to repeat something, I was just wanting to make sure this was -- in the past there has been some issue raised that a development order was approved by the county prior to an agency issuing a permit. And this was tried to head that off so that claim could not be made again. But if it's already in there, I have no problem removing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the only other thing I brought up was E. And again, I'll defer to the county attorney on this, Jeff, the words ensure and adversely. MR. KLATZKOW: I could rewrite this, but then end result's going to be the same meaning. I'm okay with, quite frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'll drop my issue on that. Anybody else have any other issues on this language? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, but Robert was first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: All new development and redevelopment. What is redevelopment specifically, and what triggers redevelopment for an existing project? MR. WILEY: Redevelopment as I think of it, and I'll give you Page 88 November 28, 2007 my rationale for this, is when you have an existing development and someone wants to come in and has a significant impact upon the physical structure or impervious area on the property so that there is an increase in impervious area, even potentially an increase in fill so that you are having an impact on the stormwater system. You have the potential to either prevent water from coming onto the property or you're passing more water off the property. That's where this redevelopment comes in. That doesn't mean you want to haul out the inside of a building and just renovate inside. We're talking about physical footprint impacts. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But if we don't have a specific definition of redevelopment, I believe. Do we? MS. FABACHER: We had been working on some draft language with DSAC on that. Do you have that draft language? MR. WILEY: I have the e-mail that you sent to me, the draft language we put together. We can pass that to everyone -- MS. F ABACHER: Why don't you just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, again, please, wait for one to finish before the other speaks. MS. F ABACHER: Why don't you go ahead and read it off. MR. KLATZKOW: Put it on the monitor. MR. WILEY: I have extra copies, if you all would like to have it in your hands right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is interesting. If you're now coming up with language to define redevelopment, and redevelopment is something that's part and parcel to this floodplain management language, how is it we can approve one today without the other? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And to be honest with you, I think we probably need some time to think about the definition you've just passed out. Page 89 November 28, 2007 MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, just to answer, I think it's part of the process that we get some guidance from you and we look at these things. We always get a lot of comments. It's never 100 percent __ it's always under review, while we're working on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: If you realize there's no definition for redevelopment, and you put it in here and leave it open ended, ifno one asks the question, then where does it go? MS. FABACHER: No, we do have this issue, it's before the DSAC still. So we're going back to DSAC in December to answer this Issue. There are some sections of the code, such as the architectural standards, which do define redevelopment for the purposes of that section, but not -- as far as stormwater, it's a different thing. It's really more about impervious area than any amount of square footage or value of an addition, which is the way it works for the architectural standards. I mean, we don't have a broad definition of redevelopment that fits every circumstance in the code. I don't think we could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. But for this floodplain management change, we need to have something for redevelopment. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It seems to me like this definition, which limits it just to the increase of impervious area, is pretty clear to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just wondering how you decide when that impervious area is triggered. Because it's looking for a percentage of a building footprint. And then in the second sentence, it's looking for an assessed value percentage. I think those are the parts of the redevelopment definition that we would need completed. And I'm wondering why we wouldn't just maybe follow the Page 90 November 28, 2007 FEMA guidelines in that regard. FEMA's triggered floodplains are -- you have to come under new floodplain heights if a certain portion of your building is destroyed or a monetary value has to be replaced, and that's already a given. Why don't we look at that. MR. WILEY: The issue is exactly what you're saying. Do we want to use the FEMA default guideline of 50 percent of the value. That's why the number, if you'll notice, was blank. We're still discussing among ourselves, do we want to go with the default 50 percent value or do we want to make it higher or lower. The rationale behind possibly going lower is where we're heading in with the amendments to our flood protection ordinance is we will be benefitting the county in our CRS scoring -- it's a complicated trail here -- but by simply saying at 49 percent, not 50. So that's where we're looking to amend our current ordinance to go to 49. So the question is, do we want this to already say 49 or 50. That's why the line's blank right now, while we're discussing this with various people who are providing input to the definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, for the definition purposes, they get you out of that hook, since that percentage is going to be defined elsewhere then in the code, why don't you just reference to whatever the FEMA standards are for the county, adopted by the county. MR. WILEY: That would be a great way to do it, sir, because at that point the definition already exists. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if the definition changes for the FEMA, then it automatically corrects itself with this definition here. Yes, Ms. Fabacher? MS. FABACHER: That's a different issue, though, because you're looking at flood damages, and the flood damages could be exclusively to the interior of a home and you could trip the 50 percent. It doesn't matter to us in items of stormwater management, it does not Page 91 November 28, 2007 matter to us what you do to the inside of your building. It doesn't matter. You could spend $500,000 replacing the all the fixtures and remodeling and removing the walls. It wouldn't have any impact on your impact on stormwater. You could add another story to your building, it would not change your footprint, it would not change the stormwater runoff that you need to deal with. And the reason that we're looking at another number to be fair, because there are a lot of properties that will be wanting to do some renovations that are not going to be compliant, because they're not compliant with South Florida Water Management District permits right now. And I think if you look at the DSAC comments, the thing has been, these are interim standards before the real standards comes down. But they're like, where will be the relief for the small property owner that this might be a burden on. I don't know that 50 percent and following FEMA would be a good guideline. We tried to look at the factors that will influence it the most. And your impervious area will increase your runoff. No amount of changes to the inside of your building will. So that's why we were trying to go away from -- not follow the FEMA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was looking more at the fact if someone is 49 or 50 percent damaged, destroyed or to a point where they got to -- they lose their evaluation to that point, whatever remodeling or rework effort they do to their property would then trigger enough redesign to address the newest and latest floodplain management rules that we would have. I was just looking at some points -- MS. FABACHER: I understand where you're coming from. We're looking for any help that we can get. We're still trying to figure this one out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer was next again, then Mr. Page 92 November 28, 2007 Vigliotti after that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A couple of things. First thing, Mark, go back to 18.C at the bottom ofthe page where you were concerned about, and I share this with you, the word evaluated. In building code land, to avoid somebody just walking up there and saying yeah, that looks good, they add the phrase, via rational analysis, which essentially means someone's doing some calculations and stuff like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the phrase? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Via rational analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. That sounds a lot better. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The virtue of that is it just keeps somebody from sitting there whistling with their hands in their pocket saying that looks good. And then the other thing is the thing Robert just handed out. One of the things you're doing is coming up with a percentage that would apply to the building square footage or the impervious site area. So essentially, if somebody has a big patio or has a patio that they're building on top of, they're not increasing the impervious at all. So what's the intent there, is that you would -- if that patio is large enough to hit this percentage, it would require -- but essentially you're not changing the impervious area of the site. So, you don't need to answer what percentage, but I think that's a bad idea to equate those two things together. You might want two different percentages, one for one and one for the other. And that's it. MR. WILEY: If you would allow me to address that issue. If you have an existing patio and then you decide you simply want to enclose it, you have not increased the impervious area at all, so therefore it would not be applicable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but the way this is worded, there's increase the building size or -- so you're using Boolean logic. You know, the building size could trigger the need for Page 93 November 28, 2007 something when essentially you're not increasing the impervious. So my only suggestion is, those are two good concepts, separate them. And maybe there's two different percentages for each. Let's say, Robert, I have a really large patio. The patio is greater than 50 percent of my house, and that's your number. And I, you know, enclose it. I've essentially done nothing to the impervious area of the site but I would trigger the need -- this would be considered then, the renovation, or reconstruction, whatever you want to call it. Does that make sense? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that was the intent. I think the intent was to catch some major renovations, whether they are just to impervious or not, to bring in things that weren't to the current code and make them comply if they go to a certain extent of expenditure or percentage of redevelopment. I don't know if it was just impervious area, because if you leave it as just impervious area are you catching all the people that may not now be in compliance? How do you catch them when they come back in for a major renovation? So something else other than just impervious area may trigger a major renovation, to bring other places into compliance that may not be able to be brought into compliance otherwise. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, if they have a large impervious area right now, then in fair play, I don't think -- it's kind of too late to get them. I mean, is that the intent, Bob? If I have a really big patio in the back of my house and I'm going to increase -- I'm going cover it. That would increase my building square footage 50 percent, you want me to be considered reconfiguration? MR. WILEY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You do? MR. WILEY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then what I would do -- Page 94 November 28, 2007 MR. WILEY: You have not increased your impervious area of your property. The distinction we were making is you have properties that have a huge impervious area outside the perimeter of the building, that they not address changing a building, but they may change impervious area outside the building, such as a parking lot or something. So that's where the two issues -- and I had not even thought of the concept of you have a patio, you're just going to enclose it, that would increase your building size. I hadn't even thought of that concept. And the intention is not to catch that person as much as it is if you're actually making your building bigger, you're changing your parking lot, you know, for commercial property, things of that nature. You want to pick up, because they're creating an increase or they're filling in an area that's already storing water, a parking lot that's known to flood all the time. You're wanting to catch that so that you, through the development process, you're also alleviating problems that are already out there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And my only suggestion is to separate the two, that's all. You know, building footprint is one thing, impervious is another thing. And come up with maybe different percentages. MR. WILEY: That's a very good point of clarification. So that you understand where I was coming from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But if the intent is to correct some problems that already exist during a redevelopment phase, I don't see why you wouldn't be looking at a situation like Brad talked about. If it's 50 percent or more of the building that's going to be redone and we know already there are water management issues, why wouldn't you take that opportunity to get them corrected during the renovation period? MR. WILEY: Well, the discussion's basically been along the Page 95 November 28,2007 lines in an attempt to be fair and equitable to property owners. If they are not creating additional runoff then why would we penalize them? It's the same -- I know you're saying you have an existing problem. Yes, we do know that situation is out there. But we're trying to be as fair as we can so that we don't face some claims of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think the issue is you're not -- you're trying to penalize them or not. I think what happened is we have buildings that were erected 20, 30, 40 years ago that back then had very little, if any, compliance for water runoff, water quality, water treatment. People come in and buy those old buildings and they think what's the best way I can make some money off this building. If I just renovate the inside and resell it, I don't have to trigger any changes to the outside. And as a result I can still keep my poor water quality and dump everything on my neighbors and not have to worry about it. But yet I've made a windfall over my renovations that I now can turn an apartment into a condo or something like that. I think you could utilize those occurrences to not only require that if you're going to improve something for your own benefit, you certainly can improve to the benefits of the surrounding properties your water treatment that was overlooked 20 or 30 years ago. I think that was what I thought you were getting to. I now understand you're only looking purely at the impervious square postage stamp. But I think you could look further to bring other projects into compliance that badly need to be. MR. WILEY: Again, what we're looking at is wanting to go the direction that you are saying. But understanding these are interim regulations, we felt like perhaps that should be addressed as watershed management plans are being developed over the next few years, which will also be done by 2010. If you want to tighten it up, I'm in agreement with that. But we were trying to avoid coming on as though we're very onerous, Page 96 November 28,2007 knowing those are interim, while the watershed management plan goes through the process to analyze specifically what are the problems and come up with specific solutions. That's just why we were saying it this way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fair enough, Mr. Wiley, I would have to agree with you then. And to that aspect, I think you're certainly, this redevelopment definition needs to get cleaned up and focused. And that's the key to this whole thing now. So I would suggest that based on the input you've gotten from us today, you rework that redevelopment definition and come back with it as precise as it needs to be for your interim period. We made a couple suggested changes to C on Page 18. And I think if you come back with those, we would be ready to finalize our recommendations on this. But I think that needs to be done first. Does anybody else have a different thought on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, Mr. Wiley? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, before that, a point of information. Shouldn't everything -- like, let me ask, for example, let's say that we approved it today and then the DSAC changed the wording. Would that be proper in the process? MS. FABACHER: We would have to bring back the changes that DSAC made to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So obviously we would have to wait anyway, then, if they're going to work on it some more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think we have to wait for them, but I think that they can't put something through without us. I think it's a different direction. MR. KLATZKOW: You're the last stop on the train route to the board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if we had approved it today-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe had approved it today we could Page 97 November 28, 2007 approve it today and it doesn't have to go back to DSAC. DSAC's an advisory board to everyone, and we can take their input and utilize it if we want to or we can still make recommendations of our own. Are there any other flood -- Mr. Wiley's issues? MS. F ABACHER: Not on this one. He has a couple other amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to those next. MS. FABACHER: Okay, sure thing. The next amendment we will look at is on Page 9i in your book. It's Areas of Special Flood Hazard. And that would be Section 3.02.03 and Section 3.02.05, Basis for Establishing the Areas of Special Flood Hazard. This is really a housekeeping issue. The flood insurance rate -- new flood insurance rate maps have been issued, and we're just updating the code. Could have said, as amended, but actually we only get these things every five to 10 years, so we're referencing the new firms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? Page 91 through Page 93. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a recommendation for approval of Section 3.02.03 and 3.02.05 as submitted? COMMISSIONER CARON: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Caron, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Any further discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 98 November 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. The last one for Mr. Wiley would be on Page 141 in your book, Drainage Facility Level of Service. And let me give you the section number on that. That's going to be Section 6.02.01 and Section 6.02.04 generally. And this is the Drainage Facility Level of Service Requirements. And I'm going to let Mr. Wiley explain this one to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you do, you had just referenced two sections. The section on Page 141, we have 6.02.00. Is there another section involved? MS. F ABACHER: Well, actually, that is just a title. That's not being impacted whatsoever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, when we make our motion, and Ms. Student in the past in the old, prior LDC meetings, has said that we need to reference the LDC section to which the motion applies, so I've been trying to be careful to do that. So that's why I caught your notation. So if we reference 6.02.00, will that be adequate? MS. FABACHER: We've advertised it as 6.02.01 and 6.02.02. If we need to advertise it another way in the future, please advise. It's just -- we don't have to -- you can just scratch through the 6.02.00. We were just trying to be more specific in our advertising. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm trying to be very specific in our motions because we don't want any mistakes -- MS. FABACHER: Okay, well, strike through that whole line then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Forget it's there. Page 99 November 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before Mr. Wiley goes into a dissertation on this issue, these are strictly corrections, typographical errors in the LDC. I don't know if we need a lot of discussion, unless a member of this panel has a question. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We reference quite often LOS in here. Is that an acronym that's up in the front? It's not bolded. MS. F ABACHER: I'm pretty sure -- we don't bold the acronyms, just the definitions. I'm pretty sure it's level of service. Everybody uses it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know what it means. And Robert, the use of the word capital, what is that for, just out of -- I think I know the definition of the various uses of the word capital. MR. WILEY: You have two different types of funding within the county: You have capital funding, you have operation and maintenance funding related to the facilities. So that capital facility is referencing an existing facility in the ground because it is meeting the threshold of valuation, things of that nature. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval of6.02.01 and 6.02.02? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron actually stated a motion, Mr. Vigliotti raised his hand. So let's do Ms. Caron as the motion maker and Mr. Vigliotti seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 100 November 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Mr. Wiley, thank you very much, sir. We'll see you for that one remaining one next time around. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: And commissioners, I'd like to say that LOS, the abbreviation, is in the front of the code. Okay, we're going to switch gears now from engineering aspects to the environmental aspects. I would like to look at protected vegetation, the amendment for the eagle's nest. It's on Page 7 in your book. It is -- for the record, it is Section 3.05.05, Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation. Steven Lenberger with the Environmental Services Department is here for any questions, discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Steve. MR. LENBERGER: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tell you, I attended an HOA meeting where Steve made a presentation on the exotic and overused -- let's see, undesirable plants in Collier County. I'll tell you, you'd be amazed at the amount of information that this man has and what I learned at that meeting. There's a lot more plants out there that we don't want that I ever knew. So I went out and pulled all my flowers out. But he did a good job. It was a very, very interesting meeting. Now, this issue starts on Page 7, and this was the result of Page 10 1 November 28, 2007 direction from a couple of boards regarding -- if you recall an eagle's nest that was torn down in a dead tree in Pine Ridge, I believe, a few months back. Steve. MR. LENBERGER: Yes, a few months back. For the record, Steven Lenberger, Environmental and Engineering Services. Yes, the tree was cut down. I believe it was a living tree, though, for this particular one. Authorization -- the homeowners went to the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and asked their permission to have the tree removed. And they received authorization via e-mail from those agencies allowing them to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I always do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Steve, on Page 12, P, there's nothing really concerned about the wording, just the method of wording. Is the intent that all those paragraphs apply? Essentially if the first thing applies, then you're subject to the next paragraph. And my concern is just the way it's worded, it may end up where somebody could break the link, and that's not the intent. The intent is to achieve all of those things, correct? MR. LENBERGER: They're all different criteria which would apply. And they're all applicable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in the first case that --let me just see. MR. LENBERGER: The first one, removal -- prohibit in preserves, is that the one you're referring to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Somebody gets the permit in the first paragraph, correct? MR. LENBERGER: Right, that's correct. Page 102 November 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then we go on. Then he's subject to the following criteria only ifhe gets that permit. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then that might be working. MR. LENBERGER: If it's in a preserve, it's prohibited, except if it's a threat to human safety. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So without the permit, nothing below that applies. MR. LENBERGER: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The fourth paragraph down, this only -- the only concern is if it's the principal structure cannot be constructed. In other words, so essentially all attachments to that are -- would allow the tree to be removed, but accessory structures would not, meaning a structure that's probably in most zoning 20 feet away. Is that right? MR. LENBERGER: The third criteria, that's the cavities located on a parcel in which the single-family lots have been subdivided. Is that the one you're referring to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. In such a manner that the principal structure cannot be constructed. What kind of criteria do you go through for that. Because obviously, based on design you could work around a tree, but -- so what happens there? I mean, is this -- if the thing is within the setbacks, or how do you determine that? MR. LENBERGER: We haven't set the specific criteria. We would obviously look at the setback requirements. There's obviously flexibility there as far as the design of the house. We were trying to constrain that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because obviously this would happen prior to the construction of the house. In other words, there's a Page 103 November 28, 2007 lot of options there. The way somebody would prove that to you is prove that it was within the setbacks of a principal structure. MR. LENBERGER: And it was necessary to build the principal structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Based on his current design. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the last thing, you exclude the bald eagles in the last paragraph. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that because they're covered carefully somewhere else, or -- removal of vegetation with a nest or cavity of a protected listed -- other than a bald eagle where the nest of cavity is located -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Better talk a little slower there, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm sorry. What I was doing was just reading that section. I'll do it again. It says, removal of the vegetation with a nest or cavity of a protected or listed species other than the bald eagle where the nest or cavity is located. In other words, again, I do have concern with -- and Jeff, maybe it's -- is the way this paragraph is going down, because everything is kind of linked in logic as and, and, and. And there's not the typical comma and or something at the end of each paragraph. But are you saying that this would not apply if it's a bald eagle? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. The eagle nest would be protected. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meaning that you could take it down for any species if you go through the process, but you can't take it down if it's a bald eagle. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The scary thing is maybe, you know, Page 104 November 28,2007 when I was reading this over, I got the impression that if it was a bald eagle, you didn't have to go into this phrase and you could take it down. I mean, that's -- what keeps you from doing that, something someplace else? MR. LENBERGER: I didn't quite get what you were saying, could you repeat that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it says the removal of vegetation other than a bald -- okay, so in other words, no way can a bald eagle nest -- MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. I think I got that. MR. LENBERGER: We believe that was the direction given to us by the advisory boards. Ifwe misinterpreted that, please let us know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi. Page 10, at the top. Recognizing Mark's pulling his flowers out because he recognized some things, but Joe Doakes goes and buys a plot of land or buys a house, actually, that's there, and wants to do some things. How are they made aware that for instance, ground cover may have a listed species? What do we do to help them? Or do we do anything or put it entirely on their responsibility to do that? Did you understand my question? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. No, I understand. It would be their responsibility. Generally the species would be pretty obvious as far as larger animals, bald eagles, red-cockaded woodpeckers. But I understand where you're going. Yes, it would be their responsibility. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It says ground cover. MR. LENBERGER: Right, I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know what species may be associated with ground cover. I know we have turtles that we're concerned about. I don't know -- that's below ground, certainly. Page 105 November 28, 2007 MR. LENBERGER: That's true. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just wondering. I have no problem with making it stringent enough so that we properly keep people from doing the wrong thing, but I just wonder if we don't have some vines out there tripping people into bad situations. And we require of them to be fully knowledgeable. We don't lend them a hand m any way. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Was there a specific species that you were interested in that regard? MR. LENBERGER: No, I don't think the ground cover would matter if it was there or not. We could strike that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm thinking that Mr. Murray has a point. If there's not something specific that we're concerned about, I don't know that there's a need to include it. MR. LENBERGER: I agree. We could remove it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What would you remove then? MR. LENBERGER: The ground cover. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the word ground cover? MR. LENBERGER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had a question, and it would involve this definition first. The second line after the parenthetical. It says that has a nest or a cavity of a federal, state or county-protected listed speCIes. My concern is that you could go out and clear a tract of land or you could go out and cut a tree down. You may not know there's any species in there until it hits the ground and then flies out you see it there. Page 106 November 28, 2007 Do we need to insert the word known, that has a known nest or cavity of a -- I guess not a known cavity, but something to the fact that it doesn't penalize people for something they couldn't have known? MR. LENBERGER: Bald eagle nests, we know where they all are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but this is applying to more than that. MR. LENBERGER: I know, that's what I'm trying to say. We don't know where all the red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. LENBERGER: And Big Cypress fox squirrels, they could change their nest locations. We have no way of tracking that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if someone were to inadvertently destroy one of those wooded plants that had a red-cockaded woodpecker or a fox squirrel might have been living in it, and it's discovered by a passerby like this eagle's nest coming down was afterwards and saying, oh, my God, look what you did, then a person comes around and gets nailed for $35,000. Well, I think the fine is 35,000. MR. LENBERGER: That was for the eagle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, for the eagle. Okay, $5,000. Well, I don't know if that's really fair. In fact, I don't think it is. I'm wondering how we could address that. Do you have any suggestions or any ideas? MR. LEN BERGER: Did you want to limit this to certain protected species? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. I think all species that are protected are covered by it. But I'm wondering, how do we -- don't we mean known nests or known cavity trees being utilized by these protected species? MR. LENBERGER: We would have no way of tracking that, that would be the problem. Page 107 November 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that part of it concerns me. And then if you think about that and then go to P where it says removal of -- and you get into a restatement of the definition, maybe you could say removal of protected vegetation, when permits from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation are provided. Now, if you think about that and you go back to that definition of vegetation protected and we want to figure out whether they're known or not, maybe that's where we bring in that part of the definition of vegetated protection is when permits from Florida Fish and Wildlife Service are required. Because they would only be required when that vegetation was an endangered species or a threatened species habitat, would they not? I'm trying to weave the two together so that we're not nailing someone for an honest not being able to know something was there. And I can tell you, these cabbage palms and things, you could knock a cabbage palm down, and once it hits the ground all kinds of things would could come out of there and you wouldn't know they were up there in the meantime. And I wouldn't want to see someone have to pay $5,000 for a $75 cabbage tree because they didn't know something was in there they should have been worried about. MR. LENBERGER: I think the main species are going to be the three that I already mentioned. And they're generally fairly obvious to recognize. But no, we would have no way of being able to track that. Just no way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe we ought to put this back to where it started out to be, which was bald eagle protection, and not necessarily go into the others that are already covered by federal and state species. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: And/or if it's three specific species that we should be concerned about, then maybe we just list those three and not worry about anything else. I mean, that's pretty simple. Page 108 November 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think this broadens it too much. I don't think it needs to be without the evidence that we have a situation that someone was destroying something intentionally. That's a big difference. And also, for the -- my other concern, and I'll finish up on my questions here, is the $35,000. I mean, that's pretty steep. What is the federal penalties for bald eagles? MR. LENBERGER: 35,000 was on the draft Bald Eagle Management Plan, that was the fine. Actually, it was a recommended donation if you were to get a permit to remove a bald eagle nest. So that's where staff started from. The 5,000 number came through our Land Development Code. We looked at the fines that we have currently in place, and the maximum fine we have, if you potentially could impact a sea turtle nest, would be 5,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I personally think 35 is a little extreme. MR. LENBERGER: I look for your direction, if you want to change that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think all ofthem ought to be 5,000 if that's the maximum we currently have. I don't know why we'd want to go above it. Ms. Fabacher. MS. FABACHER: For the record, Catherine Fabacher. I think that it would be worth it to a developer to pay $5,000 to take out an eagle's nest. I don't think that would do what you wanted to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, why don't we make it 500,000 then. Really, you're talking billion dollar developments in here. If you want to worry about that, let's make it half a million. That's as unreasonable as 35, as far as I'm concerned. I think the philosophy you're saying is more -- you've got federal and state laws that would kick in that would have a much wider and larger impact on a developer than a county ordinance. Page 109 November 28, 2007 MS. F ABACHER: But they didn't. That's the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this was a single-family home and it was based on -- and you're telling me you want a single-family home person to be nailed for $35,000? This isn't a big developer that was doing that. This was a homeowner. And they were wrong in doing it. MS. F ABACHER: I understand your concern. My only point was is, to a larger developer $5,000 would be worth it to get rid of the eagle's nest. That was my only comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think the Stock Development got away with 5,000 or $35,000. And I think the feds adequately took care of that. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Can I make a recommendation that we not put any fine in here at all, given your concerns? And they're certainly valid. I would say this would proceed through any type of enforcement through federal enforcement. It will go to the Code Enforcement Board if it's a code action and let them assess the fine. So there would be some language that we would put in here that would describe that the fine or any adjudication will be processed or be any -- prosecution, it will be prosecuted through normal channels, I guess. I'm looking at the county attorney. MR. KLATZKOW: I do think you have to list some fine, whether it's $500 or whatever you deem is appropriate. It you take this to Code Enforcement Board, they usually looking at continuing fines for, you know, take care of this for $50 a day and we'll give you 90 days to do it. This isn't something they'd really look at. MR. SCHMITT: But the state has -- we would -- anything like this we normally turn over to the state first and they prosecute. The issue here was that the state didn't pursue the last case. It was just merely -- I guess I'm -- Page 110 November 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we ought to leave-- MR. SCHMITT: Ms. Caron, you remember, just pretty much they shrugged their shoulders and said oh, gee. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And I think as far as fines are concerned, it's not to be able to charge these fines, it's to prevent people from taking actions that would cause them to have to pay these fines. If you put a significant fine up there, then people will look and say, oh, wait a minute, I'd better follow the rules and I'd better do things the right way. And that's the only point. The point is not to charge people $35,000, it's to prevent people from taking actions that we don't want them to take. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Fabacher. MS. F ABACHER: I was going to suggest some language. Perhaps we could may be fined up to 35,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: I'm trying to remember. I think on code enforcement, $5,000 is the limit that you can do for typical code enforcement finding. If you just follow that track, just make it $5,000 and we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To be safe, I think that would be a good direction to go in. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I could double check the maximum, but I think it's 5,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had spoke to the Conservancy about it, and their issue was not to fine money either. So I don't see why 5,000 wouldn't work across the board. I think, Steve, this has got to come back. I think you need to refine the language to the species you're talking about. I would suggest if you're going to use a definition, then use it, and in P, you don't need to redefine it there. As we mentioned. Reduce -- change the fine references and I think we'll be pretty Page 111 November 28, 2007 close to -- and Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I still-- and this is P, I mean, I would be -- and just maybe Jeff, you could look at it. But if the first paragraph, the second paragraph, you had parentheses one, parentheses two for the one after that, then I think that would be in a more understandable code. Because you're saying the following criteria. And then let me just go back to what would be parentheses four, the last paragraph. Is that where you tell everybody that they can't cut down a bald eagle nest? Because the concern I have is you have a sentence and then you exclude the bald eagle nests and then you have other criteria. I think somebody could prudently interpret that that the bald eagle doesn't have to meet that criteria. But it doesn't say you can't cut it down yet. And if the intent of this is to not cut down bald eagle nests, why doesn't you just say you can't cut down bald eagle nests. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, our code would be way too short. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think this is the -- I mean, prior to this you could cut down a bald eagle nest in a residential single-family property, correct? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is the thing that stops you from doing that. So I think Jeff, am I wrong on four, the way-- MR. KLATZKOW: No, you're absolutely-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the way it's written there -- MR. KLATZKOW: You're looking for clarity in the code, which is unique, quite frankly. I think it's a great idea. And if, quite frankly, all we want to do is protect the bald eagle and nothing else, we could reduce this to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One word, couple words -- MR. KLATZKOW: This whole thing to just a paragraph and Page 112 November 28, 2007 you're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need to look at hanging it up, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I honestly think the way four is written, I could argue that I can cut down a bald eagle nest that has nothing to do with the principal building. You've excluded bald eagle nests from the principal building requirement. When you talked to me prior to that, you were saying that was the meat of the whole thing, that's where you say you can't cut down a bald eagle nest. And that's not what it's saying. Thank you, I'm done, Mark, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I fully agree with you, Brad. So maybe Steve, you can come back -- when you come back to us, we can get some of this refined down to a lot less verbiage. MR. KLATZKOW: Just for direction, because there's been a lot of direction on the board, are we looking to limit this to just the bald eagle or are we looking at this for all protected species? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It started out with the bald eagle, and it seems that Steve had mentioned a couple of other species. But I would, since those haven't been issues and we have other management plans and species ordinance, rather than get into those, I'm not sure what they take. It was real clear, a bald eagle's nest is monitored, they're everywhere, everybody knows where they're at. I suggest for clarity, why don't we just leave it for now to the bald eagle, and if we have to add others later, we look at doing that. Does that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm in favor of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the code can say you can't cut down a bald eagle nest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. It's very simple, we've got a shorter, healthy -- MR. KLATZKOW: And if you do, it's a $5,000 fine. Page 113 November 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. Done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. So Steve, with that, we just saved you a lot of time. MR. LENBERGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I know we're going to stay here till 1 :00, and that's only about an hour away, but I think we'll give the court reporter another break until 12:10, which is seven minutes, so that will help. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back. We'll resume the meeting of the Land Development Code, Cycle 2. We're going to be out of here, I've now been told, at five minutes to 1:00. We will stop-- MR. SCHMITT: We need to get out of here by 1:00, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll make sure we're out-- MR. SCHMITT: Five or ten minutes to so we can clean up our areas and move out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, what's next on the list? MS. FABACHER: Next on the list is going to be Steve Lenberger again, and we're looking at the preservation standards priorities on Page 95 in your book. That is going to be Section 3.05.07.A.3. And this is an EAR-based amendment where the DCA asked the environmental and engineering services department to rearrange the priorities. As soon as Steve gets back, I think he'll be able to answer any questions you have on it. But it's really not very much of an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The underlined on Page 96, that's most of what we're -- this is all about, right? MS. FABACHER: Right, exactly. They're just changing the priorities in order, the different order of the priorities. Here he is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the planning commission? Page 114 November 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, you're there, okay. Page 96, first item on A. Wetland or upland areas known to be utilized by listed species or that serve as known corridors? Or do you want corridors, because it's a discovery, oh, there's a corridor. MR. LENBERGER: We would use technical assistance from the agencies as far as the corridors are concerned for listed species. So we would have to rely on their technical assistance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then on new F, formerly H, all other native habitats. Does that include that ground cover again? MR. LENBERGER: All native habitats, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, I'm still not clear on that A section of where you have to be dependent upon them. So in other words, they determine what the corridors are? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. The compo plan requires staff to -- they get technical assistance from the state and federal wildlife agencies regarding listed species. We would rely on them for this -- determining this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if you have been depending upon them to do that, provide that information for you, somewhere, someplace in your organization you have maps, I presume, where you've patterned in all these corridors. You don't ask them each time to tell you the same corridors, right? MR. LENBERGER: We have on the GIS data system information regarding panthers telemetry, also even black bear. And so we know pretty much the areas they're inhabiting. And you can pretty much see corridors for these larger ranging animals. And when they re-did the comprehensive plan, they took that into effect. Other species, it would be -- we don't have that information. We don't have a layer identifying these corridors. They would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and we would have to rely on the Page 115 November 28, 2007 wildlife agencies for their expertise to determine that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it is possible that over a period of time you might be asking those organizations for the information on something you already had, been made known to you. You might be asking for the same thing again, am I right? MR. LENBERGER: It is a possibility -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or does it change so much? MR. LENBERGER: We have products that may be in a particular area and there may be quite a lapse of time before another product would come in the same area. So the staff there may not be knowledgeable on what previous technical assistance has been issued. But then, again, the technical assistance could change, too, depending on what data the wildlife agencies have acquired since then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I understand your circumstance. And I was just thinking the resource of something that you retained, that you had to access would certainly be your first effort. Notwithstanding the fact that you may have a policy that requires you to go to the other people. But I thought that then they became known corridors. But you're saying that there really are no known corridors, they vary all the time. Is that right? MR. LENBERGER: I wouldn't say they vary, but they're not known. We only know from telemetry points where they occur for larger ranging animals such as panther. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I suppose, just to continue but for the last statement, suppose it's possible at one point in time the absence of telemetry would allow somebody to do something on that property that six months later they would be precluded from doing. Is that theoretically possible? MR. LENBERGER: The presence of a telemetry point for a panther on-site wouldn't necessarily prohibit development. They're Page 116 November 28, 2007 looking at the overall picture as far as the panther movement. And the federal government requires compensation mitigation for impacts to panther habitat. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I appreciate what you're doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, when you go in for your corridors, they would be the most recent ones based on deaths and births of the various species that have to create the corridors in the first place? So it will be changing. You can't get something today, lock it in and say this is a wildlife corridor, because next week or the month later when the new eggs hatch or whatever happens, you may not have the same corridor needed by the same species. So they will be variable, and they will be fluctuating and they will be responsive based on the time you asked for them from the agencies, I would assume. MR. LENBERGER: That could be based on a variety of factors too, habitat quality, changes over time, development. There's a lot of things that could affect that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, it seems like what you've done is you've moved E and F up above Band C, or C and D. Can you explain why you did that? MR. LENBERGER: For the types of habitats, xeric scrub, dune, strand and hardwood hammocks are very limited in the county. And they wanted to afford them more protection. That's why they were moved up in the selection criteria. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And for A, you're focusing on corridors for the movement of wildlife. It would seem that C, the WRAP score or the unifonn wetland -- whatever that is -- wetland mitigation assessment score, those are -- seem like they would be more easily quantified by a biologist going in than trying to determine Page 117 November 28, 2007 where the corridors for the movement of wildlife are, since it's hard to see them, they probably mostly move at night. MR. LENBERGER: It would depend on the listed species involved. But like I said, we would use technical assistance, and this is what was adopted in the comprehensive plan as the selection criteria. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you think that the WRAP is more objective or more easy to measure than trying to figure out where the corridors of wildlife are? MR. LENBERGER: I can't answer that question. You can figure out the functionality on a WRAP score or UWMAM. Movement of wildlife, I don't have the expertise. And you can't necessarily just pinpoint that, you'd have to rely on the agencies. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It would seem to me that you could quantify the WRAP easier because you can actually ground truth it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, unfortunately, and I don't mean to interrupt, but I wanted to point out to you, we've already discussed and accepted all this in the CCME. We have to change the code to correspond to the CCME, we don't have a choice in the order. So just in case you're trying to get the order changed, I don't think we can do that here today without going back and changing the CCME. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I was just trying to understand the rationale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that was my comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, are we ready for a motion on Section 3.05.07? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second it. Page 118 November 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney seconded it, Ms. Caron made the motion. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: All righty, commissioners, we have one last topic for environmental area, and that would be marinas on Page 99 in your book. Two pages on, and that is Section 5.05.0 2.G. And by way of introduction, this was a BCC-directed, directed to exclude the shoreline within conservation easement areas for use in the calculation of maximum number of wet slips in accordance with the Manatee Protection Plan. You'll see that obviously the EAC agreed with it and the DSAC did not. But anyway, if you have any questions, Steve can answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions on this? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll ask one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I honestly don't really believe this, but one of the things we've done in fair play is allowed people if they're going to conserve land to use that for density and things. Is there a reason why we wouldn't keep that fair play going here? And Donna has an answer for me, I think. Page 119 November 28, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure there are probably -- a lot of people might have answers for you on that one. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: First of all, I would venture to say that in 99.9.99999 percent of the time no one grants a conservation easement without getting something for it to begin with, and/or have it to offer it as mitigation for something else that they're getting. What this does is prevent double dipping and being able to use these conservation easements for more than one thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. A concern off of that, though. Would somebody ever start designing their conservation easements away from the water to prevent losing the shoreline, at least this calculation of shoreline? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's up to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I think you're trying to say is if you had a shoreline as defined here, and you wanted to utilize it for something to calculate boat slips with, could you come back in and stop your conservation easement one or two feet short of the shoreline and have a strip that you could then use to calculate lineal footage for boat slips? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's even cleverer than what I was Imagmmg. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought you were . .. Imagmmg. MS. FABACHER: I think that's the intent of this amendment, to prevent that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's what I'm getting at-- MS. FABACHER: Oh, okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and that's what I was trying to get-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But didn't you describe a situation where the conservation easement wasn't at the shoreline. In Page 120 November 28, 2007 other words, let's say the guy pulled it back such a way that the easement was off the shoreline. Anyway, I'm going to vote in favor of it, I just wanted to throw out the fair play question, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they could probably try to argue that the conservation easement may not go to the shoreline, but I'm not sure how they'd get away with that because from the shoreline down it would be considered like jurisdictional. So how could you get away from doing that if it's part of the shoreline. That's probably why this helps define it. So are there any other comments on this particular issue? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve. And that is LDC Section 5.05.02. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney seconded. Motion is made by Commissioner Caron. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Any opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, commissioners. Thank you, Steven. We'll see you back on the 12th. Okay, I'd like to continue, since I'm the only one left, to do the ones that I have some knowledge of. November 28, 2007 First one we'll go to is on Page 107 in your book. This is going to be Section 5.06.05, X and y. You've seen this before. I hope it looks familiar to you. We passed it in the last cycle. But unfortunately, when we went to write the ordinance, we noted that we had not advertised properly. So we're simply bringing it back, properly advertised this time. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we unanimously recommended approval last time. I hope we haven't changed our position on there. Hearing no comments, is there a motion to reapprove recommendations for 3.05.10.A.6, 30.05.04.G. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Paul and I are fighting over who gets to do it. Paul can have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to recommend deny or approve, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Approve, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Midney, second by Commissioner Schiffer. Is that an affirmative, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) Page 122 November 28,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, commissioners. Now, if we can move to Page 73. And this is going to be for Section 1.08.02. A little bit of background. I had read this definition for a long time and one day said well, this doesn't make any sense. So I tried to correct it. You'll see that on the fourth line it talks about -- it says neither or both of the previous separate nonconforming lots. It's hard to understand, but the way I read it, I thought it should be either. But I have had discussions with former county attorney office staff that wrote it. And they said if I take out the neither, then I turn the definition around 180 degrees. But I just perhaps need some direction on this one. I had said that we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you been running into problems with it as left as it was -- MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because it seems like it provides a better opportunity left as it was, because then you've got neither or both, so you -- would mean you could go either direction with it. Whereas if you change it to either or both, you may be limiting yourself to half. I read it too. I was confused by why it was being changed. I didn't know if it was needed. I thought there may be some reason behind it. MS. FABACHER: No, if you're in agreement with it. I just have trouble understanding the definition altogether, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you ask the tax assessor's office if there was a problem with it, since it involves them? MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if they've not complained, maybe we ought to leave well enough alone. I think it might be more confusing to change it than just to leave it. Page 123 November 28, 2007 MS. FABACHER: Okay. Well, I talked to the former staff and I will talk to the assessor's office and ask them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there an issue that should apply here for the word adjacent versus abutting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, lot splits, they're probably going to be always side by side. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Abutting, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Where it's adjacent here, two or more adjacent, legal nonconforming lots. Adjacent as I understand it was where something is in between, like a road. MS. FABACHER: That's a very good catch. I saw that myself. But unfortunately we hadn't vetted that out. Perhaps the solution might be when we have the LDC reviewed by the consultant that's going to come in, that we ask him to look at this definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would probably be a better idea. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Then we'll just -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Until now then, we'll put abutting? MS. F ABACHER: We'll just leave it as it is. We'll just -- I think that's the direction I got, unless it's something else. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just brought it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that Mr. Murray's comment, though, ought to be brought up to that consultant as well. MS. F ABACHER: Absolutely, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be a better way to handle this one. MS. FABACHER: No, I agree with what Mr. Murray says, too. Page 124 November 28, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on 73, we're -- Page, 73, which is we're just recommending not to change it. MR. KLATZKOW: Withdraw. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Withdraw. MS. F ABACHER: We'll withdraw, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you need a formal motion on that? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, that would be easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is Section 1.08.02, Definitions. We're looking for a formal motion to withdraw. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Murray, seconded by-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Midney. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. The next one we will do is to expand the definition ofTDR credit. That's going to be on Page 75, and that will be Section -- for the record, that will be in the definition section 1.08.02. And I think it was just a -- it's just a clarification. Page 75. It just references you to the exact section that talks about TDRs in the code itself, instead of -- before it was just 2.03.07, which you know is an immense section that has all the overlays and all the zoning districts. So this just puts you to your correct subsection. Otherwise you could Page 125 November 28, 2007 hunt for hours looking for a TDR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, after the word unit, it says a unit representing the right to. And I'm not sure in all cases it will represent the right to if they're trying to apply in a manner that's inconsistent with its use. And I'm wondering, maybe we could say a unit that may be used to increase the density or intensity of a development -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or a unit representing the opportunity. Well, whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either way. MS. F ABACHER: We could -- perhaps we should maybe hold this one until Joe Thompson comes, because he has a bunch on the next meeting, on the TDR program. So perhaps we can discuss that with him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have no problem with that -- MS. F ABACHER: Because he's the TDR expert. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Put it off till the 12th then. MS. FABACHER: I'm going to move to Page 89. And this is going to be Section 2.03.08, Rural Fringe Zoning Districts. And it's simply removing a duplication in the text. Same phrase appears twice. You can see on Page 90, facilities for the collection transfer. It's just in there twice. So we remove that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any discussion from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray to recommend approval ofLDC Sections 2.03.08.A.3.A, paren 3.H, and 2.03.08 paren three, paren one. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Midney. Any discussion? Page 126 November 28, 2007 All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Next one, Ms. Fabacher. MS. F ABACHER: Well, I think we could go back. I don't have the staff here, but there's some pretty simple ones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, are you an optimist. MS. FABACHER: Well, I'm looking at Page 1, which is Section 1.08.02, Definitions Development Order. And it's from the compo planning department. And they're requesting that we add SRA into the definition, Stewardship Receiving Area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concept of a development order, does that trigger anything, I mean, an impact fee due or anything like that? When you called changing something into a stewardship receiving area, would that trigger anything that we're not predicting here? MR. KLATZKOW: I've got to tell you, the establishment ofa stewardship receiving area in my mind is a development order anyway. I don't think we're adding anything here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just clarifying, possibly. MR. KLATZKOW: We're just clarifying. In my mind, it is. It Page 127 November 28, 2007 does have ramifications. MS. F ABACHER: I think in general they're trying to. It's like in a variation of a PUD. And it's not really addressed. And I think there's some other amendments later on that -- next cycle that we'll be pulling that into monitoring programs and so forth. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only concern was are we -- is there an unpredictable trigger that we're pulling here. I'm fine, let's go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, is there a recommendation to approve LDC Section 1.08.02? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had made the recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray's made the recommendation. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Next one. MS. F ABACHER: All right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Pick an easy one. MS. FABACHER: I'm just personally going through the book to Page 128 November 28, 2007 see what we haven't covered here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Fabacher, while you're doing that, I note, before I forget, we're scheduled for the 12th in this room. Would you see if there's any openings for any other night or afternoon for this room, or even morning for that matter, either three hours or four hours, to schedule a follow-up meeting in case we can't finish that evenmg. MS. FABACHER: Okay, I sure will. Actually, I don't think there are anymore amendments that I would want to discuss without staff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Klatzkow's document? MS. FABACHER: Well, we can discuss it, if you want to discuss it. We were planning to discuss that all at one time with -- it's on Page 59. We were going to discuss that at the same time with the other amendments that are kind of trailing along with it. But we can absolutely go to that discussion. So we are looking at Section 10.02.03 on Page 59 in your book, Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans. I think you all are pretty familiar with this one. MR. KLATZKOW: And my recommendation, quite frankly, would be that E be put into the noise ordinance, not in the LDC. But I wanted to do it this approach, because I wanted your input on this. And you wouldn't normally see an amendment to the noise ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer had first call, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A concern I had is that since our next meeting is in the evening, and since this doesn't address what to do with existing problems, I was just wondering, maybe it would be healthier to do it in the evening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be more fair. Then we Page 129 November 28, 2007 can at least say we've aired it as much as we can in the public. Why don't we try that. I know there was an attorney, wasn't it Clay Brooker who was-- or somebody was in the audience. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Chris -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Clay was in-- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, Clay represents Pebblebrook and Stevie Tomatoes, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As a courtesy, since we do know that there's someone interested in this, couldn't we at least notify them that we will be hearing this then on the 12th, and that way they have the opportunity if they want to be to participate. Having that said, is there any others that we can do today or we rather defer till the 12th? MS. F ABACHER: I'd rather wait till the 12th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If doing so, it's important that we look for alternative back-up dates to the 12th as well. MS. F ABACHER: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, did you want to say something? MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir. MS. F ABACHER: We're going to -- to get your direction, we're going to continue this hearing to December -- I'm sorry, November 12th at 5:05 p.m. in this chamber. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're going to -- I'm looking for a motion to continue this meeting to December 12th at 5:05 in these chambers. MS. FABACHER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there such a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, seconded had by Mr. Page 130 November 28, 2007 Vigliotti. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. And we are done until then. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:35 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 13 1