Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/11/2008 LDC January 11,2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida January 11,2008 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 in LDC SESSION, immediately following the SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Susan Istenes, Planning Manager Catherine Fabacher, LDC Coordinator Page 1 January 11,2008 CHARIMAN STRAIN: Now, welcome everybody, January 11 th, Collier County Planning Commission meeting. This particular one is a continuation of the Land Development Code, Cycle 2 that started on -- well, back last year. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Do we do the pledge of allegiance again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We might have to. We have two items remaining on this issue -- actually three: The outdoor serving areas, the outdoor entertainment for SDP -- through the SDP process, and the signage for real estate signs. And the real estate sign one will be last, because Mr. Poteet is on his way here, because he wanted to address us on that one. I understand he thinks it's fine but I know he wanted to be here for that. So with that, Catherine, why don't we go into 5.05.07. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, Catherine Fabacher with zoning and land development review. I want to make sure that everyone has all the documents for this issue. There are three that I gave this morning that were sent to you yesterday, 5.04.07 Permit for Outdoor Serving Areas With or Without Entertainment. The second one was Temporary Use Permits for Outdoor Serving Areas, With or Without Entertainment. You understand one had the strike-through and underscore version from what you originally saw, the second one I mentioned -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to slow down a little bit. MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry. The second one that I mentioned is a cleaned up version to make it easier to review. And then the third one we have is 10.02.03, Submittal Requirements for Site Development Plans. So Commissioner, would you like to work from the -- let's work Page 2 January 11,2008 from the struck-through, underscored version. Would that be okay with everybody? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine with me. MS. FABACHER: For 5.04.07. Okay, this is based on our quite elaborate discussions on the 9th. And these were the revisions that I think we agreed upon. If you can see, we discussed the fact that we were going to take this permit and just make it just to the outdoor serving area and forget about the entertainment, because that was going to be dealt with through the code of enforcement through the noise ordinance, which they currently have a permit in that process, but they're amending the noise ordinance right now to put some teeth in that. And they're going to start issuing those, once that's amended. So I removed a lot. I'm on Page 2. I removed a lot of language there, but I think it reads pretty well. Applicability. No person shall own or operate an outdoor serving area for food or beverages or both within the unincorporated area of Collier County unless a one-time temporary use permit is obtained in accordance with provisions set forth herein. Then I had under one, the caveat that we spoke of that will exclude the mixed use components of a PUD or approved mixed use projects, as we discussed. I think Commissioner Schiffer wanted me to bring that from another section because it was better written than -- so this applies to the whole section then. So when we get to the operating hours, operating provisions, I took it out there because here under applicability it applies to the whole section. On Page 3, we went to item two, subsection two. A temporary use permit to operate an outdoor serving area may be issued administratively unless -- instead of one or more findings, I've put a finding of violation of the Collier County noise ordinance has been Page 3 January 11,2008 issued to the owner or manager of the facility. Excuse me, Commissioner Schiffer, did you want to change facility? I thought I had done that someplace else. Are we happy with the term facility? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure. Go on, though. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Number three -- that's the first condition, if you have no violations against you, of the noise ordinance. And the next situation is permit applications for the outdoor serving areas where there has been a finding of violation of the noise ordinance within the past 12 months shall now be heard by the Board of County Commissioners during any regularly scheduled meeting. This is a change from some of the previous versions, because we were going to do conditional use and come back to you, then -- as a conditional use, then go to the board. But then now that we've simplified it, I think it's just the issuance here of a simple permit by the zoning department. So I think we agreed when we talked about it on the 9th that we didn't need to come back here. Of course the board will always have the -- we decided to let the board decide that. But the board will always have the ability to send it back to you for a recommendation in the process of hearing it, okay. So that would be number three. And then under there we just have the standard language, the board shall make the final determination. I have under number four, the requirement that existing operators of businesses with outdoor areas come in no later than May 31st to obtain that same permit. On number five we have language about the transfer of the one-time permit if someone buys the business or the outdoor area. Yes, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Did you say come in to pick it Page 4 January 11,2008 up? Will he be notified earlier, like some other permits that they get from the county that they need? Or are they going to have to just remember? MS. F ABACHER: I guess we'd have to perhaps get with occupation or something. I don't really have a list of all the people with outdoor areas. That's a good point that you -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How are we going to notifY everybody? Because you gave them a hypothetical drop-dead date by May such and such. If they don't know about it -- I know with, as you said, they send notices out for occupational licenses, they're due, and they give you dates to pay them by. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have a comment that might help with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not in that regard, but I do have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's finish up this one then. Mr. Schmitt, wouldn't we be able to notifY all the restauranteurs or food service facilities in Collier County broadly that if they have outdoor seating, they need to be aware of this new ordinance and if they do the can come in and get the application. We can keep it on record who was notified. MR. SCHMITT: Well, yes, I could. It's the expense of doing that through letter or otherwise. That's a pretty significant expense. Likewise, code enforcement, if it's at the direction of the board, I will -- or the manager, with the resources available, I'll have to focus code enforcement going out to every restaurant and discussing the issue and the requirement with every restaurant. But yes, that's where the resources -- the board wishes to focus the resources on that, yes, I can do that. I have the addresses, I can get them from the tax collector's officer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti is going to finish his Page 5 January 11,2008 question and then -- on this question, Mr. Murray has a question but it's different. So let's finish this one up, and Ms. Caron and Mr. Schiffer afterwards. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Couldn't you piggyback with the occupational license? They do mailers, they know specifically what they're sending them to, restaurants and what have you. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can you piggyback with them in the same notification mailer -- MR. SCHMITT: Then it wouldn't comply with -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- and save you a lot of expense. MR. SCHMITT: It wouldn't comply with this because that's -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm sorry. Again, could you piggyback with occupational license so you could maybe be part of their mailer, because they have to renew on a certain date, and save all the expense? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Then that would not comply with the date here, because it would be -- that's throughout the year on an annual basis, there's no set time that these restaurants -- they don't all come in in December and renew their licenses, they do it periodically over a year, do they not? MS. F ABACHER: I was under the impression from speaking with code that September 31 st they all had to renew by on the same date. I believe that's my impression. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I believe they're notified and they have to do it between September and January sometime. MR. SCHMITT: Then that would work. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Even if it is split out, it's not such a bad thing. Because if you get them all in the same date, everybody is going to wait till the last day of the month and you're going to be bombarded with all these permits -- applications. Page 6 January 11,2008 MS. F ABACHER: That's a good suggestion. I think Joe pointed out we'll just have to change this drop-dead date. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go on to another question, if anybody -- Ms. Caron or Mr. Schiffer, if you had questions on this issue that Mr. Vigliotti brought up, Ms. Caron, you were next. COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, I just turned to the county attorney to see if he had any opinion on how to do this. MR. KLATZKOW: This isn't supposed to be punitive. We can always issue a warning the first time out and say, you know, we have a new ordinance, you have to comply with it. And then give somebody 30 days, 60 days to come in and get the permit. And that could be a recommendation. COMMISSIONER CARON: But I think that the idea of using the occupational license is a good one. That will save money, a lot of money. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And they have the system in progress. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, they're set up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My comment was essentially Bob's, to connect it with the occupational license. But I think the virtue of that is it's not just restaurants that have to comply with this. So that way you could almost put the notice on everybody's. And if anybody serves food or -- and we'll discuss further what that means, then they would be able to apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the consensus on this issue is that you're going to tie it to the occupational license and that there's the option that the first notice can be a warning notice, not necessarily a penalty notice. Mr. Murray, we'll go on to your issue now. Page 7 January 11,2008 COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'm not sure if I've got a good issue here or not. But under number four, all operators of eating and drinking establishments. Drinking establishment would be a bar, correct? Would that be a bar? And wouldn't that come under another category? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're getting into some interesting issues now between what is a bar, what is a restaurant, and what we mean when we say a bar. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, when I see the words drinking establishments, it seems to me pretty clear they're not going in for Coca-Cola. MS. FABACHER: Well, Commissioner, my understanding is, is that under the occupational license almost all the bars anyway have food also. So I think they all have occupational licenses actually as eating establishments. I don't know, I mean, from my -- in my discussions, I didn't think that we had individual just plain bar occupational licenses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember this started out as being a few chairs and tables, and now I don't have a problem with it progressing to where it is, because I think it's good. I'm just bringing the issue up as to whether or not there is another question that it provokes, that's all. I'm perfectly comfortable, if everybody else is comfortable. But drinking establishments, it's a bar, and a bar has different, I thought, different set of rules associated with it. MR. SCHMITT: It's irrelevant in this case, if! can offer, because we're just saying they have to come in and get a permit -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. That's all. I needed to be reassured. Thank you. That's all I wanted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: However, where it says eating and drinking, could we use and/or drinking? That covers someone if-- MS. F ABACHER: Absolutely. Page 8 January 11,2008 MR. SCHMITT: And/or. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that same point, up in one, in A, we describe it as a serving area for food or beverages. Why don't we use food or beverages down below, use the same description-- MS. F ABACHER: Instead of food and/or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, look up in applicability, you're describing it. And then you're describing it below but you're describing it differently. So I think figure out the best one. Obviously the "or" is better than the "and" in terms of Boolean logic. But I think they should be the same. MS. F ABACHER: Instead of food or beverages or both, you want me to change that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think food or beverages makes more sense. It doesn't get into the concern that Bob had with drinking. I mean, the intent here is -- I believe, and we've gone around the horn on intent -- is if somebody had an ice cream parlor that sold sodas, they're under the same regulations. So if Bob thinks a drinking establishment is a bar, then if you use food or beverage, you eliminate those kind of confusions. MS. F ABACHER: Oh, I see. And you're saying make that throughout the whole document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that's the best description. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a concern with -- so it would be all operators of establishments that serve food and/or beverages? COMMISSIONER CARON: Or both. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At least it's consistent that way. MS. F ABACHER: It's either food and/or beverages or food or beverages or both. Whichever one you want to use, we'll use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most encompassing. Page 9 January 11,2008 MR. KLATZKOW: Same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. And/or. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As long as we keep it simple. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think under Boolean logic, just the word "or" would mean -- as long as it's one of them you've got them. So you don't need the and/or, but that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off on number five, Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: I think we were talking about transfers. And then 5.A would be the same thing as applies to the original permit. If the transfer could be approved administratively, unless of course then there's a one violation of the noise ordinance within the past 12 months, then they would have to go through the Board of County Commissioners. Number six, general statement that the issuance of this permit will not -- sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who had a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually I didn't. Catherine was just reading. I didn't know we were supposed to jump in after each paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you guys have concerns, I guess you need to flag me or something. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number one, why do we call this a temporary use permit? I know it's a permit that's revocable. Temporary probably gives somebody the feeling that they don't own it. But why are we calling it that? That's new. MS. FABACHER: Well, we do have a subsection in here that does say that it is considered temporary and can be revoked at any time. So I think by putting it in the title, we wanted to just reemphasize the fact that it's not something that you automatically get and then you Page 10 January 11,2008 have it forever. It's just to let people know. But if you would like to remove it, it's fine, because when we get further on in the language you'll see that we make the statement that it can be revoked. It should be considered temporary. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I have is we do have temporary permits, and the concept of the temporary permit is that it expires. So I don't think that's a good word. We can -- that's my OpInIOn. MS. FABACHER: I think I had it in my notes that you had requested I put it up there at the last meeting -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the real estate signs we did. The other thing is the distinguished serving area. If somebody walks out with take-out food, take-out drinks, take-out beverages and stuff, is that going to be considered a serving area? MS. FABACHER: I think that if they consume anything that they got from the establishment connected to the outdoor serving area, then that would be considered. If they were just sitting there smoking a cigarette waiting to get a table but not consuming any food or beverage, I would think it wouldn't apply. Anyway, it's -- well, that would be my answer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think that the intent is to be those areas where the restaurant's serving. MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Whether it's via take-out or-- and you think code enforcement would have no trouble as written, then that's fine. Second thing is we go into exempting the mixed use developments. But here's the problem, is while I don't think they should be getting this permit for their seating and stuff like that, we do have to be careful of them disturbing the neighbors. You could argue that Stevie Tomatoes is a planned unit Page 11 January 11,2008 development, it did have mixed use, it has office, it has mercantile. So I think that we should put something in there that's to the effect that while it's not -- the use permit is not a requirement, it does have to meet the properties of the sound -- there's some sound violations here. For example, if Mercado had a bar behind the residential area there. It doesn't. But people in that bar could be disturbing people in an adjoining property that's not part of the mixed use. So I think by exempting them, that would give them the ability to say, well, we don't -- those rules don't apply to us. So I think somewhere we've got to put in there that they -- while they may not have to get the permit, they do have to honor the -- at least that Section 5.04.07(E), which is bugging the neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I can't follow -- I'm still back on page -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Two, so am 1. A-I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're past Page 2, we started on paragraph five, number -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I said, Mark. The mistake is I -- Catherine was just reading this. I didn't know we were supposed to interrupt her and do the comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's all go back to Page 1 then-- or Page 2, actually. Mr. Schiffer, just continue with your questions, now that we're on Page 2, and let's just get through it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was A-I. The concern in A-I is that we're exempting the mixed use projects. And the concern is that a mixed use project does have neighbors and we could be disturbing those. I could argue that Stevie Tomatoes is a planned unit development and it's disturbing the neighbors. MS. F ABACHER: Are you suggesting that we not exempt them Page 12 January 11,2008 and just make any planned mixed use development also acquire this permit? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I'm figuring out a way that we can exempt them from the permit requirement. It mean, I don't think something like a mixed use Mercado kind of thing wants to buy permits for the outdoor seating. They already got that approval in their PUD. But that still doesn't give them the license of the -- you know, to have a rock band disturb the neighbors. MS. ISTENES: The teeth of this is the permit. So if they don't have to get the permit, how can it be taken away from them or approved by the board? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we'll live solely with the sound ordinance on that? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Still on Page 2, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Number two, the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait a minute, don't go. Do you want to just say something here that would simply state that these other projects, however, are not exempt from any noise ordinance in the county? I mean, do you just want to make that reference here? Is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what I was saying, if you look at E on Page 5, it really does put requirements for outdoor serving. So my thought was we could put a statement that said while the use permit is not -- this is under one again -- while the use permit is not required, the requirements of 5.04.07(E) applying to adjacent properties or neighboring properties does. Which is -- even though they're in a mixed use, they're still not allowed to disturb a neighbor. But again, if we really feel that we're going to change the noise ordinance to cure this problem, first of all, we don't need this, because this is all of a sudden an outdoor seating thing. But let's move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all that and we're going to move-- Page 13 January 11,2008 okay. Let's go to Page 3. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, there's a loophole there. Even though we're not requiring mixed use to get permits, they're still allowed to disturb their neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a lot ofloopholes. I don't think we'll get them all cured today. I think we need to get the best product we can forward today and we'll refine it as time goes on. So let's go on to Page 3 and see -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, hold on. Sorry. On number two, Jeff, we refer to the noise ordinance. Should we refer also to the county code oflaws? I mean, ifthere was -- you know, essentially what was in that noise ordinance has been incorporated into -- I have it here somewhere, one of these -- it's incorporated into section -- Article 4, Noise. Is it best to refer to an ordinance which will be amended and changed or refer to the actual code of laws that sets everything out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't people in this county have to follow a code of laws whether it's said they do or not? If we get into that philosophy we better list all the laws and codes of everything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's not my point. My point is that the code of laws may be more inclusive. That may be the problem we're having with Stevie Tomatoes. Go ahead. MS. F ABACHER: If! could comment on that. I put it this way, to be consistent with the way it appears all throughout the LDC right now: Ordinance No. 98-17, as amended, the Collier County noise ordinance. It must be in there 25,30 times in the LDC already. MS. ISTENES: Is it titled that way in the code oflaws and ordinances? So, I mean, are we making -- MS. FABACHER: Yes. Actually, the very beginning says this shall be known as the Collier County noise ordinance. Page 14 January 11,2008 MS. ISTENES: So this would be a consistent reference then to not only the title but the ordinance number, which you have in here as well. MS. FABACHER: Yes, as amended. Now, you bring up an interesting point, because when they do revise the noise ordinance they're talking about giving it a new ordinance number. MR. KLATZKOW: That's why it says amended. MS. ISTENES: As amended. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But wouldn't it be wise just sending them the code of laws, and then that will always be the most up-to-date version of noise in Collier County? MS. F ABACHER: I don't think that's necessary, Commissioner, I really don't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On four -- what kind of violation will they be noticed? The only reason I bring it up is that I don't want to confuse it. Obviously we're talking about noise violations throughout the whole thing. So what about -- I mean -- never mind, everybody's antsy, let it go. MS. FABACHER: I can answer quickly. We don't think that you should be able to have your permit or not receive a permit if you've received a violation for having weeds or something wrong with your dumpster. That's why we specifically limited it to a violation of the noise ordinance for the outdoor serving permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That wasn't exactly my question but -- Jeff, in here, let's go to three -- Mark, I'm sorry, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 3-A has -- we refer to the Board of County Commissioners. So we have taken away from the Board of Zoning Appeals, right? Is there a reason we've done that? I mean, obviously in this county they're both the same people. Page 15 January 11,2008 The county commission sits as the board of zoning appeals in Collier. MR. KLATZKOW: We generally send certain items to the BZA, such as appeals on variances. Conditional uses, I believe, go there. I think we're okay just listing it as the Board of County Commissioners. Now, whether they want to hear these things, I don't know. They may decide to set up somebody else for this, but I think we're okay, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My comment was that it does appear to be a zoning appeals board kind of item. Some day the county may -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's not a change of zoning. There's no zoning issue here, it's just a permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, that's it. That's it, I'm done for three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to Page 4. Catherine, in order to expedite this, I don't need you to read this to us. Let's just go and see who's got questions and just get through this. Mr. Schiffer, we're on Page 4. Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. C.l, an outdoor serving permit may be suspended by the county manager. So what is -- don't we really want him to suspend it ifthere's a noise violation? MS. F ABACHER: I thought we were on Page 4. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm on Page 4. Oh, wrong -- sorry. I'm not quite on Page 4. I'm looking at the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any questions on the real Page 4? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What makes mine not real? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you were referring to earlier wasn't the real Page 4, apparently, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on Page 5? Page 16 January 11,2008 Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, under E.l, no person shall operate an outdoor serving area on private property. Should that be designated as commercial property, or is it intended here to cover residential uses? MS. F ABACHER: That's a good catch, Commissioner. I had taken out on private property everywhere else, so I will strike that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the words on private property get struck from that paragraph. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir, and the next one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and the next one. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Hold on, I do. He was actually on SIX -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, I said five. Mr. Kolflatjumped the gun, that's okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: C.l, the second sentence is the outdoor serving area may be suspended. So what this means is we go through all this, if there is a noise violation it's at the discretion of the county manager whether it's suspended or not? MS. F ABACHER: This permit, yes. And this is the one where I had advised you earlier, it says it's temporary at all times. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing is that it -- and the reason it would be suspended is that there's an issuance of a violation of the noise ordinance. Since this is an outdoor seating permit, shouldn't we note in there that that noise ordinance came from the outdoor serving area? For example, if somebody was doing something at the front door, not the outdoor seating area, and got a noise ordinance, a noise violation, would that -- MS. FABACHER: From the revisions that I've seen of the noise Page 17 January 11,2008 ordinance, they're not limiting it to indoor or outdoor, they're just simply saying issuing from an establishment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would we want to take the teeth out of that? If anybody is that blatant that they still had problems, everything we can do to shut them down ought to be put into effect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me give you an example. Let's say you had a club. Every time the guy takes the trash out he opens the door and you hear the band, okay? Yet in the front there's a nice passive little seating area, no one's complaining about that. What we're going to do here is yank his seating permit when essentially that's not the cause of his noise ordinance. MS. FABACHER: Perhaps his -- I think we leave this to the discretion ofthe nuisance board -- sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would certainly make the guy think twice about how often he opens that door when the band's going full blast, and he should deserve to have his permit pulled. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd much rather have him to build a vestibule and stop noise, disturbing the neighbor. But that's -- okay, that's the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Still on Page 5? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm on five. Let me double check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's look at the real five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not there yet. I'm almost there. So I must be on six. MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman, I looked up the Board of County Commissioners versus the BZA in terms of powers and duties, and just want to confirm with you that under 8.02.0l(D), their powers and duties, one of them is to act to ensure compliance with development orders or permits as approved and issued. And that was not something that was listed under BZA powers. Page 18 January 11,2008 So I'm pretty confident after reading that BCC would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Still on Page 5? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 6. Any questions on Page 6? Mr. Kolflat had mentioned the corrections to E.l and 2. Are there any others? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, couple of questions. The D.l, no outdoor serving will be -- entertainment shall be permitted to operate without a -- I guess it means this permit, right? I mean, are you referencing other permits or just this one? Because wouldn't that be kind of self-evident? MS. FABACHER: It's true. We could remove that altogether, if you want. That was just -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A guy could say look, I have a permit, go look on my wall, I've got permits from everybody. But that's not what you mean, I don't think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It can be removed and we have less language in our code. Let's just remove it. So number one can come out. Anything else on Page 6? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. For some reason we think that if we build a six-foot high wall surrounding an outdoor seating area that that's going to -- what is that achieving? Studying sound, that's not going to stop sound. Is that the intent? If we really wanted to stop sound we would be better off landscaping it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Where is the six-foot wall? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's in E.l, about midway through that. If this was commercial zoning, there's a wall on the property line in the buffering area separating residential, anyway. So I'm really not Page 19 January 11,2008 sure. I know that what happened here is we started out with outdoor seating, went all the way around the entertainment outdoor, and we came back in. I just wondered if this was a vestigial requirement that kind of stuck around. MS. F ABACHER: I believe it is. But also I think we wanted to have the ability to require a sound attenuation device around the outdoor serving area, as opposed to the perimeter of the development. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they don't. But you're right in the fact that a six-foot high wall isn't going to help with sound. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sound waves will form at the top and that won't stop anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we put a period after the word residential purposes and just drop the rest of it and let it be worked out through the citation as to how it's mitigated. Why do we want to get into the mitigation in this paragraph? Maybe that's the better solution. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, do you follow that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What was it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go to the fourth line down on E.!. It says used for residential purposes. Put a period there and strike the rest that talks about mitigation of sound, because it may not be. And let the avenue for mitigation of sound come out as a resolution to reinstate the permit or through the BZA in how they want to recommend resolving the issue. MR. KLATZKOW: The way I read this, if we do that, we're shutting down existing outdoor serving areas. Anything within 1,500 feet of a property line, residential will be shut down. I think that was the point of requiring the wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the concern that Brad is trying to Page 20 January 11,2008 express is we're saying that the wall is a sound barrier, and really, it is not. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand Mr. Schiffer's point. I'mjust saying your solution I think closes down inadvertently a large number of serving areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then where it starts where it says for the purpose of noise reduction, security. Maybe that's what we strike then. Because what you're talking about isn't -- as Brad has pointed out, is not going to be effective noise reduction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it deflects sound, and you could have a berm and it would be high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, I was saying, it deflects sound. And I agree that, you know, obviously landscaping will suck up noise better. But if we don't have some barrier there, it will in fact shut people down. So I wouldn't -- I think as long as we don't have a problem with opening up PUDs and causing people to do things inappropriately, I think it's not a bad idea. They also do have fences or walls that do absorb sound. I agree that they may not be high enough in this case. But I don't know, Brad, maybe -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron was next, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Can you put after purposes without a sound attenuation device, wall, whatever would be the broadest and give you the most latitude? MS. FABACHER: I agree. I think that's where I was headed, if we could say, unless it's separated from the adjacent residential property by a solid, translucent or opaque barrier designed to attenuate sound along its perimeter. COMMISSIONER CARON: There you go. Page 21 January 11,2008 MR. KLATZKOW: There's very little standards there for staff to enforce, though. I think that was the beauty of the six-foot wall. It may not achieve a full benefit but at least it achieved a partial benefit. COMMISSIONER CARON: Going forward, your concern is -- MR. KLATZKOW: Simply saying put up something-- COMMISSIONER CARON: All places already in place. We're talking about also going forward. MR. KLATZKOW: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: So while it may work -- a six-foot wall may be the way we have to go for everything that's already in place as of the date of this, maybe you're going to have to separate them out that way and give yourself -- give us more latitude to do real sound attenuation after this for new things that are coming on line. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. This is going to take-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm not quite sure. MR. KLATZKOW: Somebody's going to have to sit down with a sound expert and figure that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just get something in for today, and we can always tweak as time goes on. Mr. Schiffer, you had a comment, and Catherine after that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Couple things. First of all, we live in a -- it's kind of an anti-green thing to put a solid wall around people sitting outside. You totally block all their breezes, you really mess up the reason we live in Florida. So we're just guessing here. And the guessing is going to be ending up making people sit in hot boxes in the patio. The concern really is also up in E it is this is outdoor serving -- okay, never mind. So I really think that we're just guessing. Why put people with solid walls around them? MS. F ABACHER: We could remove the word solid. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then you really introduce a nice Page 22 January 11,2008 sound transmission -- MR. KLATZKOW: You can take out all ofE and we could get to this at a later date or in a different manner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unless we know what we're doing. MS. FABACHER: Well, I think we'd like to keep the lighting in two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't that in the code, though, that you can't spill lighting onto an adjacent property? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's a redundant one anyway. Here's the thing: Unless we know what we're doing, we want to hire a consultant to tell us how to maintain a nice, green, breezy patio where sound can't get out, let's -- I mean, I'd love to put that requirement on somebody. But otherwise, we're not smart enough to. MS. F ABACHER: I think your last direction was to leave that for the noise ordinance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's if the guy's making noise, he's got a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Leave E for the noise ordinance? MS. F ABACHER: Leave the requirements that -- I think at one time we'd written in some requirements that said that you needed to be certified by an acoustical engineer, that you didn't allow 55 dba to go beyond this sound device. Then we said well, that's really more the purview of the noise ordinance and code than this permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine with that, as long as it goes somewhere where it's more appropriate, that would be it. MS. FABACHER: I think that's a good suggestion to strike it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody agree to defer all of Section E of the noise ordinance? Page 23 January 11,2008 MS. ISTENES: Even number three? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even number three. MS. ISTENES: On Page 7? Yes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Poteet is here. If you don't mind, we can shift horses in midstream and jump into the permitted -- Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can I just bring back something else that I brought up before regarding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have to. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, it's regarding notification. Jeff, when we finish this ordinance, how soon will it go into effect? I don't want to end up in a position where we don't have a mailer until November or December and we have to wait eight months before this whole thing comes to be. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm sorry, I was interrupted briefly. Your concern, Commissioner, again is somebody is going to get cited and they won't be aware of the ordinance? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. I was talking about notification. When we finish with this ordinance, it will go into effect when, relatively soon afterwards? MR. KLATZKOW: It will be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Then they're going to be -- what I don't want to happen is them -- you used a May 31st drop-dead day, or May 30th. I don't want to wind up to the end of the year. If we do tie it into occupational licenses, fine, but that means it won't be until December. Is there some way we could shorten that fuse from May to December? MR. KLATZKOW: No, they'll be cited as of May, as I understand it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Page 24 January 11,2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Didn't we decide to move it to the occupation cycle, which would be September? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That will be the end of the year then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, these things can't happen overnight. It's not going to go before the BCC, and by the time they get done doing with what we've done with it, if they take half the amount of time we did, it will still be the end of the year. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm okay with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This isn't going to move fast, I can tell. Okay, with that, I'd like to accommodate Mr. Poteet while he's here, and he's here for 5.06.02, permitted signs. Catherine went through and made the corrections or repositioning that we asked her to. Does anybody have any concerns or questions about the permitted sign changes that were submitted? They were supposed to be in uniformity with what we previously reviewed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm comfortable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray is okay, I'm okay, Ms. Caron's okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sorry, guys, I'm trying to do my job. The concern I had is the signs at the intersection, I talked to Bill about it -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This would be Page 4. And what they've essentially done is they've made the sign shorter as you go around the curve within the vision triangle that the road requires, the sign would be below that. My thought was to kind of keep it away from the curb. You can keep the same size sign but keep it about 25 feet back from the start of Page 25 January 11,2008 the road turn. Bill, I guess, give us your opinion on whether that makes sense or not. MR. POTEET: For the record, Bill Poteet. I'm representing the Naples Area Board of Realtors. Our only concern is visibility of the sign as you're going down the street. If you bring it back into the street 25 feet, I don't know how the landscaping is on that particular lot that's adjacent there, it could obscure the actual sign itself so a person driving down the street would miss it. That's our only concern. Keeping it low to the ground, first of all, the signs, even though it allows 24 inches, there's only about 12 inches of wire frame that goes into the ground. And if they can't get it down to 11 inches, then tough, you take the sign. I think what you have here is a really good change in the Land Development Code and, you know, we're very pleased with it. And before I say anything else, I want to tell you how impressed I am with this board. I happen to sit on another advisory board, and I think my board is one of the best in Collier. But I've watched you guys work all day and you work like dogs, and most people don't appreciate it, but I do. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern, first of all, you're in the right-of-way of the road, so you probably wouldn't have shrubbery there anyway. My concern is just get everything out of the vision triangle so that there wasn't any mistake to somebody putting a taller SIgn. MR. POTEET: See, I can't enforce the For Sale by Owners or other people that are not members of the board of realtors but I can take it back to my organization and we can educate the 5,000-plus real estate professionals in this county of how they're supposed to put the signs out. Then if they do it wrong, code enforcement can yank the Page 26 January 11,2008 sign. It's that simple. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again, for the board, my only concern was this is a sign that's driven down lower, it's in the sight triangle of the turn where I think if we didn't make a second kind of sign and kept it out of the vision triangle, we'd be better off. But enough said. MR. POTEET: In reality, most of the directional signs you see out there are probably no wider than 12, 14 inches and not the full 24. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments on the permitted sign section? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, one more. At the end, Page 6, just add the word temporary in front of open house -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't hear him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, would you repeat your comment for Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Page 6, we referenced this ordinance. Remember we added the word temporary in front of open house for the title of it. So just add that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under H? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Under H. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other comments? It. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation to forward 10.02.03 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with the comments that we've included in regards to adding the temporary word in the new write-up? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Page 27 January 11,2008 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries six to zero. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I don't think we moved to forward a recommendation on this first one, on outdoor eating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we didn't. We're going to go back to that. You're right, sir. Thank you for reminding me. Thank you, sir. We've discussed a lot of changes to 5.04.07. I think eliminating the biggest change is dropping Section E and moving into the noise ordinance. We dropped the sentence which is D.l, made some changes in language and other areas. Staff, are you comfortable with all the changes that we recommended? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. And I think we changed the date whereby existing facilities need to obtain their permit to September, I think 31 st, I'll check, to coincide with the occupational license cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm comfortable that staff can make those changes and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners effectively, so we don't have to have this come back. I hope the rest are. Is there a motion to recommend approval of such to 5.04.07? Mr. Murray? Page 28 January 11,2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I move it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Is there any discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, could we have it available on our consent agenda at the next meeting just for review of the wording? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This isn't an item of -- is this one of the items that fall under that policy? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if you want to bring this back, we'll bring this back. That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was just being cute. But that would be nice to see the final order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you just give -- ifMr. Schiffer wants it -- yeah, e-mail it to whoever wants it. I don't need a copy. Okay, all those in favor of the motion as proposed, signifY by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. Commissioner, the last thing we have left is Section 10.02.03, submittal requirements for site development plans. This is the one that county attorney's office worked on. And we discussed this at the Page 29 January 11,2008 January 9th meeting. And we decided, I believe your direction was just to simplifY it purely to outdoor seating areas, and not to try and anticipate any other non-compatible uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to mention-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- thank you for Page 1 on each of them. Did you notice that? MS. F ABACHER: No, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: On the bottom, every one is Page 1. MS. FABACHER: Oh, sorry. Working late on this one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know. I understand. MS. FABACHER: So are there any questions on Page 1 or Page 1 or Page I? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on Page 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's a further along one. COMMISSIONER CARON: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the true Page 1 is --let's start with the Page 1 that has the first strike-through and underline on it and go from there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's Page 3. MS. F ABACHER: That's subsection J, I believe we could say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I show up on single I first. Let me know. MS. F ABACHER: I think it's a J that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's a 1. I'm just ID-ing where I have -- MS. F ABACHER: And just to remind the commission, this will go in the requirements to submit SDPs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on that first page -- no, the second Page 30 January 11, 2008 Page 1, we'll start with the strike-through and the underlines, are there any comments or questions from the planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to the last Page 1, which is the third page. It's getting hard to follow this. And that has the bulk of the underlined sections being added. We're looking for any comments on that particular page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Single I, Jeff, you're stating that they can refuse approval of the site development plan. Can't we just refuse the use within that plan? In other words, if you have a big something or other and one of the uses, as I questioned, why are we shutting down the whole site development plan? Why aren't we just focusing on that use? MR. KLATZKOW: That would be fine, if that's the pleasure of the board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think one of the things, other parts of community development is trying to do is avoid stopping, you know, the whole project over minutia. If there's an argument over one of the uses in, let's say, a shopping center, there's no reason to not let the rest of the shopping center pass through and they can catch up with the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, does your team have any comment to that? MR. SCHMITT: No. I'm just trying to follow the logic. I know you're basically asking would we reject the entire SDP. But we don't review SDPs from the standpoint of approving some portion of it and rejecting others. It's either -- we make rejection comments. And is that COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, take the case, I have a shell Page 3 1 January 11,2008 building, I have mercantile uses. One of the things I put is I want an assembly use on the end, I show some outdoor seating, we're smart enough to not question that. Can't we go with the rest of the shopping center, just not allow that assembly use? In other words, you could approve it not allowing that. Obviously I would come back later anyway for a full permit, so not kill the site development plan over the -- MR. SCHMITT: If it's one submittal, I still have to reject it through a comment, a rejection comment. I could reject with a stipulation that it's -- or I could approve with a stipulation noting that it's rejected. Probably not, if that was that significant of a comment to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How would you apply concurrency for traffic and parking and other things to the overall PUD that will be affected by this one use, depending on how it would change? MR. SCHMITT: That's a good question. That's pretty much why I would reject the entire SDP and tell them to remove that and resubmit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's a better hammer to have the whole SDP at stake to comply quickly and figure out a solution than it is to let them linger on that one issue indefinitely. So we might want to just leave it like it is. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think it will try and keep them from trying to slide something through or trying to put something where it doesn't belong right up front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any further comments on that? Ms. Fabacher? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. Staff reviewed this this morning and they'd like from review's approval to deny approval where it's used in both terms. Because that's generally more the term we use, deny Page 32 January 11,2008 approval. If that's okay. That would be in small I and small two, deny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing is it's only with having negative effects against the adjacent residential. I mean, could there be negative effects against the school, a church, something else, or do we only want it to be limited to residential? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's just the opposite with schools and churches. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be the other way around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now we're trying to attack one problem, and let's work on one problem. If others come up, we can always expand on the language. I'm kind of curious. We talked about criteria for limiting staffs ability to exercise their discretion as to, you know, on outdoor seating, which I think this now has changed to. But outdoor entertainment, amplified sound and hours of operation, I don't see any of that in here. I thought that was part of what was going to come back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was on the other one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that was on the other one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, it wasn't there either. I thought it was this one. MS. ISTENES: It's this one, and it's kind of squished in J there. It says outdoor serving areas shall be explicitly detailed. And then it goes on to say hours of operation, whether or not live performance music, amplified will be provided as entertainment and approximate distances for residential zoning within 2,500 feet. It's in there. I'm not sure it's entirely clear. That's one of the caveats upon which we'll be evaluating this -- or those uses. You see what I'm saying? I don't know that it's really explicit. It's kind of just muddled in within the entire paragraph. Page 33 January 11,2008 I would myself be a little more comfortable making it more explicit, that outlining the four conditions in which we're going to then evaluate and possibly reject or require -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J, single I, I would suggest you run another indent and do four bullets, call them whatever you have to, little A, B, C, D and E, and list the criteria for which it would cause you to be able to exercise your discretion, and that is ifthere's outdoor seating, if there's outdoor entertainment with amplifYed sound, and if the hours of operation are beyond those allocated in the noise ordinance, I then would assume. So that would provide you levels of discretion to which you could open it up and maybe give you guys some cover that way. MS. ISTENES: That was the intent. I just don't think it's clearly written that way. And I think the way you suggest we organize it will work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any thoughts on that from the rest of the planning commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I like the idea that it represents a hammer and I like what Brad wants to do, which I appreciate. Nevertheless, I think it's good to get it done, force the issue, make it clear. Under three I, there's a very minor error on the first line. It could be a, or letter A, as opposed to an. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on this particular 10.02.03? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval with the stipulations that we added, discretionary criteria? And I think, Brad, you had a couple of changes that you recommended. Well, one in particular was the instead of refuse, it Page 34 January 11,2008 would be deny, or staff brought that up. Is there anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: None of my stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, is there a recommendation to approve 10.02.03 to move forward to the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. All those in favor, signifY by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Wow. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you Commissioners, from my part. I think you did a great job of straightening out all these different amendments and putting them together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just glad we finished. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The next cycle starts next week? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just about. I'm sure glad we got through with Cycle 2 of2007. That has to be the longest cycle I've ever experienced since I've been on this board. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's amazing how one oversight from years ago created all this work, time and effort. Page 35 January 11,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that I think we're done with the Land Development Code Cycle 2 amendments and we will -- is there a motion to adjourn? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to make a comment. I looked over the consent agenda, whatever you want to call it, the thing that we're going to get for next week having to do with Myrtle Woods. And I think it covers what our intent was, everything is good. And I think the BCC is really going to appreciate that they can see something in detail and we can see it in detail. So thank you for the work. MR. SCHMITT: I just wanted to let the planning commissioners know that there are two candidates for the vacant position that will be going to the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday. And hopefully, Tuesday we have one of those candidates selected and we'll then contact that individual to get -- whichever one it is to get him oriented and get him here to assist you in your deliberations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. And with that, we'll ask for a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by myself. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We're out of here. ***** Page 36 January 11,2008 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:30 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 CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 37