Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/12/2007 LDC December 12, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION LDC 2007 Cycle 2 Naples, Florida December 12,2007 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 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Tor Kolflat Brad Schiffer Donna Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Paul Midney (absent) ALSO PRESENT: Catherine Fabacher, LDC Coordinator Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Chief Assistant County Attorney Page 1 December 12, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: We have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now we are back on line. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for attending the continued meeting of the LDC Cycle 2 for 2007 on December 13th (sic) at 5:05. If you will all please rise for the pledge of allegiance. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the secretary will please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Some housekeeping matters for this evening. Last night -- and I just got my copy today. There has been a series of changes sent to us. I don't think that -- based on the change, we may not be able to take final action on those today, depending on how -- the gravity of the changes. So kind of keep that in mind. I also don't believe we'll be able to get through this agenda tonight, but I would like to ask the commission what they think as a cut-off time this evening. Does 8:00 sound okay with everybody? Page 2 December 12,2007 That is three hours. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. We'll continue to eight. The other item that I want to mention is some of you have been seeing the new information we have been getting in preparation for tomorrow's meeting. Last Friday afternoon there was a SDP review with County staff and the applicant. As a result of that review, there are more changes to the plans that we all have been distributed to a point where those plans may not be useful to thoroughly review for tomorrow's meeting. On top of that, we received an amended settlement agreement on Tuesday, one version bye-mail and we received another version from another source, the County Attorney's office, yesterday. So now, besides the one we originally were given, we have two others. And they have changed. One of them in particular has changed significantly. And then being as most of us may have just seen it today, preparation for tomorrow doesn't give us a lot of time to prepare. In the morning when we start up I'm going to be asking all of you how you want to continue with this, how much you want to go through tomorrow. And if the best philosophy is to continue until after the holidays, then that's certainly what our option is to do. I do also want to note that there are some global issues in the document. And if you wanted to, we could talk about those. I certainly don't think there is any way we can talk about very specifics of the blueprints because there has been all new issues -- all new documents issued in regard to those blueprints. So even though they are somewhat relevant, they are not going to be as accurate as the new ones that may have been issued already. So keep that in mind in your review this evening. Mr. Murray and then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Newer than the ones we got with Page 3 December 12, 2007 our last delivery; you're talking about the thick one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. What happened is on Friday there was a SDP review. Out of that review staff provided input. The input resulted in more plans. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't get those plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, nobody has yet. They just have been -- I believe staff may have just got them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's certainly nothing that we could have reviewed for tomorrow. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can we talk tomorrow in general terms and -- maybe between us and then put it off for more specifics down the road? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We could. I mean, it's up to the commission in our discussion tomorrow, but I kind of wanted to highlight you to the issue. So that going home tonight, if you are going to focus on anything, it might want to be the specific language in the settlement agreement that we have gotten, instead of going -- trying to figure out those blueprints for tomorrow's meeting. We certainly will continue it anyway. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One of the problems I had is: Is there any way to judge which one is the first? There's no dates on these. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The last one I got was actually handed to me walking into this meeting, but that could be the one prior to the e-mail I got this morning, which could be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, there is. You will have one with a cover sheet from the County Attorney's office dated September 27th, I believe. That's the first one that we got to be prepared for tomorrow's Page 4 December 12, 2007 meeting. The second one came out on December 11 tho And the noted point you will see in there is one of the paragraphs dealt with the height of the buildings and the setback between the buildings. The version you received from the County Attorney's office the first time showed a significant cross-out in regards to the setback separations between the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The new version takes that cross-out out and puts the language back in. So that's the second version that came out bye-mail Tuesday night, which I assumed would have been hard copied to you probably. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then another version came out today that, I believe, was e-mailed and possibly hard copied from the County Attorney's office that added some language to the various paragraphs. MR. KLA TZKOW: These are coming from their attorneys, not us, sir. These changes are not coming from our office. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Huh? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought your office -- okay. I thought Marjorie -- MR. KLATZKOW: I asked Marjorie and that's what she told me. The changes are coming from Cocohatchee folks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll have to verify that. I will pull that up in the morning, Jeff, because they're not the kind of changes I think they would make. But we may want to double check that. That came out last night in a late e-mail and early this morning by hard copy. So, anyway, based on all that, tomorrow morning we need to make a decision on how we want to proceed. I want to make sure everybody realizes that we can continue it until after the holidays. Anything else? Page 5 December 12, 2007 With that, we will move into this meeting. And, Catherine, I will let you tell us where we should be starting from in the book and you give us the page number so we can follow along. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioner. I would just like to state that this meeting is a continuation of the Planning Commission's public hearing on the LDC amendments for cycle 2007 2. Weare going to begin our first issue on page -- it is going to be page 59 in your yellow book and "F" on your summary sheets. And it is Section 10.02.03. And these are the -- one of the -- one of the recommended amendments to deal -- proposed amendments to deal with the noise -- nuisance noise issues. But before I -- we begin looking at that one, I would just like to say that globally there has been a lot of discussion about changing -- how to deal with these problems. The Planning Commission and the Board both have suggested revisions to the noise ordinance may be a possible solution, perhaps some performance standards and separation requirements for these uses from residential uses. And we have kind of been tossing it back and forth for a couple of cycles now. So what we would like to do first is Gary Dantini from Code Enforcement has graciously agreed to join us to give us an overview of the proposed changes that they are working on with the consultant to the noise ordinance to try and address some of these . . . nOIse nmsance Issues. Now, I wanted to say -- and I promised Gary and Michelle Arnold that we wouldn't get too -- get into too heavy a topic with them. We would just generally speak about it. Because they haven't really finalized their document draft to circulate. And some of these things are still under discussion, but we just wanted you to understand the flavor of the changes that they are about to make. And some of these things would possibly be duplicated in other efforts. So we wanted to start with that, if that is okay. Page 6 December 12, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One caveat. And we usually do this as a courtesy to the public that do attend. We rarely have public attendance unfortunately. I notice that Mr. Poteet and Ms. Krier are in the audience. I'm assuming they're here for this one. MS. F ABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this the outdoor entertainment one? MS. F ABACHER: They're here for the open house. I would like to do them next, but we have some people that really have other commitments that need to leave first. So Joe asked us to put this one first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I would make -- want to make sure we get to the ones the public are here for. MS. F ABACHER: Understood. And we do have some staff from the supervisors of elections that need to get in real early, too. So we'll try and accommodate everybody. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Go right ahead. MR. DANTINI: For the record, Gary Dantini, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. I'm sorry that -- I was just notified just a few hours ago as far as coming to this meeting. I don't have an awful lot of report to anybody at this time because nothing has been really -- the ordinance as it stands is what it is right now. What I can tell you at this point that the ordinance and review by the consultant that we've asked is to consolidate all five of the ordinances into one ordinance itself. So it doesn't have to go back to 1991, I think it is, and then go up through '97 with them. Also, as to simplify the ordinance, as far as the languages, so it's much easier to read. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're somewhat confusing me. We are Page 7 December 12, 2007 on page -- we started on page 59. The new language starts on page 61. It's really the outdoor entertainment seating language that we've had come before this Board twice before. Now, I understand that it needs to be rewritten. I understand that's what is being planned and some of it should be incorporated maybe into the LDC or into the noise ordinance. If that's what's happening, then really what you're telling us -- we're not going to get into this one tonight. You're going to come back with a rewrite. And I'm assuming it will be after DSAC reviews it. Is that a fair statement? MS. F ABACHER: That's a fair statement. But what we wanted to do was to try and get some direction from you on -- we have three different products circulating with the same elements and some circumstances and what needs to go where. Let me summarize what Gary had explained to me about the noise ordinance. The way that they're going to improve it is that they currently have required establishments that have live performance or amplified sound anywhere on -- anywhere on the premises, whether it's outdoor or indoor. There is the language already in the noise ordinance that would require them to go and get an annual permit, which they -- a one time permit? MR. DANTINI: Yes. And that would be for outside music only. MS. FABACHER: For the live performance. MR. DANTINI: Right. MS. F ABACHER: But the amplified sound permit would be for sound -- for amplified sound indoor/outdoor, it doesn't matter, right? MR. DANTINI: That's something that we're looking at, yes. MS. FABACHER: Yes. And that that would be an annual permit. And some of the things that we had discussed in the outdoor seating amendment had been -- that we proposed through zoning was to issue the same permit. They have the same thing. Three violations you can have your Page 8 December 12, 2007 permit revoked and you can even have your -- or you go to a hearing to have your permit revoked. But it duplicates the permitting system that we established in the outdoor seating amendment that we wrote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, let's back up a minute. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking -- I know you know this stuff like the back of your hand. You move faster in the way you talk about it than I think all of us can follow in regards to what you're referring to. MS. FABACHER: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First you said there are three documents floating around out there or three things. We have one of them apparently in front of us that starts on page 59. MS. F ABACHER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that true? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are two others. One being the noise ordinance that can be amended to incorporate part of the document that's in front of us that starts on page 59. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the third document is? MS. F ABACHER: One that we reviewed last cycle and the Board deferred it again to this cycle, which was the permits for outdoor serving areas with outdoor entertainment, if you will recall. The zoning department was to issue the permit based on a violation report history from code. If you had one violation report, then you were going to be sent to the Planning Commission and the Board for a hearing to see if you could receive that permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, are you trying to incorporate that as a separate standalone ordinance or incorporate it into the Land Development Code? Page 9 December 12,2007 MS. F ABACHER: That would have been incorporated into the Land Development Code in a new created section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what about the setback requirements that appear in the document in front of us? MS. F ABACHER: Those are in the one that -- that Jeff Klatzkow was working on. Those would go into the LDC as performance standards or supplemental performance standards for outdoor serving areas, whether you had to have a permit or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what this means is that the document we have got starting on page 59 can be broken apart and put into existing ordinances, one being the noise ordinance and the other being a revision to the LDC to incorporate the parts that don't go in the noise ordinance? MS. F ABACHER: Exactly. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, can I interrupt you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: I want to correct, Catherine, because I think we have a -- there is actually -- you're counting the noise ordinance. There is actually four items now dealing with this same issue. We made a commitment to the Board. If you recall in the last LDC amendment cycle, we started out with an ordinance that dealt with outdoor seating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: And a permit for outdoor seating. That -- I use the word kind of morphed into an amplified sound ordinance. So that's two. And then when we brought that back to the Board, the Board took the ordinance that morphed from the outdoor seating to amplified sound. They wanted us to come back with an outdoor seating. So we said we would bring those two back, plus this one that -- that I will call it -- the County Attorney and the zoning staff worked. And that is the one that is in front of you right now on page 59. That Page 10 December 12,2007 is number three, which is another option. And then Code Enforcement was directed by the Board to amend the noise ordinance, which is really a fourth initiative. The most -- I think the most effective for us right now, and we're trying to look at, is trying to get some teeth in the noise ordinance. If we get the noise ordinance updated and amended, I think that one then -- we'll decide how we -- we bring that into the LDC. But the issue really comes down to the three ordinances that we told the Board we would bring back. The one here, which basically empowers the zoning director to make decisions based on use and noncompliance with use, one on an outdoor seating permit, and one on an amplified sound permit different than the amplified sound permit that is in the noise ordinance. I know that's all confusing, but it's kind of a -- now we're into a four-prong approach. Actually three-prong approach when we are looking at LDC amendments, plus the noise ordinance, which we're having a consultant work and develop to create some -- some -- I want to call it tougher standards and deal with issues with base sounds and some of the repetitive sounds, those type of things, that we're trying to get the noise ordinance to deal with. So we're not -- we had no intent of getting into any of this tonight, other than to let you know that this thing is still moving forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then -- what I'm trying to do is not waste time. We don't have a lot of time. MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically you're telling us this is not really ready for our review tonight and that you're going to come back with a more consolidated document that is probably going to put all four of these together in one or in some order that we can follow them a lot better. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. Page 11 December 12,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Just so you understand, from the last cycle to this cycle what you created and what the Board directed, we were on opposite ends of the pole from a seating ordinance and you were on -- do you remember that one kind of migrated over into an amplified sound permit? And the Board is asking to look at all options. And that's what we -- we told the Board we would bring that back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I think it would be much more productive for this board to let you have the time to come back with something better for us to review. MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. And that's what we're asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless there is some reason that any member here wants to get into this paperwork that we really don't need to review tonight, I think we just let it go and come back with us after the first of the year when we reschedule this meeting and see where we go at that point. Does that work for you, Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: Sure. That's good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Dantini, thank you. We are going to table this until after the holidays. MR. DANTINI: Okay. Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Gary. All right. Commissioner, I think you requested that we quickly do the open house signs, which would be on -- which would be on page 43 in your book. No. I'm sorry . You have a revision on that one. It is one of the new ones that you received. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has the public had the benefit of receiving it since they're here to talk about it? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, they do. They have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 12 December 12, 2007 MS. FABACHER: For the benefit of the court reporter, we are on our summary sheet -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is that page "D"? MS. FABACHER: Page "D," thank you, on the summary sheet. And that would be Section 5.06.02, permitted signs. I don't know if you all have had a chance to look at the revised copy that mostly we worked on with your recommendations. And we did work with the public on this. I think if you -- we rearranged it a little bit. It still says the same thing. If you start on page three in your new revised copy, we look at open house signs and we called them off premises open house signs. There's -- the first one is going to talk about the first off premise sign would allow an open house sign to be placed in the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, could we make sure we are all on the same page first before you start going? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. We're on page three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Let me ask you something. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In our book last time we read off -- we started on page 43 and it was on three pages. 43,44 and 45. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 45 there was item number three that supposedly was part of the existing code because it wasn't underlined. And it started with the word, "Model home signs." On the new document that I have just found in my package that was handed to me today on page three, number three starts with, "Open house signs." Now, does that mean the model home signs is no longer existing? MS. FABACHER: No. If you look on page four, model home signs has just been moved to number four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: I think. Page 13 December 12, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've got a full page of new text that came out today? MS. F ABACHER: It came out yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Has the County Attorney's office had time to review it? MR. KLATZKOW: I just got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we don't have legal review. I can assure you don't have my review. I don't know about the rest of us here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't even have a copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You reviewed it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And here is the problem. We're sending these things out and then we're not -- you know, I stay up late to review. I don't want to feel like an idiot and not talk about it. So I think don't send stuff if you're not going to review it. I mean, you okay whether they can send it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The state is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's not waste time doing these things if we're going to table everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I didn't know this was sent out until I got it like you did. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Last night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually I didn't get it last night. I got it today hard copy. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So did 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't even know it went out until today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't get it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let's do this. Let's come up with a process where staff okays it with you and then you decide whether it's something that we can even have in time and then not send it out to us. Page 14 December 12, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that, as long as the rest of you would defer to that system. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly communicate with staff daily, so we have no problem doing that. MS. FABACHER: So you want to defer it to the 14th or are we going to wait? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to listen to the public speakers and then I think our discussion is going to have to be deferred to the 14th because we haven't had time to read this. I want the County Attorney's input on it absolutely before we make a decision on it. So we're going to have to put it off a bit. But at least we can have the public provide any input they have on the new writing so we have their benefit and the County Attorney can have their benefit. Does that work? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Who has the public speaker slips? Does anybody? Would you mind asking them? MS. F ABACHER: Sure. I have Ellie Krier and Bill Poteet. I don't know who wants to go first. They did provide me with a minor change that they -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How long have they had it? MS. FABACHER: -- suggested? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you tell us, Mr. Poteet, after you have identified yourself? MR. POTEET: Yes, I will. My name is William Poteet. I'm representing the Naples Area Board of Realtors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How long have you had this new change? MR. POTEET: Two days. Page 15 December 12,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we all got it about the same time. MR. POTEET: About the same time. We went through it real quick. The first thing we wanted to do is compliment staff on -- for what they have done so far. I mean, it looks really good. We have one issue that we're looking at and that's under 3(A), Roman numeral six. It limits the open house signs to be no closer than 100 feet to another off premise sign. And effectively what that does and means is that one realtor cannot have an open house next to the other two houses in a row. What we are suggesting -- and we put a sheet up there and highlighted in red that you take the provision that they have in six __ under Roman numeral six and put it up to Roman numeral two and just say, "Said sign will be located no closer than 100 feet from each other," which means the directional signs can't be on top of each other. I think that was the intent of the committee or the comments we had last time versus -- it will allow myself to have an open house at one address. And if another realtor wants to have an open house at the next-door neighbor, he can do so. The way you have it here, we think code enforcement will interpret that you can't have two open houses next to each other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you think this covers you in the case of narrow lots? I mean, there are a lot of 40- foot wide lots out there. And if you do side-by-side 40-foot wide lots, you've only got 80 feet from end to end. If you put those in the center, which you probably want to do, you're not going to -- well, 100 feet still is going to hurt you in that. MR. POTEET: Well, what we said on the 100 feet between __ you have three signs that you're allowing. Two of them are directional signs and one is the open house sign. And if you're requiring that the three signs be 100 feet apart, I don't think we're going to have a Page 16 December 12, 2007 problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. POTEET: We just don't want to come to the situation where I have another realtor or a person who is doing for sale by owner and he wants to have an open house the same day you're having an open house and you're adjacent to each other and then you'd be in violation under the way it's written on this one. At least that's the way I interpreted it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. POTEET: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions at this point? Weare going to have to come back and hear this. MR. POTEET: We understand that. We just wanted to see if we could get this corrected in the meantime. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good work. I think we've gotten along -- we're much further away with it, so thank you. MS. KRIER: Commissioners, for the record, Ellie Krier, also representing the Naples Area Board of Realtors. Just to follow up on Mr. Poteet, I think his shifting is what it accomplishes is that you're not allowing a realtor to do a like Burma Shave sign look where he may be just half a block in and can get three signs. That wouldn't be allowed. The directional signs are meant to be spaced to lead you in. This would preclude using all your signs, even if you were almost to the corner. And that is the intent there, not that two or three realtors who have an open house on the same sign couldn't have their first directional sign at that corner. And I think Mr. Poteet's shift solves that. I also would like to thank staff and tell you that this process has -- we're on our fourth draft. They have been very responsive. We have been working through it. It's also had to go through other County departments. So it's, as you well know, a very time Page 17 December 12, 2007 consuming process, but the results have been excellent. Thank you very much and we'll be back to see you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. That is the only two speakers we had then? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If it's okay with the rest of the Board, we will again table this one until we come back at another time with it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we need to -- I don't think we need to move on it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just let the staff know that's what's going to have to happen. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You mentioned about the 14th. Are you talking about this 14th, this Friday? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's something we have got to talk about at the end. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You used the 14th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The 14th was that -- this coming Friday afternoon is open for a continuation of those items that we don't get to tonight that aren't, obviously, going to have to be continued until after the holiday, if we want to continue with the clean-up of the document. But that's at this Board's discretion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It occurred to me that if we're -_ tomorrow the Cocohatchee thing might actually die. Maybe tomorrow might be a good day since we have invested that day already as opposed to going to the 14th. Because tomorrow was committed and it looks like we may have a very short meeting relative to Cocohatchee. Page 18 December 12,2007 Does it make sense? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does. But about -- a little before we finish tonight, I was going to throw the options on the table and see what you all wanted to do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We do have to continue to a date and time certain. So not knowing what's going to come out of tomorrow morning and how long it may take, we have got to see if we can do it that way. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Small problem. I won't be able to make it on the 14th. If you think we could -- we're going to talk about this on the 14th because I did have a lot of things I wanted to talk about. So I'm not going to be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have to discuss it on the 14th. Brad, if we go to the 14th, we're still not going to finish because there are other items on this agenda that can't be accomplished between now and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Table that one if you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are going to be coming back, if nothing else, for the outdoor seating one. And when we come back to that one, we could clean up any of these others that are lingering that need further review. And I certainly would want to hear your input on it. So I think that would be something that we'd naturally defer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Catherine, let's try the next door. MS. FABACHER: Okay. We'll try the next one. We are on summary sheet "L." This will be Section 5.06.04, sign standards for specific situation. It's page 103. We have Jennifer Belpedio here and members of the staff of the supervisors of elections to -- to explain this amendment request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go into an explanation, does Page 19 December 12,2007 anybody have any questions on this particular request? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me see. (Commissioner Vigliotti left the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Any questions on it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I have comments within it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, normally we walk through it page by page. I just want to see if there was -- how much of a concern we had as a Board to maybe expedite Ms. Belpedio's presentation if we don't have a lot to worry about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I will start with questions of the Board first. And, Jennifer, you can kind of guide your presentation by the direction of the questions. Maybe that will help move things along. Mr. Murray and then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This might be more for -- gosh, I went blank. You. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize. MS. FABACHER: Not a problem. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: All day is not good for me. (Commissioner Vigliotti returned to the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Looking at the words on page 103 change for a second -- and I have a note in here to myself. The sentence doesn't make sense to me, form of latter. Let me read it. Maybe it will make sense this time. "Many of the proposed changes amplify the difference and treatment between signs that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate or the approval or rejection of an issue scheduled for consideration at an election or referendum and signs that generally Page 20 December 12, 2007 advocate political views or policies." I wasn't sure what the distinctive difference was. MS. F ABACHER: Yeah. I think that's -- we'll let the author address that. MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney. The difference between these two different types of political signs is -- I guess, I should probably just give you an example. A sign that says, "Please vote for Mr. Smith," is a sign or a political sign that is advocating for somebody that's coming up for election. A sign that says, "I don't like Mr. Smith," just generally don't like him, that is a sign that has political position, a more general statement of your politics. It might not be necessarily specific to a President or whatever the case may be, but it's more generic. It's not on a ballot necessarily. Does that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand your example. I wondered -- so in the context of political speech, we don't want to charge in one case, but we want to have a fee in another. MS. BELPEDIO: In the case of signs that are bringing forward an issue that is being considered at an election or a person that is a candidate at an election, those signs are limited in duration, the amount of time that they can stay up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MS. BELPEDIO: Signs that are more general are not limited in duration. You can have a sign on your property that says, "I'm against the war," or, "I am for the war," whatever the case may be, all year long. That's what the case law really says in my opinion. But a sign that is specific to an election, I believe that sort of position is a slightly lesser protected speech. It comes and goes. It's important, but nonetheless it can be limited in duration. And also a permit would be required for that sign, not for the sign that's more general. Page 21 December 12, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me see if! understand you. I think I do, but let me just check. If! said I didn't like Joe Blow and I had a sign on my property, I wouldn't need a permit for that? MS. BELPEDIO: Correct. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Not? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I could have it all year? MS. BELPEDIO: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But if! said in a sign next to it that said, "I don't like Joe Blow. I like Charlie Jones," that one I have to get a permit? MS. BELPEDIO: If Charlie Jones was being considered a candidate at an election, yes. It might help to mention that I'm not in this revision seeking to change any of the regulations in regard to this distinction. I mostly just wanted to make it clear. I do not believe that Community Development requires right now a permit for signs that will say, "For the war." "Against the war." COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I recognize this is treading into difficult territory because the subtleties are so many. And I can appreciate that. I'm not sure that -- it seems to me if we're going to regulate speech through a permit, we ought to do it universally. Maybe I'm in error, but that would be my conclusion. Because in dealing with the subtleties I kept coming back to the question of: Weare regulating speech at a fee in one instance and not in another. And that distressed me. So maybe I'm wrong, but I think I will listen more to what you have to say. I did have -- well, are we doing it page by page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I thought we'd go through any general questions to help Jennifer know where the concerns are. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can wait. I think it's good to move around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, do you have any? Page 22 December 12,2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jennifer, we have a definition for political sign, yet in a couple of places where you use it you again provide, in a sense, the definition. Is there a reason for that? For example, 12(A)(i) you use a political sign. I mean, wouldn't it be better just to bold that because it's a definition and then -- rather than repeating what you have underlined, unless there is a reason? You also do it in 7. I thought I saw it someplace else. In other words, once we come up with a definition, we don't need to keep defining it, okay? MS. BELPEDIO: I understand what you're saying. I specifically called out the type of political sign for a reason. And in the instance of 12(A)(5), I made it clear that it's only the signs that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate or approval or rejection of an issue that -- where a bulk permit is required. That's what I'm trying to do. If it is not clear, we can certainly work on making it more clear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, go back to the definition of political sign, which is what you call a political sign. Is there something else in that definition? In other words, is there different types of political signs? There are? MS. BELPEDIO: Yes. Political sign I would say would be the general category and then there is subcategories. There is signs that advocate the election or defeat of somebody or the -- something on a referendum. And then there is a whole separate class of political signs that is just more general views and viewpoints. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is that the sign that in your definition you define as, "Or a sign put forth by an organization regulated by __" okay. Maybe you should come up with two different definitions and use the one where it applies, I guess. MS. BELPEDIO: That can certainly be done. It can be really Page 23 December 12, 2007 structured any way that we wish, certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you are saying though, which is another question for you, is that back in the definitions you're defining two conditions in which you could have political signs. The first one is the candidate or the referendum and the second one is something regulated by Chapter 106, which is -- is that the antiwar sign or something? MS. BELPEDIO: There is actually the -- the signs regulated by Chapter 106 are more of a catchall. It was just in the event that the sign didn't fall into -- squarely into one or the other category. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So then isn't the intent of 12(A)(i) to include or not include them? MS. BELPEDIO: Not. Not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. BELPEDIO: And I would certainly be fine with taking out the reference to 106. I see it as being a little redundant, but it was something that came out of our committee meetings. We put together a committee with different staff members from Community Development and Supervisor of Elections. In my opinion, it doesn't have to be there. I was just trying to make sure that all the different input made it into the -- the definition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern goes back to -- for example, if we had a definition of dog, a four-legged creature with fur, every time you use the word "dog" you're repeating a four-legged creature with fur, then later you use the word "dog" and you're repeating that. So if that's not what's happening here, then, I guess, that's good. The other question is the written permission from a property owner. I mean, I, for candidates, have gone around and put these signs. What is the intent there? MS. BELPEDIO: I should first start by telling you that permission was only required from property owners that were owners Page 24 December 12,2007 of property that was residentially zoned. So what I did is I changed the provision to make it apply to requiring permission from all property owners. The written permission requirement is in the event that, you know, Code Enforcement, for whatever reason, says to somebody, "Take that sign off. That sign shouldn't be there," and somebody says, "Well, I have the owner's permission". Well, then Code Enforcement is left to have to find the owner and say, "ls this true?" It puts the onus more on the person with the sign to say, "I have the permission. II COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How would Code Enforcement -- in other words, if the sign is properly placed, they would have no reason to question it, let alone question whether it has written permission or not. So how would that event ever happen? If the owner doesn't like the sign, from my experience, they rip it out, throw it up in the air and sometimes dance on it. So it's not an issue. But, I mean, it's in there. So what is the intent? That people running campaigns will have to keep logs of where all the signs are and written permission from the owners? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I have been involved in the past in some of the elected officials' campaigns. I'm thinking of one, Max Hasse, years and years ago. I physically went around and got permission slips signed for those political signs. Some of that is already in the ordinance, isn't it? MS. BELPEDIO: That was not a change. You will see what is underlined here because I broadened it to require permission from the residential and the commercial. But I just lifted the language that said written permission previously. You know, I was not directly involved in preparing that. But to me when I looked at it, it made sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. I think the requirement for a sign out by the property owner is already there, I believe, somewhere. I don't know why it appears as new language, but maybe because Page 25 December 12,2007 it's moved into this section and it's duplicated in this section. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you get approval, but the concept of writing it -- what did you do, Mark, in that case; you just had a log of signs? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The County had a form. They printed a form off and had people sign it. That's how it was done in the old days. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I would like to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Vigliotti will be after Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm through. I'll fold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti and then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Jennifer, could you possibly make up some samples, some examples of the difference of which ones would need permits and which ones wouldn't, because the wording can be very similar. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think that would help everybody. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. And the permit is a bulk permit. As you may all know, the permit is a one-time permit for any number of signs. The type of signs that would fall within that permit would be the signs that advocate the election or defeat of a political candidate or advocate for a particular position that is scheduled on -- at election. It could be a referendum or whatever the case may be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's -- I had this question having to do with property owner as such. Are you using that generically? You could have lessees on the property, renters on the property. Would you not unintentionally cause a restriction, a condition that would not be very good? Page 26 December 12, 2007 I -- are we going to use the term property owner to be those who occupy the premises? MS. BELPEDIO: My intention was to mean the actual property owner and not some agent or lessee or otherwise. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Many properties are owned by people who live in Wisconsin, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And it would be an inordinate burden, I think, to try to track those people down in a campaign. It becomes a secondary restriction to political speech. So I would say you either embrace adding lessees and whatever appropriate political language or somehow broaden it. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. That is something definitely to consider. I look at it from the standpoint of the -- any potential violation to run with the land and it's ultimately the property owner's property that he has to protect. I understand what you're saying. It could be put in there. Certainly we could see how it goes. This, I think, essentially is a work in progress. We were directed by the Board of County Commissioners to make it clearer. I want to make it clear, but I'm going to tell you that it's not going to be perfect. So if we can get it better every time, I think that we've met our objective. And so that's something we can certainly -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that it's pertinent in residential. I know it's pertinent in particular for vacant land and it's certainly pertinent for commercial activities where there's more than likely a renter or lessee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had -- this whole change, what brought it about? MS. BELPEDIO: My understanding was that there was a couple of issues where there was some vehicles with signs on them in the County. And there was need to interpret these provisions. And it was determined that some of the provisions could be more clear. So the County Attorney brought to the Board, along with me, Page 27 December 12, 2007 some, you know, places where the code could be better. And that's the memorandum that's in your package. The June 12th memorandum. And based on this memorandum, our office received direction to go forward with the amendments. Now, you might think, "Well, I don't see anything here about trucks, so how does that make -- how does that work?" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's my next question. MS. BELPEDIO: And I took a look at a bunch of different regulations that we have existing in Collier County. And I believe that we're relatively covered with where we need to be without drafting more regulations. For instance, a truck with a sign strapped on the back is driving down the road. If there is a chance of it falling off or being a hazard, there is a statute that speaks to that. The person can be pulled over and cited for that. Not based on the speech on the sign. It could be anything. It could be a soapbox really. But that is covered, I believe. Issues of vehicles being parked in right of ways or swales, there is an ordinance about that. Vehicles, I believe, were being parked at polling places. Polling places have certain areas that are off limits for campaIgmng. If the vehicle with the sign is in that area, then it is a violation of the State statute. I didn't, when I looked at the issues, believe that there was true reason to further regulate vehicles with political signs on them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the whole reason this came about is because of vehicle signs and yet you feel we're already covered in the code, then why are we doing all this? MS. BELPEDIO: Well, sometimes you review provisions. And while you're there looking for things that can be improved that you later find out don't need to be, you find other things that may be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has any of this been a problem though? In the things that you've changed, have you had any issues with these Page 28 December 12, 2007 things that would generate a need to change the language that we have got in front of us tonight? MS. BELPEDIO: I did receive comments from staff Code Enforcement through the committee process and I obtained their wish list, as far as what could be done better, where do they have gray areas. So I just tried to clarify in those areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a list of the number of complaints that have been filed that would trigger the need for this language? I'm just wondering -- we have gone to a great extent now to start permitting things and creating more codes. I don't know if there is a need. I don't remember ever passing someone's house where I see signs go up that are advocating a position. Not that many people do that. Even if they did, I'm wondering how -- what would be wrong with your expression of freedom of speech, especially for a political cause coming up and it's on your own property. Other than the fact that the sign obviously would have to be safely erected as required. And if it was in the back of a truck, you couldn't blow off like all the construction equipment that does all the way anyway and no one enforces that rule. I'm just -- don't see -- I'm just puzzled as to the need for this. It's just a further reduction of -- more rules to reduce freedom of speech. I'm just wondering why we need to go there. Anyway, I know you had a pre-thought discussion you wanted to have with us. I wanted to make sure you understood what we're thinking now. And you've had several of us comment to you. If you have more you want to add to it, please go right ahead. MS. BELPEDIO: Okay. To answer your question, I don't have a list of instances. And I have received some concerns about commercial property owners feeling like they have no protection of their property because signs were sprouting up on their property. And Page 29 December 12, 2007 they were not present persons or entities and it was difficult for Code Enforcement to differentiate between a sign that was allowed or not. Now, you might say, "Well, why doesn't the commercial property owner just pluck them out?" But there are ways when signs are not allowed that a person can -- you know, they can complain that the candidate is using their property inappropriately. So it was just trying to make some consistency in here with you need permission if it's residential or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jennifer, but there is a rule -- I mean, why -- my recollection, and I haven't really gotten involved in campaign signs for a number of years. In the old days there was a requirement to get a signature from a property owner. I physically had to go around and do that. I had to create lists of the corners and we had to go through the tax assessor's office and find those addresses and go seek those people out. Are you telling me that's not required anymore? MS. BELPEDIO: I don't know if that is required. According to our code, you only need -- the way it is now, you only need permission from a person that owns property in a residentially zoned district. There might be something that our Supervisor of Election staff might be aware of, as far as qualifying and process that they do. I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would like to ask them because I know that something was in place. It was required. And David Carpenter is there. I know he remembers the campaign of Max Hasse. I mean, we both were involved in things back in those days. So I'd certainly like to understand why I was going out getting -- ten years ago and I was digging up all these owners. And they were for commercial properties. We didn't generally put them on the corners of intersections where there was residential. It was commercial properties. Maybe, if they don't mind, we can get a comment. Page 30 December 12,2007 MS. BELPEDIO: Sure. MR. CARPENTER: I'm obviously not the sign expert, but as I recall -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David Carpenter, for the record. MR. CARPENTER: Dave Carpenter with the Supervisor of Elections office. The requirement was certainly for commercial property. I'm not certain whether the same written permission requirement existed for residential property, which, in all honesty, may have led -- if there was a vacant lot somewhere somebody could plant signs on a residential area without any permission. And I'm not certain that this code isn't simply making consistent between commercial and residential on property owner's permission. I think it was required written for commercial, but permission on residential. I think there was a difference that existed there, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So really if we wanted to tighten up a little bit, wherever in the code requires it for commercial, we just simply say, "Commercial and residential. II And we have two words added to the code and we're done. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is a much simpler way to eliminate four pages of LDC amendments, especially if they're not going after the original cause that generated the need in the first place. Thank you, David. I appreciate your time tonight. Mr. Schiffer. David, I think there is one more question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're testifying is that it was commercial that requires the written signature, not residential? MR. CARPENTER: As I recall. And I'd have to research it. In the original code one may have required and one may not have required. Now, I'm guessing it was commercial that required. And I think with residential it said you had to have the owner's permission, but Page 31 December 12, 2007 probably didn't say owner's written permission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CARPENTER: I'm thinking -- I think that may have been the difference on it, Mark. But without the previous code in front of me and not being an expert on that, I couldn't tell you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you remember before that overpass was put up on Airport Road, the corner there that the -- one of the Collier families owned, that was one of the most popular spots. And I remember having to go and get that signature waiver for that corner multiple times. It was a commercial corner, a PUD corner. Anyway, it was a requirement. And I think maybe we can simplify this whole thing -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- just by making that change to wherever it is in the code now and save four pages of rewrite. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, why make a change? Why don't we just leave it like it is now? I have been involved with the campaigns and you go to the door, you get the resident's opinion -- residential -- and you put it in their yard. And I mean -- MR. CARPENTER: To be honest, our office did not come forward asking for changes in the sign ordinance. We feel that insofar as signs at polling places where we have an obligation to try and keep things a level playing field, that through State statute and through agreements through our leases of these polling places that our office can control the use of political signs at polling places on election day. So basically we were simply invited into the discussion on this, but we did not precipitate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else? As far as the panel goes, that's it, David. Thank you. MR. CARPENTER: Thank you. Page 32 December 12, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, one more question on David Weigel's memo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One of the recommendations is to allow two signs. I mean, what he states in here is that the Supreme Court essentially is silent as to the number of signs you can have on a property, but the recommendation was to allow two signs for -- against each sign permit. So, I guess, that means you could have multiple signs, but per permit is how you would count them. Yet, in your draft you have only one. Is there a reason? MS. BELPEDIO: Can you refer to the paragraph in the memorandum? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's under recommendations in the Weigel memo, which is at the end -- I think five. One of these says -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It is number five. MS. BELPEDIO: The memo does say to amend the sign code so that the number of signs for each residential lot or parcel is not limited. When I actually went back and thoroughly looked at the sign code, I realized that the residential signs were not limited. So the amendment is not -- that particular one is not necessary because it is, in fact, the way that we recommend it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But aren't you stating one sign? Let me see where I saw that. MS. BELPEDIO: Oh, no. What-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Look under Roman numeral four. MS. BELPEDIO: In the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number of signs shall be Page 33 December 12, 2007 limited, unless -- I got it. Too big of sign. Never mind. I'm on the 32 square foot signs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jennifer, this panel seems to be leaning to the fact that this isn't really needed. There has not been a -- it doesn't seem to be a large warranted call for it. Comments from the Supervisor of Elections office indicates that there may -- if they have any issues, they seem to be under control. I'm not sure why we need to get into this. Does anybody else feel differently? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ifwe decide we don't want to do it and we don't make any changes to it, doesn't it go to the commission anyway? So shouldn't we package it the way we think it should be for the commission? MS. BELPEDIO: My direction -- our office's direction is to bring something to the Board. So my recommendation, even if you can't stand this at all, is to at least, you know, say -- we are going to give the Board a synopsis of what your recommendations were. You know, CCPC hates it. However, if it were to go through -- because I would hate to kill it now and then not follow through with the direction I've received. But I can certainly note any objections that you have to make sure that the BCC is aware. That's why you're here. They might agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got a suggestion that might resolve it simply. All the items that are underlined take out and all the things that are crossed out put back in. How is that? Ms. Fabacher. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, over here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. Not having been involved personally in being directed, but I believe this was a Page 34 December 12,2007 direction of the Board to the County Attorney. And I may have to defer to Jeff to validate that, but it was -- there were two different commissioners involved in discussions about the political signs and use of political signs during the election. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, the testimony from Jennifer was that this came from an issue with vehicle signs that this doesn't address that she has since discovered is already addressed in the code. So why are we creating something that doesn't seem to be the direction of the Board? MR. KLATZKOW: If you make a motion to announce the recommended rejection of this. That would be taken to the Board. And, you know, I am pretty sure that the Board will hear what you're saymg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I think what should be taken to the Board is a recommendation that Jennifer found when researching this that it is actually already covered in our code and we don't need to add any language. And that's what we should -- that was her testimony. And I think that's what we should forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that a motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? MS. BELPEDIO: Commissioner Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. BELPEDIO: Respectfully, my testimony was that in regard to recommendation number four solely. So certainly that is four-- five. Recommendation five solely, not in the aggregate of every recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait. There is a motion on the floor. Let's get a second or withdrawal of it for further discussion. What would you like to do? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I would like to withdraw it if Page 35 December 12, 2007 you're telling me that you're -- I mean, I don't believe that's what you said. You're saying you only want that statement to apply to number five, Roman numeral five, which says, "All supports shall be securely built, constructed and erected to conform to the requirements of this code"? MS. BELPEDIO: I'm speaking about paragraph five of the memorandum. There was a list of -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Caron. There is nine recommendations there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MS. BELPEDIO: And Commissioner Schiffer specifically said, "Well, where is the amendment, as far as your recommendation to five? II And my intention was to convey the fact that residential properties are not limited in the number of signs that they can have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jennifer -- okay. I think we're off on another wrong tangent somewhere. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I think that we are off on two different things. When you talked about that, that had to do with the number of signs, not whether those signs were on vehicles or not. MS. BELPEDIO: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: My point was you stated that the original charge from the Board was to look into to control vehicle signs. And when you looked at the code, you found numerous citings and it's already covered under the code where the vehicles can park, if they can park in a swale, if they can park -- you know, how close to a polling area they can park. That's already all covered. MS. BELPEDIO: Right. We're on the same page, correct. I apologize for the confusion, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: My recommendation was that you merely go to the Board and say, "When researching what you asked us to do, I found that you're already covered, Commissioners, in your code. So you don't need to add any additional language to the code. II Page 36 December 12, 2007 And that was where I was trying to go based on what you said earlier. MS. BELPEDIO: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good statement. Mr. Adelstein had a comment and then we'll put it up for a motion. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Just one quick question. It's not a question. Basically if you own a property, you don't need to have one sign there or two signs there or three signs there. You have the right to tell the person that you've allowed to put them up. But they can put two or three signs in one area for three different people. MS. BELPEDIO: If it's commercial property, there is a limit on the number of signs. And that limit is one sign per lot or parcel. That hasn't changed from what exists now to the proposed. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I've been in this town for the past four years and each time I've done it for three different people and it's in there and never had it changed. MS. BELPEDIO: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not changing. What we're suggesting is -- and I think Ms. Caron can make the motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to recommend -- well, I'll let Ms. Caron do it. Ms. Fabacher. MS. F ABACHER: I just have one comment. I want to direct you to page 106. It's also in the reason. Previously you were only allowed to keep it up for 45 days and the law has changed -- the Florida law has changed and now it's allowed to be 66 or 67 days. So Roman numeral seven there on page 106, that is a substantive change that does change how long you're allowed to leave the sign up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if that's the whole-- MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. It just hasn't been mentioned. Page 37 December 12, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. And it hadn't been mentioned. MS. F ABACHER: I just wanted to point out that that is one of the changes that hadn't been brought up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we've got four pages of text here all for one change, as far as how long a sign can stand for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not even in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys can come back with that in another cycle because no one is really -- we don't have a lot of complaints flooding in right now. I'm not sure how far we need to confuse this issue by trying to salvage some of it. What are the thoughts of the Board? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with you that we should reverse the language in there, but I would hope that you would take notice of the issue that I raised having to do with ownership and lease arrangement. Other than that, I think the more -- the simpler the better in this case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we reverse the language that whole property ownership thing goes away -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It goes away quickly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the system we have now. Well, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I would like to make a motion -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It does say property owner. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that simply says what I just said to you minutes ago. That when you looked at the code you found that there were not changes made. Now, to the issue that Ms. Fabacher brought up -- because it is true. It says here right on page 103 that according to Florida law we have changed from 45 to 66 days. I think we can make that -- change it. Again, why do we need to rewrite the whole paragraph? Page 38 December 12, 2007 Change it from more than 45 calendar days to 66, whatever it takes. I mean, don't make the changes more difficult than they have to be. Let's -- the code just -- apparently Florida statute just changed from 45 days to 66. Let's just do that. Change it from 45 to 66. MS. F ABACHER: I might say that I think the Supervisor of Elections advised us that it may change again. And they suggested or recommended that we cite the Florida statute that changes -- and as that change -- as that Florida statute changes, we won't have to change the LDC. But when they issue the permits for the bulk permit, they will put on there now 66 days. COMMISSIONER CARON: The number of days. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Again, are we going to make sure we have a clear motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Let me just make a statement here. Look how easy that is. That's a couple of sentences that don't have to turn into paragraphs or convoluted statements. We will just say that we will cite the statute. Again, as the permits get issued, they will be issued with the correct number of days on it, whatever that happens to be. If they change it again next year to be 75 days, then next year's permits will all say 75, right? MS. BELPEDIO: That works. COMMISSIONER CARON: So in an effort to keep things as simple as possible and make as few changes as possible, why don't we do it that way? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, in the threat of just being more painful, can you just make a motion that is concise, clear to the point? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. We are going to do two things. Jennifer is going to go to the BCC and tell them when she researched the charge she was given, which was to look at vehicle signs and what issues and problems there may have been, she found that our code covers every conceivable thing that she can think of. Page 39 December 12,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: And so that no change is needed to the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For that purpose. COMMISSIONER CARON: For that purpose. Number two, we will change paragraph seven to update it for Chapter 2007-30, laws of Florida, I believe, that have changed a reference from 45 to 66 days. We don't need to put the 45 to 66. We are just going to cite the statute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your motion is basically-- Jennifer has got the background and then we are going to cite the statute. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Adelstein. Discussion? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. I just -- I presume as part of this that you're basically removing all the new language and going back to the old language. Am I correct in that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then I would really like to call your attention to the fact that it -- wherever the use of the property owner is there that it be enhanced to include lessee or renter or whatever is appropriate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're reinventing the wheel again. We're not -- what we said is we wouldn't change anything, which means all the underlined items go out. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I understand you. But I was trying to focus on the fact that I thought I made a reasonable case before that "property owner" makes it very limited, but okay. Page 40 December 12, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. I want you to understand. The portion of the code that refers to the property owner is not the one under consideration tonight. That language was pulled from another section of the code and added to this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know. But page 105, item iii, speaks -- and where it is stricken says, "Permission from the property owner. II CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that, Bob. But that was added and pulled from another section of code. To do what you're saying, we have to go to another section of the LDC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. If I'm in error and I don't understand, that's fine. As long as it is being taken care of. That was my concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other discussions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Call the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Jennifer. We appreciate the painstaking confusion we have had here tonight. MS. BELPEDIO: Thank you for your time. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, we're going to move to summary sheet "N. II CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a simple one so we can just kind of take a breather as we're going through here? Page 41 December 12,2007 MS. FABACHER: Well, I'm thinking I'm going to bring in the first line -- the first string now. I want to move to summary sheet "N," page 121 in your book. And this would be the return of the Historical and Archaeological Board requirements that were omitted during recodification. And Melissa Zone is here to answer any questions that you might have on that. Hopefully she'll be able to make it very simple. MS. ZONE: What is the laughs for? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm afraid this is not going to be as simple as you think. MS. ZONE: Melissa Zone, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. I would like to think everything I do at the County goes smoothly. I am the staff liaison for the Historic and Archaeological Preservation Board. And I have found during my -- when I was working with our Board to designate a site, went into the code to look to make sure everything meets and found that during the recodification in 2004 our regulations for the Historic and Archaeological Preservation Board were not in place in the LDC. So I took it to my board. And we talked about not only are we going to be bringing this in, but there is a lot of language in here that had redundancy. We didn't want to get into a lengthy discussion on where we wanted to modify it. We wanted to keep it very close to the Florida statute, which is -- which was drafted from the Federal government's Department of Interior standards. So what you see -- the underlined is areas that we have incorporated in. And we have changed the references to match the LDC's numbering system for paragraphs and sections. And there was some areas where there were -- there were repeated language. We cleaned that up. Sometimes they referenced the Community Development Service Administrator, other parts was the County Manager. So we changed Page 42 December 12, 2007 that to be consistent with County Manager and designee. So we're coming back to amend the LDC to bring these regulations back into the code. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: One or two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer and then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 122. I think you want to cross through that up above to the end of the paragraph. You're repeating it below as number one. So cross through that. Do you see what I mean? "Areas for consideration," unless you want the people to read it twice. MS. ZONE: Well, actually how the standards for -- Department of Interior standards they say, liThe areas for consideration and inclusion are," and then they put this all in and that's how the first one reads. That is definitely something that -- I am comfortable with removing that last sentence because it also references it as number one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ZONE: But I'm just saying that's where we followed it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you think it should be in there twice? MS. ZONE: No. There was a lot of redundancy I took out, but I didn't want to modify the Department of Interior's, as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other question is that -- the impression I got is that this is kind of a scrivener's patch. But in this text is there any way we can tell what's new words and what's just pulled in from the old code? I mean, everything is underlined. There is nothing that's essentially double underlined where you have added words to the prior Page 43 December 12, 2007 code. MS. ZONE: We have that submitted through the changes. I see that they're not in here. If you want me to bring it back to place it in -- I mean, I don't see -- most of it was omission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I know where Brad is going because I have gone there, too. I actually pulled the old code and I looked at it and compared every sentence to each sentence you put in here. There are a huge amount of changes. MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I'm not saying they're substantial, but in some cases you have taken out big sections of the paragraph, which when we read the introduction of this it didn't seem like that. It seemed like it was a scrivener's error. You were simply pulling the old code into the new code. I don't blame you for making changes, but I think what you should have done is taken verbatim the old code, crossed out the parts that you did not want to include. Although, you still would underline everything, but you'd put a cross-through on those and show by a double underline possibly where you moved them to so we could follow it. MS. ZONE: Correct. And I did. And on there, as I'm seeing here, that has changed. That is, most of it, I believe, is for housekeeping. I don't know. Catherine can assist me in answering that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before she does, you say you did it. MS. ZONE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When can you give that to us? MS. ZONE: I could e-mail it to you. I actually -- if there is access to a printer, I probably could -- because I have my laptop here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, no. Melissa-- MS. ZONE: You can have it tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, we can't review it here tonight Page 44 December 12,2007 is what I'm getting at. MS. ZONE: But you can have it as quickly as that. So tomorrow morning is fine me with me, if it is fine with the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, we're not going to probably come back until January. We need it before the next meeting. MS. ZONE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what I'm trying to say is: I don't think we need to beat this thing to death anymore tonight. It isn't what it's supposed to be. It hasn't got the County Attorney's review. Or if it does, I don't know what he reviewed. I would like to see this go through the proper channels, the omissions and additions and changes be noted so we know what they are. We probably will agree with you, but the point is we need to know what they are before we can accept them. That's a simple as it gets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't need to make a -- we just send it back for rewrite and come back to us, as we have instructed. MS. ZONE: All right. Now, you made a comment, Commissioner Strain, when you're saying the County Attorney did not review this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know ifhe reviewed it, but I want to make sure that your rewrite is reviewed. All I'm saying is everything should go through all the departments. If you have made changes -- for example, one of the changes you made removes the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners from consideration of certain elements of the historic surveys. That's fine if the County Attorney reviews that and says that process -- MS. ZONE: Right. But all of that went through the final-- went through the channels. So what -- you're telling me something that is new to me, as well. I went through every step, took it through every Page 45 December 12,2007 board, every review. So if that is not the case, then this is new to me, as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff. MR. KLATZKOW: I looked at this. It said to reinsert provisions, these provisions were left out. I assumed that's all it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I didn't review it line by line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I rest my case. Melissa, please give us the full strike-throughs and rewrites, provide the County Attorney with it before we get it so we know that he signed off on it and then we'll take a look at it again. That's where it stands. MS. ZONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Melissa, on page 123 -- MS. ZONE: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- it says ADA. I wrote a note here, Americans with Disabilities Act. That's not what you're referencing though, is it? MS. ZONE: In front of it says, liThe Application for Development Approval, ADA." And that is part of the DRI. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So ADA in that context is okay? That's not a problem, Mr. Klatzkow, because it is contextual to this? MR. KLATZKOW: I think you're looking for an underlined strike-through, period. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Period. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Melissa. We are all covered. We want a full underlined and strike-through. MS. ZONE: I will submit the original. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Catherine, you let me down. I asked you for a simple one. Page 46 December 12,2007 MS. F ABACHER: Yeah. And I want to see if I'm going to let you down with Mr. Wiley's revisions that were requested in the interim watershed. Do you want to hear that tonight or do you want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that in this packet that was given to us MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We can't hear it tonight. We haven't read it. MS. FABACHER: All right. Sorry, Robert. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What page was that so -- I am going to stick this thing in the right page. MS. FABACHER: He is on seven, the original. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Seventeen, the original. Okay. In your book Joe Thompson -- we'll do Joe next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page is he? MS. F ABACHER: Let me find it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, I notice Nicole came in. She is probably waiting for a certain item. She is a member of the public. Can we get -- is that an item we can get to tonight or is that one we might as well just tell her we're not going to discuss tonight? MS. FABACHER: No. Barbara Burgeson -- well, it's in your packet. It's in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The packet we just got today that not all of us have gotten? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can't see how we can discuss that tonight. Why don't we just put that to bed right now. Anything that came in that packet today we can't go over tonight because we haven't had time to review it. Page 47 December 12,2007 Nicole, you might as well not waste your evening and sit here and wait for us to get to something we can't discuss. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. THOMPSON: For the record, Joe Thompson. There was actually a supplement delivered to you on November 11 th by David Weeks at your meeting. I had him hand deliver those to you guys. Did you receive those? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with: What page of the document are you talking about? We'll see if we have that page. MR. THOMPSON: I believe it is page 77. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the one we were talking about the redemption -- MR. THOMPSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with the green highlights? MR. THOMPSON: Yes. That's the one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we did get that from David. MS. F ABACHER: For the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was given to us a long time ago so we should have read it. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. That would be Section 1.08.02 and Section 2.03.07, definitions in the overlay zoning district. MR. THOMPSON: And the first part of the change here is just adding the definition of redemption because the code in the original form doesn't reference it. It is not even referred to once. They reference actually transfer, which, from an administrative perspective, isn't accurate the way that we process TDRs. A transfer is actually a sale ofTDR credits. The rest of the changes are really just -- more accurately depict the administrative process as it goes. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to address anything. Page 48 December 12, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions about changing and using the word "redemption"? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's interesting it's out in the rural area. Any questions, comments? Starts on page 77. Actually, it's a handout and it's ten pages long. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, it doesn't seem like all your worth waiting for here tonight. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The changes aren't that substantial. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought it was good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there is no comments or questions from the panel, is there a motion to recommend approval for 1.08.02 and 2.03.07 and DA.c? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you so move? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, you second it? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any discussion? (No response.) All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 49 December 12, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MR. THOMPSON: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. We had one down. It is 6:25. The court reporter is due for a break. Let's take a 15 minute break and be back here at 20 minutes to 7:00. (A recess was held from 6:21 p.m. until 6:40 p.m.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know this has been confusing. It still is. And, Catherine, I'm going to ask you again. Let's spend -- we are going to stop at quarter to seven to discuss the next meeting date and things like that. Or quarter to eight. I'm sorry. So for the next hour and five minutes, would you try and go a little easier on us and not be so painful? MS. F ABACHER: Certainly I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: I apologize for my ways. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I apologize for my ways. MS. FABACHER: Okay. We are going to try. It is on page "A" of the summary sheet. Page one in your book. It's Section 1.08.02, definitions amending the definition of development order. If you will recall, Chris Brown began all this process and he's moved on and it's fallen to Carolina to pick up the standard here. So if you have any -- page one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have that one as already being done. MS. FABACHER: Sorry. My bad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. By the way, if that's what you're thinking would make it easier for us to do it twice, it's still not productive. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: See how quick it went down. MS. F ABACHER: And I was going to go Christmas shopping tonight. Now I think I just need to head to the party wagon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's try to get some order here Page 50 December 12, 2007 and go forward. MS. F ABACHER: All right. The next one is going to be -- now, did we not agree to defer on page "G" of the summary sheet, page 75 in your book? My notes indicate for TDR credit add subsection number DA to definition for clarity. We started to do that one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Hold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, we have got to be careful. We're trying to -- the court reporter is trying to write our verbiage down. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. We are on page "G," Section 1.08.02, adding a subsection of reference to the TDR credit. It's on page 75 in the yellow book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Any questions on page 75? Catherine, I have one. I know it is one sentence and I hate to do this, but it says, liThe unit representing the right. II Doesn't the unit -- it doesn't represent a right. It just represents itself. I mean, you don't have the right until you go through the rest of the process. Is that -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Are you sure? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's not new language. MS. F ABACHER: Oh, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, my. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good catch. Thank you. Is there a motion to recommend approval of 1.08.02? Mr. Vigliotti, are you making a motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? Page 51 December 12, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Any discussion? (No response.) All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) I'm certainly not opposed. I'm in favor. Catherine, thank you. That was very complicated because of me. Now we'll go on to one that isn't hopefully. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. We'll be on sheet "H" of the summary sheet. We're going to look at amendment to Section 2.03.07, overlay zoning districts. It's on page 87 in the yellow book. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- the only changes are the words in the second page or page 88? MS. FABACHER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions, Planning Commission? (No response.) Ifnot, is there a recommendation to approve 2.03.077 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 52 December 12, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Motion carries. Next. MS. FABACHER: Okay. The next one -- and help me with this. My notes indicate that we didn't discuss -- I'm on summary sheet "1," page 89 in your book, Section 2.03.08. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have got we discussed that. MS. FABACHER: Okay. We did that? I wasn't sure. Now we are going to move to summary sheet "J," Section 4.02.15, development standards in the Santa Barbara-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What page is that? MS. F ABACHER: Page 97 in your book. It's the Santa Barbara Commercial Overlay. MS. VALERA: That's correct. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. Carolina can explain this one. MS. VALERA: Well, actually this is mostly. Just cleanup. Carolina Valera, principal planner with Comprehensive Planning. Just adding, you know, clarification to this. And if you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, the changes that you have made, aren't those changes consistent with what the committee had intended? MS. VALERA: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. I remember the date and the timing or the number of years going from ten to seven. Okay. Any questions on part of the commission? Page 53 December 12, 2007 (No response.) Is there a recommendation to approve Section 4.02.15? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Caron, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Commissioner Adelstein. Any discussion? (No response.) All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Motion carries. MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, we're going to move to summary sheet page "M," Section 10.02.08 on page 109 of your yellow book, submittal requirements for amendments to the official zoning and LDC. Page 109 in your yellow book. It is another housekeeping recommendation. MS. VALERA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It seems simple enough. Since the maps were taken out, we don't need the reference to them. Any questions from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation to approve Page 54 December 12,2007 Section 10.02.08 C? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Murray. Seconded by-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. Any discussion? (No response.) All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Motion carries. MS. F ABACHER: The next amendment request is on page 111 on sheet "M" of the summary sheet. That is amendment to Section 10.02.13 to the planned unit development procedures. Add "future land use designations, districts and subdistricts II to the GMP conformity criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I am going to probably break Ms. Caron's rule here. I'm going to be careful about this. On the second page under "C" -- in both "C" for l-C and 5-C after that. You underline and added the words, "And future land use designations, districts and subdistricts. II I am trying to understand it because the existing language has, "Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan." Now you want to say, "Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objective and future Page 55 December 12, 2007 land use designations, districts and subdistricts. II At what time would we be looking to know if something conforms to the future changes? Is that -- I'm trying to understand how that came about. MS. VALERA: That's a good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, if we've got one of those time machines or something. I'm just trying to figure out how you can conform to something that you don't even know what it's going to be, but yet you're committing them to the future land use designations. MS. F ABACHER: I think they're meaning the map. MS. VALERA: That is correct. Commissioner, it is just to further clarify that it also has to be consistent with the FLUM. MS. F ABACHER: The map. MS. VALERA: The FLUE and the FLUM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not what it's saying though. Wouldn't you want to reference the FLUE, the future land use element, so that we know we're not -- the way this reads to me is that you're going to come in with a PUD and the future land use designations may change, but you have to conform to those, even though you don't know what they are at the time. It says, "Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and future land use designations. II You mean the future land use element, don't you; FLUE? MS. VALERA: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then maybe we should clarify that. MS. VALERA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm asking. MS. VALERA: Okay. Yes, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Instead of future land use designations, it's going to be "F II future' ilL II land' "U II use' liE II element And , " " " . then that makes it clean. That's -- you're conforming to the future land Page 56 December 12,2007 use element; is that right? MS. FABACHER: And I'm asking is the FLUM considered a portion of the FLUE? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ifit isn't-- MS . VALERA: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're asking me without looking-- MS. F ABACHER: Carolina, is the FLUM said to be a component of the FLUE? MS. VALERA: That's correct. The difference is just one is the map, the "M," FLUM. MS. FABACHER: I understand that. I'm just saying. I'mjust saying -- so if we just say future land use element, the map will be included? MS. VALERA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's make that change. Is that -- everybody concur -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that change, is there a motion, subject to that change being made, to approve Section 10.02.13? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A motion made by Mr. Murray and seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Any discussion? (No response.) All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 57 December 12, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Motion carries. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. The next amendment will be on summary sheet "0." It's going to be Section 2.03.07, page 135 in the yellow book. It is overlay zoning district. And this is another housekeeping issue to expand the description area of this Santa Barbara Commercial Overlay. I think if you will recall -- it wasn't last cycle, but the cycle before. Do you remember we added a whole other block to the district? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: And the text just didn't get changed. It is on page 135. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions from the staff -- I mean, from the Planning Commission? (No response.) Okay. All those -- is there a recommendation to approve 2.03.07 H? COMMISSIONER CARON: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A motion made by Commissioner Caron, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Murray. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Murray. Any discussion? (No response.) All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 58 December 12,2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Carolina. I think you're finished. MS. VALERA: I hope I made it easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did a great job. Thank you, Carolina. Now, I think we're looking at "N." Not yours though, Carolina. Thank you. Item "N." MS. FABACHER: Exactly. Summary sheet "N," page 113, Section 10.02.13. That is the planned unit development procedures. And since Ray is sick, I think Joe and I will probably field this one. We have discussed this, I think, before. The PUD time line for sunsetting was originally -- we moved it to three years a few -- I don't remember when that was. And then you got two two-year extensions. Well, now staff has looked at the changing market conditions and just the burden of -- and decided to make it initially a five year and then you can come back for two more one-year extensions. Let's see. There was some more text added. This is on page 113. And there was some more text added to look at -- first you have the PUDs -- the residential PUDs with commercial components and then you have the commercial PUDs with residential components. But now we have kind of a new creature called the mixed-use PUD. So we crafted some new language for that, which I assume you have seen, which is "C," just to make it clear to what you would do if you have a mixed-use PUD, which is what people are going to be going to now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, I have one -- you added-- under "A" and "C" you added the words, liThe owner entities shall initiate physical development. II Page 59 December 12, 2007 I'm just wondering what that means. Is it the underlying owner of the property? Because in some cases, like shopping centers, they may still own the property, but the development might be done by one of the other developers -- shopping center developers in the country. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does that owner entity -- does that have to be the underlying landowner or can it be anybody in control of the property or is there a way -- do you feel that's sufficient to cover all circumstances? MR. SCHMITT: I think our problem was trying to identify -- with the problem you raised exactly trying to -- because we have to go back to somebody who is responsible. And if it's -- if it's somebody who signs a contract to go in and build, I can't hold -- I have nothing to go after them. I have to go after the listed owner of record of the PUD or the property or the developer. That's the problem we had, I think, in writing this language. To make sure we had somebody we actually could legally point a finger to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure that we have not tripped somebody up inadvertently. For example, the Lowe's going in at 951 and 41 that's -- the underlying property is part of the Eagle Creek Development, but Lowe's has been held up for a number of reasons. And they may, for their reason, be justified not to have sued by this. I'm more concerned if you -- if Lowe's hadn't performed pursuant to their contract with Eagle Creek, this would fall back to the owner entity, not on Lowe's. Is that-- MR. SCHMITT: Well, it's actually Kite Development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did they purchase the property? I'm just trying to figure a scenario. MR. SCHMITT: I believe the property was purchased by Kite Development. We would go to Kite Development. Page 60 December 12, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that would be the owner. MR. SCHMITT: They proffered the last amendment. That is part of the problem on this. It becomes a difficult chain to figure out who we actually go to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a -- Jeff, is there any better suggestion for an entity you could think of? If not, I mean, we have to have something in there. Maybe this is the best that needs to ride with until -- MR. SCHMITT: I will give you an example. An older PUD, like the Vineyards, which, of course, was on both sides of 75 east and west. And, of course, some of that was separated and developed by other entities long ago. But let's say it didn't happen. The Vineyards no longer owns that property. That's the issue. Who do we go after for something like that? I guess Pelican Bay is another great example. Somebody owns property there that isn't developed. I mean, you know, that is the kind of thing -- there has to be an underlying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. If you didn't put anything in there, if you didn't add, liThe owner entity shall, II and just left it like it was, then you would end up going after whoever the legal entity was at the time and responsible for it, regardless of whether it was the owner entity or not. It would leave the discretion up to the County to decide who may be the right -- MR. SCHMITT: I have no problem with that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That is good. MR. SCHMITT: I have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's good. MR. SCHMITT: I don't know if from a legal standpoint if they can argue against it, but I have no problem with that. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know why we were making the Page 61 December 12, 2007 change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, let's just leave it without -- let's remove the words liThe owner entity II from "A" and "C" and then we , , are back to where you have got the -- MS. FABACHER: It's also in "B." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "A," "B," "C." MR. SCHMITT: That's fine. I see what you're saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: I don't know why we added that. It must be for more specificity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ifit doesn't hurt to not put it there, it actually makes it more flexible for the County to react. I think it's better to not be there. MR. SCHMITT: The real intent was not for that specificity. The real intent was to reduce the requirement for these things to come back every three years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. Does every PUD have a TIS? Is it a requirement that every PUD has a TIS? MR. SCHMITT: Unless it's waived. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me? MR. SCHMITT: Unless it's waived. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Role was made up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the reason I ask is that on page 118 where it refers to a TIS being the basis for the build-out -- now, I know that is old language. However, under nine where they reference a change to the date, I thought it was a question I should ask. MR. SCHMITT: That's language that identifies -- it's about the only legal basis to identify a build-out date. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciated that. That's why I asked the question: Does every PUD have a TIS? Page 62 December 12, 2007 MS. F ABACHER: A starting date. A starting date. MR. SCHMITT: Normally a completion or at least a target date are filled out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if you didn't have a TIS, would this function; would this particular clause function? MR. SCHMITT: For DRIs and large PUDs you're going to have a TIS. In fact, I would say the majority ofPUDs, unless it's waived. And if it's waived, normally build-out is not an issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. I wasn't focused on that. I was focused on the question of whether or not you have something creating a problem for you because you didn't have a TIS waived or otherwise. MR. SCHMITT: In most instances there is one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I don't want to bring anything up unnecessarily. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the virtue, especially in the mixed-use, of building it out fast? I mean, essentially what you're precluding here is somebody doing a slow build-out. Now, we've heard of phantom units for cars and things in the past that we could take care of otherwise. Why do we hold these people's feet to the fire all the time? MR. SCHMITT: That's why it was three years. The intent -- when this Board came into office five, six -- five and even six, seven years ago, depended on when they were elected -- the intent of this Board was to review all PUDs and attempt to bring PUDs up to current standards. That was number one. Number two was to create a process that would force older PUDs to come back before the Board for a lot of reasons. Again, to look at traffic corridors, to look at other type of things. Page 63 December 12, 2007 We have been at this now for almost six years on and off in regards to this. We believe now that the three-year rule can be relaxed to a five-year rule. So I answered your question, but I kind of skirted around it. The original reason was to force older PUDs to come in and get -- that were not vested and did not have any vested rights or any of those types of issues to come back and at least apply for an extension. Or if they did not get an extension, to amend the PUD in order to keep it alive. Grant, the sunsetting -- most people believe sunsetting somehow makes then the zoning disappear. It doesn't. Sunsetting only prohibits the issuance of a local development order. The zoning stays until some action through rezoning or through the courts or through some action of the Board removes that zoning. But that was the original intent. So do we -- are we looking at it for it to be five years only because it was three? Now we're saying let's make it five. This Board thinks that the time has passed and this should be a longer -- we'll certainly bring that to our Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It just seems -- I would hate to think we're enforcing growth just to keep on these things. Joe, wasn't the real intent that there was a lot of stuff out there that was done back in the time where we didn't have anywhere near the development standards we have now? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it was really to pull them into the -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And force them to update their PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I think so. Page 64 December 12, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is interesting. Ifwe didn't want growth, all we'd have to do is extend PUDs out. MR. SCHMITT: I think that's happening anyway. That's why we have a lot of extensions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on this one from the -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll so move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a -- Mr. Adelstein made a motion to approve Section 10.02.13 with the caveat that the language, "Owner entity," would be removed. Is that what your motion is, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti has got his hand up as a second. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What are you going to replace owner entity with? If you take it out, then the sentence doesn't make sense. MS. F ABACHER: We'll just change the sentence around to make the subject -- the object the subject and -- so many percents shall be initiated upon. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 65 December 12,2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) Motion carries. Okay. That, I believe, is all; is that right, Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: That's all we can hear tonight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then two items of discussion before we can continue. The first one is: By the time we have our next meeting for this -- as long as nobody on the Board objects -- I will get together with Catherine and then we will get all the language and changes done to this Board at least a week before our next meeting. Anything after a week will have to go into another meeting, unless it's so insubstantial based on my review of that that I think we can handle it at a meeting. Is everybody comfortable with that? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, is that okay with you? MS. F ABACHER: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next thing is the date of the next meeting. It certainly can't be this week. It can't be before the holidays. So let's look after the holidays. Do you have any dates in mind? MS. F ABACHER: The 9th is all that the room was open for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see why we can't finish it up. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: January 9th, I presume? MS. F ABACHER: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: January 9th. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is that okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 8:30 in the morning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it 8:30 that it's open? MS. F ABACHER: I believe so. Let me check the schedule here in the front of the book. Page 66 December 12,2007 Yes, sir. 8:30. I believe we can be here all day, unless somebody takes the afternoon. I think I reserved it for most of the day. I reserved it until three. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what it says on the most recent calendar we have got. MS. FABACHER: Then that's what it is. So we have it 8:30 to 3:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, what I would like to do for simplicity -- is that will be the remaining items of the ones that have been more or less sent back for rewrite or something. Instead of sending us the pieces of all this sometime -- before a week prior, before the stuff would be sent out, you and I can get together. I would like them rebound in a new book in an order in which you want us to hear them. And all this extraneous paperwork doesn't need to be sent around. We'll just have a new book where we can sit here and turn through it page by page, do it in an organized manner and get through that evening. Fair enough? MS. F ABACHER: Fair enough. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Somebody want to make a motion that we continue this meeting until January 9, 2008 at 8:30 in the morning in these chambers? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. All in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 67 December 12, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody opposed. Motion carries. We are adjourned -- we are continued to the 9th. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was to be continued by order of the Chair at 7:02 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected. , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY KELLEY MARIE NADOTTI, RPR, FPR. Page 68