Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/05/2008 S (LDC Amendments) February 5,2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, February 5, 2008 LDC AMENDMENTS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at I :00 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Donna Fiala Jim Coletta Frank Halas Fred W. Coyle (via speakerphone) ALSO PRESENT: Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager Joe Schmitt, CDES Administrator Susan Istenes, Zoning Director Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ LDC AGENDA February 5, 2008 1 :00 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING Tom Henning, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 3 Donna Fiala, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2 Fred W. Coyle, BCC Commissioner, District 4 (via telephone) NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. Page I February 5, 2008 ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance Added: A. Participation by Commissioner Coyle via telephone due to unforeseen circumstances B. County Attorney's Office would like to confirm some facts regarding contract w/recruiting consultant in search of a new county attorney ~ 2. The Board to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida. 3. Adjourn Page 2 February 5, 2008 February 5, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: You have a live mike, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call this meeting to order. The adoption hearing of the Land Development Code by the Board of Commissioners for Collier County, and Commissioner Halas will lead us into the Pledge of Allegiance, so if you would all rise. Thank you. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we get started, I want to bring up something that was brought up to me, and that was the consultant that we hired to do the search on -- for the county attorney, and there are some concerns about the procedural matter. And sitting down with the office manager and members of the county attorney staff, there may be some opportunities to do some clarification with the assistance of the assistant county attorney, Scott Teach and Robert Zachary. Sue, can you assist me in this discussion? And I don't think we need a vote. We just need some direction. MR. TEACH: If Sue wants me to lead, I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Teach? MR. TEACH: Yes, yes. This is Scott Teach, for the record. Yesterday we had some conversations with Ms. Filson regarding the process. The facts regarding how it was going forward was discuss. And it's just our opinion, from the County Attorney's Office, that it would be nice to just to -- to finish our due diligence, our contractual responsibility, to confirm some of these facts with the recruiter. And what I would request of the board is just direction just to focus on some -- answering some facts, to confirm those facts as -- to confirm that the process is going forward as directed by the board and appropriate, and that's really all I'm asking from the board at this time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I need to back up a little bit. I understand that Commissioner Coyle is on line. Commissioner Coyle, are you there? Page 2 February 5, 2008 (No response.) MS. FILSON: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? Okay. He might buzz in later. So Mr. Teach, you're just looking for a consensus of the Board of Commissioners and you want to speak to the consultant to make sure the process was -- (Commissioner Coyle is now present via speakerphone.) MS. FILSON: There he is. MR. TEACH: That's correct. And it may very well be the case that these unconfirmed facts resolves the issue and the board never has a need to address it, but if we're going to do our due diligence, there's some facts that we need to confirm. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any comments? MS. FILSON: He's on line now, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. I'm going to ask the board to recognize you and make a motion to include you in the conversation due to issues that you have -- you can't be here in person. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I'm going to ask for a motion to recognize Commissioner Coyle as a -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to recognize Commissioner CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- voting member -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- of the Board of Commissioners. MR. KLATZKOW: And the reasons for Commissioner Coyle's absence here are -- they're unforeseeable and that there are great difficulties and whatnot. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my motion. Page 3 February 5, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: The answer is yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that will be in my second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: (No verbal response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, we're having a discussion with Scott Teach, assistant county attorney, and asking for some guidance from the Board of Commissioners, wants to talk to the consultant on the county attorney search to make sure that the process has been followed, the board's process. Do you have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yes, in a way I do. And I've talked with David, Mr. Weigel, about this, or he has briefed me about his concerns, and I am sensitive to those concerns, but I am also sensitive to the County Attorney's Office giving guidance to a consultant hired by us to hire a county attorney. And I think that we do need to work out some of these details and confirm some of the facts or confirm some of the allegations that have been made concerning a potential violation of Sunshine Law, but I think we should do it at a board meeting and we should be communicating with the consultant and not the County Attorney's Office. I feel very uneasy about having the County Attorney's Office conduct separate discussions with the consultant who is engaged in hiring a county attorney. I think if we're going to give any directions Page 4 February 5, 2008 or we're going to ask for additional information from our consultant, that we should do it as a board in a publicly advertised meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, at this time my understanding from Scott Teach is he just wants to talk to the consultant about the process, not that he wants to give any guidance about the process. Is that right, Mr. Teach? MR. TEACH: Yes. Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coyle, and the rest of the commissioners, there's not going to be guidance given to the recruiter. I just want to confirm some facts. And I'm -- I don't want to say that there's a sunshine violation. That's what we're not -- we're not talking about here. We're just talking about doing our due diligence. There's a contract. We just want to confirm some facts, and it may very well be the case that a relatively brief conversation indicates that everything is fine and there is no remainder of an issue to be brought before the board. But certainly we would not give guidance to the recruiter without discussing it with this board first. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess -- I guess my concern is that guidance can be given either directly or obliquely by the types of questions that are asked, and I feel very uneasy about having someone place themselves or insert themselves between us and our consultant. I understand the concerns that the County Attorney's Office has brought up, but I think we can resolve those as a board rather than you having separate conversations and private conversations with our consultant. I think if there's a concern, those concerns can be resolved best if we have those discussions in an open forum. Is there an objection to that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we're going to hear from the rest of the board. Page 5 February 5, 2008 Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coletta, and then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was very glad that the County Attorney's Office came in and talked with me about this, because quite frankly, I was wondering why we didn't get all of the resumes then I thought, maybe I was not aware. Maybe I -- maybe this process, being new to me, was -- was this way and we don't ever get the right to see these things. I think that there are a number of questions. I won't go into them now, because I do believe we should have an open discussion. But I would like the county attorney to let them know that this conversation is taking place and that we do have some concerns rather than for them to continue to interview people, and then we throw it all in the waste can anyway because we're going to start over, if that be the case. I'd rather have the -- put a stop on what they're doing now and let us communicate with one other. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I totally support what Commissioner Coyle said. I think that the County Attorney's Office needs to step back, wait till it comes back to a regular meeting, then we can address it in a public forum back and forth. I'm very, very uneasy with the situation with the County Attorney's Office having two of the candidates that are going through the process entering in, and I'm very, very concerned over the fact that when we were going through the process and directing staff, we heard absolutely no objections to the process at that point in time. It was after the fact. No commissioner found any fault with what was taking place. We all accepted it as a directive that we gave earlier. And I'm a little bit confused as to why the County Attorney's Office is inserting themselves at this time. But in any case, I think Commissioner Coyle Page 6 February 5, 2008 has framed it wonderfully, and I hope that we follow his directive. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is -- my concern is that we haven't had the ability to look at all the candidates, and I think that's the issue at hand at the present time. The firm is basically weeding out things. And there may be some items that we, as a commission, need to look at, and I think that's the direction that the county attorney is only going is the fact that maybe, instead of just hand selecting a few, that everything is brought out in the sunshine, that all of us have that ability to look at each and every one of the candidates that submitted their application. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It's clear to me that -- I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to put an item on the agenda for next Tuesday to reconsider the board's previous direction, being the last meeting, and what I heard from my colleagues is, we're going to have to talk about this in the -- in a public meeting. But I can tell you, I have confidence in the individual members of the County Attorney's Office and their integrity. And I appreciate the guidance that I receive on any issue. Whether we agree or not, I really appreciate that guidance. MR. TEACH: Commissioner Henning, if I could make one final comment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MR. TEACH: The reason why I had requested the opportunity -- and I understand Mr. Coyle and Mr. Coletta's concerns to contact the recruiter but let me make an addendum to that comment. If we could -- Robert Zachary and I, who have been looking at the issue -- if we could actually confer with Ms. Filson with the recruiter just to confirm facts, because if we don't know these facts -- and obviously they could come out if the recruiter was here at the next meeting, but that's very unlikely. But if we can confirm these facts, we'll have more of a basis to Page 7 February 5, 2008 dialogue and interact with you. So I don't know whether it makes a difference whether this conversation occurs with Ms. Filson present, who is the contract administrator and has a lot of knowledge, but that would be helpful. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman? Could -- Mr. Chairman, could I -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- make a couple of observations? I am getting more and more concerned hearing the insistence of the county attorneys to insert themselves in this process. There are no facts to be confirmed that board members can't confirm in an open meeting with the -- with the contractor present. If the County Attorney's Office has concerns, they can advise each of us of those concerns. We can get the answers in a public board meeting. Now the other point is, there is not, in my recollection, any intent by the board to review all of the applicants to this position. That's why we hired a consultant to select applicants that met the requirements that we specified. And to the best of my knowledge, that is what the consultant did. We have consultants all the time that evaluate various options and discard options without our input, and they present to us the best options, and that's what we choose from. The county -- county manager, all the time, approves expenditures, and during a meeting at the Board of County Commissioners, we review the results of those decisions and we either approve them or disapprove them, but we don't go in detail through every single expenditure made by the County Attorney's Office. That's what we hire him for. I'm sorry, the County Manager's Office. So this business of the Board of County Commissioners having Page 8 February 5, 2008 the obligation to review the applications of all of the people is, in my estimation -- well, to put it crudely, ridiculous. We wouldn't have needed a consultant to do that process. We could have done it ourselves. So I think that we can solve this problem by having all the resumes available for any board member who wishes to review them, and if any board member feels that something improper has been done to exclude an applicant, the board member can bring that up in a public meeting and we can discuss it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You don't mind if I ask the rest of my colleagues how they feel about the county attorney and Office Manager Sue Filson to make some inquiries of the consultant? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I -- well, no, I don't mind you asking the question. I just think it's an unnecessary process, and I think having it done in private is the wrong thing to do and is contrary to what the County Attorney's Office says they're trying to do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Well, I think it's the board that has to be under Sunshine Law. I'm not sure if our staff needs to be. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you have any objections to the county attorney and Sue Filson? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't. I feel that they could be put on the right track, or let them know that they have to adhere to the Florida Sunshine Laws. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I have no problem also with the county attorney with Sue Filson to have a conversation with our consultant. Okay? Page 9 February 5, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir. Maybe I didn't understand what you were asking. You're talking about Sue Filson going to the consultant, not the county attorney, and telling them about our concerns? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. What was recommended, or suggested, by Mr. Teach is to have a conversation with our consultant with Ms. Filson involved in that discussion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And not bring it before the commission, have the commission have that discussion on Tuesday's meeting? I just want to make sure I understand. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm still going to bring up a topic or an item which is -- which we don't discuss, and that is to reconsider the selection process that we did at our last meeting. And what we're discussing right now, Commissioner, is, does the board, the majority of the board, have a problem, or I need guidance, for the county attorney and Sue Filson to have a conversation with the consultant to see if there's any problems with the process. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, the problem I'm having with the whole thing is the County Attorney's Office has two applicants that the consultant's also considering. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm concerned that somewhere along the line somebody could construe that the County Attorney's Office is trying to bring undue pressure upon the consultant to bring a desired outcome. And that may be the problem. That's why I agreed with Commissioner Coyle about bringing it back here to the commission during a regular meeting so the discussion takes place in an open forum, rather than have the county manager's -- or the county attorney's -- County Attorney's Office and Sue Filson addressing the consultant. Page 10 February 5, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And I heard that. And I really heard that. I just don't agree with it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the majority agree to give direction to the county attorneys with the supervision and participation of Sue Filson to contact the consultant; is that correct? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, could I just make one more brief statement? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we're just trying to give direction. And again, I'm bringing this up for reconsideration of the last process that we did for -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand, but I'd just like to make one observation for the record. What it appears the county attorney is going to do in private with Ms. Filson and the consultant is to give them guidance and to inquire as to whether there is a Sunshine Law violation, and that implies that the county attorney is authorized to make that decision. And in my opinion, they are not. They advise the Board of County Commissioners and we make that decision. Based upon what I have heard, I do not believe there is the slightest indication of a Sunshine Law violation in this process and I do not think that the County Attorney's Office should be making that determination. It is a determination that the Board of County Commissioners should make. And the board -- and the county attorneys should not be meeting privately with Ms. Filson who is responsible for the contractor to review applicants for the County Attorney's Office. I think the County Attorney's Office has way overstepped their bounds here, and I am going to continue protesting this at our next meeting, too so-- , CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The majority rules and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Look forward to that conversation. Page 11 February 5, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I look forward to that conversation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand where Commissioner Coletta is coming from, and I have the same concerns, but I really believe that what is taking place here is that they want to make sure that the county commission is not put in a situation whereby it may be unfavorable to constituents and, therefore, they want to make sure that the people who are not familiar with the Sunshine Laws in the State of Florida have an understanding of how precious they are. And I think that is the only direction they're going to give them. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Just-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do you know? CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to move on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last comment? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that the county attorney got its direction. Is it really necessary to comment on further? (Commissioner Coyle is no longer present.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you know, with your-- it's your discretion to allow me to comment or not. CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you must. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I really do feel like I should set the record straight. I don't want anybody to think -- I'm not speaking for Commissioner Coyle, but I'm speaking for myself -- that I'm opposed to having somebody examine the fact that Sunshine Laws mayor may not have been violated. I'm very much in favor of it. I just wanted it done in front of the public, in front of the cameras so that our constituency can see what's happening in the sunshine, and that's the only thing. We're both looking for the same thing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Page 12 February 5, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want it done in front of the camera. You people want it done off the camera. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Y eah. You know, we all have opinions, and that's fine, and that's why we're a diverse community. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's true. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we really need to move on. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let me just see if I understand, our direction is we're asking them to talk with one another, and then you're going to bring it up -- you're going to put it on the agenda for Tuesday for us to discuss? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, what I'm going to put on Tuesday's agenda -- see, we had an item on the agenda last -- the previous Tuesday, and that was to accept the recommended top 10, and the consultant was going to interview those top 10. I'm going to put that on the agenda, whether the -- and we're going to vote on it. There's no discussion on it. There's just a reconsideration. Under reconsideration there is just a motion, possibly a second, no discussion. It is reconsidered and brought up at the following meeting for action. So that's what we're going to do, okay? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. MR. TEACH: Thank you, board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sue? MS. FILSON: If! may interject just one thing. The consultant did give you a spreadsheet with 31 names, she did give you 19 applications, and she is going to send the other 15. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That should take care of it then. MS. FILSON: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then that should take care of the problem, I think, that we have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think there is a problem, but -_ Page 13 February 5, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we going to be able to see the interviews that she does also? MS. FILSON: She is going to submit her notes. It's not going to be taped. She's doing video conferences and she's going to submit her notes, but there's no video. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's just one person rather than five people; one person deciding from her own personality and her own perception what we're going to like, right? MS. FILSON: Well, I can't speak for her, but you will get the final vote, of course. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MS. FILSON: And you have to vote on agreeing on the five finalists that she selects. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whom we can't hear interviewed. COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's going to be some other items that are going to be discussed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: At the regular board meeting. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We need to discuss some other things. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you for your patience. Okay. Ms. Fabacher? MS. FABACHER: Ready, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good afternoon. MS. F ABACHER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'd just like to reiterate what Mr. Henning said, this is the first meeting of the second public hearing for LDC amendment cycle 2007, cycle 2. Robert, hold on. We've put a proposed order of hearing before you which follows exactly the book; however, I would like to say that we do have quite a number -- a few public speakers here. The two issues would be the conservation easement, the Manatee Protection Plan, and apparently we have more speakers on that, and then we have some speakers on Page 14 February 5, 2008 the open house signs. So if you would like to, if it's your pleasure to hear these speakers first, and then -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's up to the board. I'd kind of like to go through the agenda as is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where are they on this? CHAIRMAN HENNING: They're just all over the place. I think the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the boat slip one is the one probably the majority of the people are here for. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Manatee Protection Plan. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You want to do that first? MS. F ABACHER: That would be good. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to do that first. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Robert. MR. WILEY: No problem. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What page is that? MS. FABACHER: Commissioners -- I'm sorry, Commissioners. This is going to be on page 79 of your book, summary sheet M, and this is amendment to section 5.05.02 entitled marinas. Stephen Lenberger is here. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And there are some changes, so if you'd just walk us through that. MR. LENBERGER: Sure thing. For the record, Steven Lenberger, Engineering and Environmental Services Department. What we did since the last time we were here is we tried to address your concerns and your questions. And what we did is we put together a white paper for you, which was in your packet, basically listing some of the options for the board from most restrictive to least restrictive on the shoreline amendment. We also included some of the answers to your questions, and I'll walk you through some of these Page 15 February 5, 2008 right now. As far as the shoreline excluding within a conservation easement for calculating wet slip density, staff basically presented four options to the board, and the one that we are recommending is to exclude shoreline within county-required preserves and state and federal conservation easements which do not permit boat slips, and that's the option that's in the proposed amendment language change. Some of the other questions you had were related to government-owned public facilities. We wrote some language in there exempting them from this provision. We also added language clarifying or grandfathering, I should say, artificially created shorelines created prior to the adoption of the Manatee Protection Plan. And the last thing we added were public marinas which are open to the public. We added language in there that if they had a preferred rating under the Manatee Protection Plan criteria, they could use all their shoreline in calculating the number of wet slips. And those are basically the changes that you see in the amendment, and I'm here to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board? Commissioner Halas. Commissioner Coyle -- hang on. Commissioner Coyle, do you have any questions? Commissioner Coyle? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that a lot of the questions that were brought up in the first go around have been answered, and I want to thank staff for doing due diligence to address those concerns that I think some of us on the board had in regards to boat slips that would be used by the public to drop boats off and to retrieve boats, and I think that was one big issue that was in all of our concerns. Page 16 February 5, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public speakers, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Yes. Okay. We have -- I'm not sure what order I received them in. I have Mr. Tim Hall. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is the -- is your slips marked on which item they want to talk about? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And then the next speaker is, after that? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. That would be Ms. Savard-Boyer. Sorry . CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Hall. MR. HALL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Tim Hall. I'm with the firm of Turrell, Hall & Associates. We're a marine environmental consulting firm here in Naples. I spoke to you at the first reading of this and had some concerns, which the staff later met with me to discuss and we actually did make, I think, a lot of headway in terms of what was originally written. I still have a couple of concerns with the way this is written though which basically is that it says that -- state and federal conservation easements which do not specifically permit boat docks. Most of the easements that we have written in the past with the state are not language specific where they say you can or cannot use this shoreline for boat docks because this has never been an issue until this came up in front of the board. So most of the easements that are in place right now that were used where the shoreline was used for calculation of boat docks don't say that the shoreline was used for boat docks. I would rather see this say that -- easements which specifically prohibit boat docks, I think, would be more appropriate if you're not going to -- if they're going to use state or federal easements in that. That would -- that would be specific towards -- not permitting boat docks would be more of a -- a fairer measure of meeting this criteria. Page 17 February 5, 2008 And then the other concerns that I have is basically it says, shoreline within county preserves, and I think that that could be interpreted whether or not you have an easement on it, if you go in for an application and they think that that shoreline should be under a preserve or should be part of your preserve, then they cannot count that toward your slip counts whether or not it's under an easement. Those are the two concerns with the language that I have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: But it's my understanding that the developer or the property owner has given up those easements for some reason, okay, because of the fact that he's either gotten some favors as far as building and that's why he's decided to put that particular easement in preserve in perpetuity. So I'm not sure where you're going with your statement here that -- MR. HALL: Well, the easements -- and I agree, a lot of times the easements are placed on a property in lieu of, or either to give assurances to the state or federal agencies that no impacts will occur there in the future -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. MR. HALL: -- or as mitigation for some impacts that are occurring on the site. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's true. MR. HALL: However, a lot of those are placed with the knowledge or the foreknowledge that boat docks are proposed at that site. And the way this is written, if you have those state and federal permits and those easements are in place, they may have been anticipating that that shoreline was placed under an easement because you were putting boat docks out there. And now if you go in front of the county under this -- under the way this is stated for a -- either a zoning or a Site Development Plan, they can look at that and say, your shoreline is under an easement, therefore, we're not going to allow you to build docks, even though Page 18 February 5, 2008 that was part of the consideration when those permits were issued. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But there might have been a consideration whereby the person was only interested at the time that the PUD was being reviewed as taking the development rights off of that property and to add density to another area, an upland area, and therefore, that wasn't even in the discussion at the time the PUD was even -- the boat dock issue didn't even come into discussion at that point in time. So the developer knew at that time that he was getting additional density or whatever he was trying to accomplish for a particular thing and -- in the PUD. So he either got -- either he got density because he stripped that land of all the density because he knew he couldn't build anything on it -- because, of course, it was a wetlands or whatever else, and he decided to put this into perpetuity as a conservation easement, and -- was no discussion with later on coming back for boat docks or whatever. MR. HALL: Well, if that's the case, but I think -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the case. MR. HALL: I think there's a difference between giving up development rights on a piece of property that you own versus giving up your riparian rights to access your property over state lands, over state waters, in which case those docks are not located -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to move on. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. MR. HALL: -- on the easement. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, B.J. Savard-Boyer is next, and then Bruce Burkhard. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: I really don't have anything prepared to say. I am following what Commissioner Halas said. I've been involved with this particular developer and the land and the mitigation of the preserve to build more high-rises. That was what was Page 19 February 5, 2008 understood by the public at that time, that that land was bartered, and now they want it back. So if you give something and you ask for it back, it doesn't seem quite right. But I think at this time the staff has well thought out their recommendations, and I think the BCC should adopt this LDC amendment, and that's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Mr. Bruce Burkhard, and then after that we'll hear from Susan Snyder. MR. BURKHARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Burkhard. I live at 283 Oak Avenue. And the primary purpose of a conservation easement is to protect natural resources such as wildlife habitat, clean water and clean air or even scenic open space by separating the right to subdivide and build on the property from the other rights of ownership. The landowner who gives up these, quote, development rights continues to privately own and manage the land, and he may receive significant state and federal tax advantages for having donated the conservation easement. More importantly, historically in Collier County, the landowner/developer has been granted additional benefits, as was pointed out by Commissioner Halas, such as density or increased building height in return for granting a conservation easement. In other words, it's a win-win when properly entered into by two good- faith parties. The developer wins in several ways and certainly enhances his property rights while the citizens preserve a valuable piece of land that might have otherwise been lost to development. It appears to me that this proposed LDC amendment merely codifies the common sense approach that CDES has followed all along. The easement has the response -- the easement the -- the easement holder, which is the county, has the responsibility to monitor Page 20 February 5, 2008 future uses of the land to ensure compliance with the terms of the easement and to enforce the terms if the violation occurs. I urge you to vote to approve this common sense amendment to our LDC, including the shoreline and conservation easement. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Commissioner, Susan Snyder is next, then after that will be Nicole Ryan. MS. SNYDER: Hello. My name is Susan Snyder, and I'm a resident of Collier County and I'm here to speak in favor of the creation of the Land Development Code to protect aquatic preserves. I would like to begin my statement with a quote from the web page of Florida's Department of Environmental Protection. It begins, quote, much of Florida's distinctive character lies in the beauty of its coastline. The best of our coastal landscapes have been set aside for protection as aquatic preserves. This natural beauty has always been one of Florida's major attractions for both tourists and residents. Ironically, the very features that have drawn people to Florida are potentially endangered by the increased population pressures. Aquatic preserves protect living waters of Florida to ensure that they will always be home for bird rookeries and fish nurseries, freshwater springs and salt marshes, sea grass meadows and mangrove forests, and that's a direct quote from the web site. The word preserve means to keep, to guard, to keep safe from injury, harm or destruction, to protect, to keep safe from decomposition and an area restricted for the protection and preservation of natural resources. We must preserve our aquatic preserves. I support the creation of an LDC amendment that will protect Collier County's aquatic preserves and prevent the lease of submerged land for construction of wet slips. I support the most restrictive option Page 21 February 5, 2008 amendment proposed by the staff to protect our aquatic preserves. Construction and use of wet slips in these waters will have an extremely negative impact. It is imperative that this amendment be created to protect these preserves for the quality of life of its residents, visitors, and wildlife now and for the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Ms. Ryan? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any more speakers on this topic? MS. F ABACHER: Not after this one, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: After Nicole Ryan. MS. RYAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. There's been a lot of dialogue about this provision and the fact that it's part of the Manatee Protection Plan, but this really is a much bigger issue than just a Manatee Protection Plan issue. And I think it boils down to three basic points. The first is the proposed definition of a shoreline and what a shoreline is. And when you look it up, you do find that it's that interface between land and water at the mean high water, so we believe that staffs definition that has been included is the appropriate definition to have. As Ms. Snyder had pointed out, this area of the shoreline is one of the most vulnerable and one of the most important areas that we need to protect. It provides the nursery ground for juvenile fish species, it provides for food, for shelter for these fish. So it's very, very important that that is part of an area that is protected under a county preserve. The second point is that these preserves have been set aside with very, very limited development rights for a reason. They have been set aside because the county-requires preserves. Page 22 February 5, 2008 And the question was raised about the difference between a county preserve and a conservation easement land, and I asked staff about this, and staff may want to clarify. But not all county required preserves actually will have a conservation easement on it, which the Conservancy believes they should, but that's a discussion that's ongoing in the current LDC cycle. But because they don't, staff wanted to put in this catchall phrase of county preserves to include those that have conservation easements and those that don't. So we believe that -- that this is appropriate, that the county preserve lands be excluded from this wet slip calculation. It's something that you requested staff to put in writing. They're bringing it back to you. We think they've done a good job with that, and we ask that you adopt that. The final point is the fact that if the county wants to specifically exclude those government-owned facilities, marinas, launching ramps, things like that, we believe that that could be appropriate to do, but we are concerned about the language of those facilities open to the public. We think that that needs to be further clarified to say, fully open to the public or 100 percent open to the public. The way that I read this language, if you have one or two, however many boat docks available in your private marina, that would be open to the public, then you would be exempted through this provision. So we ask that if you do pass that portion, you further clarify that. So to conclude, this was direction that you gave to your staff. They brought back the clarifying language. We believe that it's appropriate and we supported you in your decision to do this, and we ask you adopt it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion at this time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Make a motion to approve this amendment with the added language of 100 percent open to the public. Page 23 February 5, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it's to approve 5.05.02 with the added language of 100 percent owned by -- open to the public. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Public, that's correct. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Commissioner Fiala seconded that motion. MR. KLATZKOW: Just so there's no misunderstanding down the road, it's going to read, shall be exempt from this provision, comma, marina facilities completely open to the public or 100 percent open to the public? COMMISSIONER HALAS: One hundred percent open to the public. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. One hundred percent open to the general public. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Marinas that are used, yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have several questions, if I may, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: First, this doesn't apply to the municipalities, correct? MR. LENBERGER: I did a little research since our last meeting, and the two that I can find an ordinance for were the City of Naples the City of Marco Island. City of Naples incorporated portions of ours as well as other criteria, so they have their own plan. The City of Marco Island basically refers to the county's plan. They basically say that products will be reviewed for consistency with the county's Manatee Protection Plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about Everglades City? MR. LENBERGER: Everglades City; I could not find anything Page 24 February 5, 2008 linked to Everglades City. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If they do not have a specific ordinance that addresses this, does ours trump them? MR. LENBERGER: That I don't know. I'd have to refer to Jeff. MR. SCHMITT: I'll turn to Jeff, but this LDC is strictly for the unincorporated area. MR. KLATZKOW: Unincorporated area. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I thought, but I just wanted somebody to say that out loud. MR. SCHMITT: There is no -- MR. KLATZKOW: We have no power over the municipalities. MR. SCHMITT: Right. We have no power or authority over the municipalities, nor is it my understanding that they use this in order to enforce anything that they enforce within their jurisdiction. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But they can also, like Marco Island does, pick up our particular language and run with it if they wish to? MR. SCHMITT: Certainly. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And now also, too, how does this -- just help me out. An individual property owner, say, on Plantation Island that has a single lot that hasn't been developed yet, how will this make it -- his ability to be able to some day be able to put a trailer on that property and put a dock in? Does this inhibit his ability to do it? MR. LENBERGER: This amendment will have no effect on it. It only applies to marina facilities and multifamily facilities with 10 slips or more. What would limited Plantation Island are a different set of rules, that being the area of critical state concern rules. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, the exception would be the area of critical state concern? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct, that -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then at that point in time, it Page 25 February 5, 2008 could be applied to the individual property owners? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words -- MR. LENBERGER: This amendment would not apply to it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would not apply. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. This amendment would not apply at all to single-family residences unless they're in some of the site-specific criteria of the Manatee Protection Plan. But this amendment doesn't affect any portion of Manatee Protection Plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Because I know for a fact that the area in Everglades City is in all sorts of flux at this point in time. They're even talking about the possibility of -- God forbid them even saying it -- but outlawing outboard motors in that particular section in Everglades City that goes on the side of the national park. I wouldn't want to put any more impediments upon the landowners in that area than already exist, especially outside of the city, I mean, Plantation Island and Chokoloskee, which is under the county's control. So the way I understand from you, this, what we're doing here today, only affects the larger entities that are out there? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, let's go to the larger entities. This would affect something like a condominium that they want to build on, say, Goodland? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. If they had 10 slips or more, they wanted to put in a boat launch facility, things of that nature, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, that condominium, suppose they're already existing and they have to, because of wear and tear or because of a storm, have to replace that, the existing docks and launching facilities to be able to accommodate residents, does this fix it so -- make it in such a way that they can't do it? MR. LENBERGER: There is grandfathering language in the Page 26 February 5, 2008 Manatee Protection Plan that if you had these facilities prior to the Manatee Protection Plan, they're vested. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And one more question, sir. And thank you very much for your patience. When we talk about the public benefit, 100 percent, is there anything that we could build into this to protect that? I mean, what's to say that someone doesn't file under the 100 percent public benefit, in 10 years down the road, sell it out to a private development, and these docks and everything are in place; what happens at that point in time? MR. LENBERGER: That's a good question. I don't know. I would probably have to refer to Susan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we put some sort of language in there that binds these people for a period, reasonable period, maybe 150 years -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Reasonable. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to provide the service? MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry. Susan Istenes, for the record. I'm really looking towards the County Attorney's Office because it's -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's a good question. It's not handled by this amendment. It's an open question. MS. ISTENES: It's not. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, a person could use the subterfuge by just saying we're going to go build it for the public with the plans eventually to sell it maybe six months later. Is there something we can put in there to give us something as far as a time element in there or maybe a cash buy-out to be able to pay for public facilities? I'm just -- I don't think we're quite all the way there. MR. SCHMITT: Well, let me -- I'm thinking out loud here, but if it's a boat dock extension permit involving a multifamily entity or multifamily project, normally that is a -- that's a public hearing before the Planning Commission, and there could be restrictions placed on Page 27 February 5, 2008 that project during the public hearing for multifamily type boat dock-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's different than the last question. MR. SCHMITT: Well, ifit -- if it were a public facility, in most instances -- well, I'm just thinking again out loud -- would it involve a conditional use? It may involve a conditional use, which at that time there could be restrictions placed. But this is somewhat void. There's nothing in here that would allow for the restrictions to be placed. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I agree with that. I think the possibility of their being a zoning violation if the zoning code or LDC, as you will, says that it -- it's restricted to public use and then it's sold and no longer used for public use, I mean, that's a zoning violation. So I don't know that it could occur under those circumstances, to be honest with you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, we're going to have millions and millions of dollars at stake here. There's going to be economic factors driving these people to be able to do what they're going to do. MS. ISTENES: I understand. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want to make sure that we don't give somebody an unfair advantage when there's a simple way to be able to flip it over for a tremendous profit and the public doesn't benefit as this commission so desires that they would be able to. MS. ISTENES: I think you could certainly clarify your intent through this amendment that -- you know, but -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Susan really hit it. It is a zoning violation, and code enforcement would have to pick it up if it becomes private. Let's say they come in for that application for boat docks and -- public boat docks and then turn around later and make it private, that's a zoning violation. I mean, it's no different than your single-family home permit. You can't turn that into a triplex. You know what I mean? It's a zoning violation. February 5, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That makes sense, Commissioner Henning, but can I ask the county attorney? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. MR. KLATZKOW: I got to tell you, I agree with Commissioner Coletta. But rather than doing this on the fly when we're likely to miss an issue, I would like staff to come back and propose language and just bring it back so that everybody's comfortable with it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then I'll pull my motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: To have it come back with a clarification so that if it is a public marina, add it to this amendment that if it's sold as a private marina, then that -- there has to be some stipulation that it can't happen or it's got to remain public forever. Okay? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we're going to continue this? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. We'll continue then, just-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then I would like, Mr. Klatzkow, a question answered. We're actually taking away private property rights with this amendment and allowing public, which public doesn't -- government doesn't have rights under the Constitution, private property rights. So I just want to -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no, no. It's my question and it will be given to all the board is -- so I want to know how this fits the Constitution, this amendment. MR. KLATZKOW: And we can come back with you with an answer on that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And please provide that to all the board. Thank you. Page 29 February 5, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think we're taking away any private development rights because obviously in a lot of these cases when a developer comes in to develop his land, he is asking for special consideration, and when that's given and he decides to put his land into conservation as far as perpetuity goes, then he's made a commitment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And so should government. Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, for clarification, what you're asking is for a legal determination if the public can -- is -- we can -- the exemption for the public, is that the issue you're dealing with? We're exempting the public -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I asked the county attorney one question. Commissioner Halas pulled his motion because he wants it clarified that it would be remaining in public. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's the -- he just wants that amendment in there. So we are continuing this one. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we could deal with the real estate signs real quick. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. We have two public speakers for that. Would you like to hear from the public speakers or do you have some questions for staff? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I think the board was -- I didn't hear any concerns except for notifying the abutting property owner where the sign was going to take place. And then we need to know what page we're supposed to be on. MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are on page 35 in your book, summary sheet E, and this is to amend 5.06.02. Page 30 February 5, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there any markups in red? No. MS. FABACHER: No, no, Commissioner. Staff discussed the question and determined that if someone had gone on private property and posted a sign without property owner's permission, that they would just pull it and throw it. And generally, the property owners go and ask the campaign headquarters to have a sign. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. This is on -- we're on -- MS. FABACHER: On page 35. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Real estate signs? MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were on political, forgive me. We're on real estate signs. MS. ISTENES: Yes, you're correct, Commissioner. That's page -- that starts on page 35. It's the temporary open house signs and-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. ISTENES: And the amendment really starts on page 37. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And there is no -- nothing to address myself and Commissioner Coyle's concerns about being on people's front yards? MS. ISTENES: Our understanding was, I thought we had answered your question in that they could not put signs on private property, just as they can't do now, without property owner's permission. If we need to make that clear in here, we can, but I think that's pretty much clear in our other -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, ifit becomes a problem, we can just continue amending. I'm going to make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarification, we do require four on all these. I'm not sure if we have Commissioner Coyle with us or not at this point? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? Page 31 February 5, 2008 (No response.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think he's here with us. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Can you call the public speakers please. MS. FABACHER: We have Mr. William Poteet. MR. POTEET: I'll waive. MS. F ABACHER: And Ms. Ellie Krier. MS. KRIER: I'll waive. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any concerns, questions on the amendment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the amendment please say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously, 4-1 -- 4-0. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioner. That finishes all the public speakers, I believe that we have. So we will go back then to the order that the amendments are listed or carried in your LDC packet. And the first one we would begin with is on page 1, and these are the interim watershed management regulations, and Mr. Robert Wiley is here. MR. WILEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Robert Wiley, with the Engineering and Environmental Service Department. And we're bringing before you again to put in the LDC amendment language to include the interim watershed regulations that Page 32 February 5, 2008 we brought before you the last time. Just as a bit of a follow-up, Commissioner Coletta did ask to meet with us. Wernet with him. I've had conversations with him even today on some issues. So I basically am awaiting your questions, should you have any. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, in may. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Wiley, one more time for everyone that's sitting up here and out in the audience. Can you clarify exactly what this would do as far as the Collier County road program would go, what their requirements would be over and above what we're doing now? MR. WILEY: Okay. From the standpoint of the LDC, the county itself does not do its own permitting of the road projects. The Water Management District or the DEP -- and generally speaking it's the Water Management District -- would. When we put a requirement within our LDC or within our Growth Management Plan and then we notify them of that requirement within our plan, they then have the option to choose to enforce it, and they, generally speaking, do. They try to know what criteria we have. So the criteria we have before you today says you've got 150 percent on water quality volumetric requirements that are required per the Water Management District rules. So if they were to require the one inch, it would be an inch and a half. They would -- once we've put this in our LDC, they would begin to implement that on the road projects. Now, the discussion really boils around, we came up with 150 percent criteria based upon a proposed rule-making effort that the Water Management District had, and that rule-making effort has been put on hold -- this is really interesting here. Page 33 February 5, 2008 It has been put on hold until the DEP goes through its uniform standard rule it's trying to develop for all the districts put together, and that's addressing the nutrient loading and removal of nutrients out of the pollutant column. So until the uniform rule from DEP gets put together, which they won't even start the initial discussion process until March of this year, the Water Management District has put its rural development on hold, so that they're only right now asking during the permitting process for developments to incorporate the additional 50 percent. Now, there is a caveat. In the language for the district's rule, they had included an exemption statement for roadways, agriculture, and airports. Now, in talking to Bill Foley, the way that they do it right now is, the only roadways whereby they ask for the additional 50 percent are road projects that directly discharge into outstanding Florida waters. So that would be a very limited area in Collier County for that even to possibly exist in that situation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Sir, in may? MR. WILEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The exception that they put on, if we pass this, we remove that exception by having to comply with it? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, we are putting an additional burden and cost on our road building projects by doing this in lieu of the water management or the environmental protection agency putting their rules in place? MR. WILEY: We would make the rule equal across the board for everybody, county as well as development. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand that. MR. WILEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we have anybody from transportation that could address this concern about the cost factor? Page 34 February 5, 2008 MR. WILEY: I have not spoken to anybody yet, because the only one I saw here was Lisa, and I thought, I need to speak to Norman or somebody probably, but I did not have a chance to communicate. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Lisa, you don't feel like you're capable to -- talking about this? MS. KOEHLER: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there some way we might be able to put this -- continue this item until we have somebody from transportation that can address it? CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to put it at the end of this meeting and see if somebody shows up or -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, possibly Mr. Schmitt might be able to make a phone call and -- MR. SCHMITT: I'll turn to Lisa. She can get ahold of somebody from transportation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's put it at the end of the agenda and go to the next amendment. MR. WILEY: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Commissioners, the next one will be on page 27, and it would be the outdoor serving and SDP requirements. You'll recall that you had -- on D on your summary sheet, this would be amending section 10.02.03. And you'll recall at the first public hearing you asked us to break out the requirements for the permit to put that in the Code of Laws and Ordinances. And so in your packet and with the purple tab, you'll see at the very end of the packet is the proposed ordinance to put the first part that was originally going into the LDC, to put this portion into the Code of Laws. And then on page 27 we have retained the site development -- the SDP review requirements whereby ifthere is an outdoor serving area, Page 35 February 5,2008 then it's the discretion of the county manager or his designee, additional buffering and additional wall, so forth, could be required. That stays in the Land Development Code. And the original language that has to do with permits and the circumstances under which a permit could be suspended has now gone to the ordinance for the code. Any questions on that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? I just -- I don't know how this is going to be applied. Is it going to be applied to the ice cream shops that have tables and chairs on the outside? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. If people are allowed to eat the ice cream outside. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So they have to go through that process in the SDP? MS. F ABACHER: No. They wouldn't do that. They would simply just go get the permit; however, if they were a new development, then they would have to outline where the tables and the chairs would be, for new projects. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. If you have an existing one and an ice cream shop wants to locate at a building, would that -- an existing shopping center, would that be a requirement? MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry. What -- the requirement would be to obtain the permit, yes, if you're going to have outdoor seats. We discussed it pretty extensively in trying to come up with a threshold where we could exempt some of those real small ones from having to get a permit, and it proved to be really, really difficult. And-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we're just talking about SDPs right now. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Your question was-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: If an exist -- let's say a new ice cream shop wants to go in an existing shopping center that has an approved SDP, do they have to go through the SDP process to have a table and Page 36 February 5, 2008 chair outside? MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, likely what will happen is, they'll set up shop and then they'll throw a few chairs outside. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MS. ISTENES: So technically, do they have to show outdoor seating? I suppose. But when you're in a shopping center situation, you -- it's the -- parking requirements are a little bit different because they're broken out in -- to address specifically a shopping center versus a stand-alone use where you're -- where you're more apt to county every single space. I don't know if I'm making sense. But shopping centers generally try -- the parking requirements generally try to cover kind of worst-case scenario, depending on the square footage of the shopping center, and all the uses that could possibly be allowed. It's a little more liberal for parking in my opinion than, say, a stand-alone use where you're going to look at a very specific use at a very specific square footage at a very specific set of seats, and then you're going to come up with a very specific calculation. So generally you're going to be covered in a shopping center situation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I'm not sure if this amendment is really going to help out the existing commercial establishments. You're going to say the same thing with a bar. I mean, it doesn't -- doesn't require for -- I mean, a bar gets an occupational license to serve there as long as -- if it's the required parking spaces. MS. ISTENES: It does. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the locational criteria would probably be within the PUD, like we discussed before, would probably be a better way to address this? MS. ISTENES: I missed that last comment. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You remember -- I think it originated at the Planning Commission about locational criteria within a commercial PUD. In other words, no compatibility. That's what it Page 37 February 5, 2008 was. It was compatibility. Well-- MS. ISTENES: I guess -- I'm sorry. I'm dismissing the question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it was a statement. It was no question. We've got to wait for Commissioner Halas to get back anyways. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Want to call a quick break. COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask you then? CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does this -- does it look like this will solve some of our problems? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, yeah, for the new developments COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- where you need an SDP, but you've got an existing East Naples strip mall or something like that. MS. ISTENES: This is designed to apply to everybody. It's not designed just to wait for the new guy to come in and do their SDP and all that. This is -- and when you have a change in use, you also have the requirement to get a zoning certificate and occupational license, and at that time you're reviewed for compliance with the code. I guess when I used the example of the ice cream shop, I was just kind of saying what happens in reality is, likely they just throw a couple chairs out there and nobody is the wiser. When you're talking about a bar, yeah -- and they want to do outdoor seating, or you're talking about a restaurantlbar combination, whatever you want to call it, and they want to do outdoor seating and they don't have an approve site plan, they're going to have to come in and change their site plan to show that. I was just kind of trying to describe probably what happens in reality with these really small shops versus a larger establishment. That's going to have an impact. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess if that's the final answer then Page 38 February 5, 2008 it does, right? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sounds like it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala makes a motion to approve the amendment, 10.02.03, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. Next one? MS. F ABACHER: Okay, Commissioner. I was just trying to get clarification. I believe we can only adopt right now section 10.02.03. The -- the ordinance to amend the Code of Laws has to come through another process. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It has to come to the board. MS. FABACHER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: In a regular meeting. MS. F ABACHER: Just clarifying that we've just passed the SDP section. Okay. All right, our next one -- our next amendment will be on page 41. It's entitled prohibitive signs exemption for CAT facility, CAT buses. It amends section 5.06.06, page 41 in your book, sheet E of your summary sheets. February 5, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve 5.06.06, second by Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries, 4. Next one? MS. FABACHER: Okay. We have the PUD transportation requirements, amend section 6.06.01 and section 10.02.13, and I actually don't believe it's on page 57. Let me check real quick. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forty-seven. MS. FABACHER: Forty-seven, okay, thank you. Page 47, Commissioners. Any questions? These were the -- this was the boilerplate language that the Planning Commission asked be added to all of the PUDs. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Halas to approve, let's see, 6.06.01 and 10.02.13. MS. FABACHER: 02.13 correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it just for the -- just for February 5, 2008 the sake of discussion for a second here. The changing of transportation administrator to the county manager, that's okay with everybody now? I know we discussed it last time. I just wanted to make sure that that's what we still wanted to do. We haven't heard anything from transportation or anything? MS. F ABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there is -- and I have questions on that same thing, and it's actually on page 49 in 3. It says, unless waived by the county manager or designee. Is that what you're talking about? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, Right. And being that it was a transportation issue, I just wanted to discuss that for a second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Can you explain that item? Because now we've got transportation division administrator crossed out and county manager inserted. MS. KOEHLER: Hi. Lisa Koehler, Transportation Planning. As I understand, that's just really standard language throughout the LDC, is that it always defers to the county manager or designee, and so we're just doing that for consistency sake. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's okay with the transportation department? MS. KEELER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we could do anything we want. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you're right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Catherine? MS. FABACHER: No. I was just going to say that that was -- the other change was requested by the board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. F ABACHER: The, unless waived by the county manager or designees was a requested change by the board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. All in favor of the motion Page 41 February 5, 2008 signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries, four votes. Next one is on page 53. MS. F ABACHER: Fifty-three, Commissioners, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. And that's add stewardship receiving into the definition of development order. Entertain a motion to approve 1. -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- 08.02, by Commissioner Halas, seconded by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Next one is to provide accurate subsection numbering to definition. That is 1.08.02 under definition. Entertain a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. Page 42 February 5, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Next one is LDC 1.08.02 and 2.03.07, and that's to change -- the certain references do not accurately describe the administration process. Is there -- entertain a motion to approve that one? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any questions? Discussions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next one is LDC amendment Page 43 February 5, 2008 2.03.07N, and that change is for -- to remove the Gateway Triangle use subdistrict, mixed-use center subdistrict, in reference to development to the mixed-use activity center and future land use development of the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Next one is to amend 2.03 -- 2.08A.3.a (3)(8) and 2.03.08(A) or A.3.a(3)(1), and it looks like we're getting back to the old code with all the references. And the reason for it is to delete the duplicated entry in 30 -- 2.03.08A.3.a (3)(1). COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner -- motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 44 February 5, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Next one is to amend 3.02.03 and 3.02.05; is that correct, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir, that's correct. Change the date of the flood insurance rate map. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's the reason for it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Halas -- Commissioner Fiala to approve, seconded by Commissioner Halas. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries four votes. Entertain a motion to approve 3.05.07, and the reason is required that a part of 2007 EAR amendments to the coastal -- Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. Page 45 February 5, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta. I have a stupid question. We know the ambiguity in 3.05.07. Would this be the proper time to do this, or probably not? It probably -- the exemption from 3.05.07(H) for single-family homes? Mr. Schmitt? It's not in this amendment, but it has to do with preserves. MR. SCHMITT: That's the setback issue. I think it would be best to wait until the zoning director concludes her official interpretation, and then the board decide on how they want to deal with that once the official interpretation is completed. I don't think you want to deal with that now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was just a question. Thank you. All in favor of Commissioner Halas's motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries, four. Next one, to amend LDC 4.02.15, and the reason is the boundaries of the Santa Barbara commercial district that contain (sic) in the Golden Gate area master plan of the Growth Management Plan was amended to expand it by the Board of County Commissioners, and it's recommended by the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee; therefore, it is a need to change the Land Development Code to reflect what is in our Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning. Page 46 February 5,2008 Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Next one is to amend 5.05.02. And the reason for the change, the rating system was calculated for the maximum number of wet slips. MR. KLATZKOW: We've been-- MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, we -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: We just did that. We asked -- MS. FABACHER: We continued that one, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Am I going too slow? The next one is by County Attorney's Office. The amendment is to 5.06.04C.12.a, and the reason for that change is because we get to. Is there any discussion on the amendment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve the amendment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the amendment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve 5.06.04C12A, second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion on the amendment or the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 47 February 5, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries four votes. Let's see. The next one is LDC, to amend 5.06.04, sign exemptions from these regulations, and the reason for it is to ease the reference to the public. Questions on the amendment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve the amendment. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion on the motion, signify by saying aye (sic). COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Catherine has something. MS. FABACHER: Oh, no. Next thing. Sorry. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next thing? MS. FABACHER: No, Commissioner. I just noted that the transportation staff is here, if you -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's great. Thanks for joining us today. Next amendment is 5.02 -- MR. KLATZKOW: Did we take a vote on that last one, sir? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me? MR. KLATZKOW: There was an interruption. Did we have a February 5, 2008 vote on that last one? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did everybody vote on 5 -- MS. F ABACHER: 6.05X and Y, I don't believe we did. We had a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I stopped it because I thought you wanted to say something. I'm sorry. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-0. Move on to the amendment, 1O.02.08C, and the reason is to access management plan as previously approved by the Land Development Code; however, the related text and references were inadvertently omitted from Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Halas to approve the amendment, 10.02.08C, second by Commissioner Coletta. Discussion? (No response) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 49 February 5, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries four votes. Next one -- amendment is 1O.02.13B, as in baker, and the reason is the statement in the GMP is conforming with the existing planned unit development zoning procedures in compliance to -- or are complete and are required to comply with goals and objections of the Growth Management Plan and not the future land use designation district or subdistrict. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve 10.02.13 baker, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. How am I doing? Okay? MS. F ABACHER: Excellent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next one is to amend 10.02.13, planned unit development procedures. Board asked for some -- I think some corrections on this; if we could just go through that. We have some remuneration. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir, the board had asked that we put "shall be initiated," just the wording change. Now, the staff, when they were reviewing this at the last planners' meeting, they were viewing this amendment. Page 50 February 5, 2008 What you see on page 92 struck through is originally the language ofPUDs that were created, you know, on the October 24, 2001 timeline. That was when they were originally given the initial five-year window to look at sunsetting. Then when it was changed to three years, that language became necessary. We had a planners' meeting last week on Monday, and we realized when we looked at it that any PUD that had started back then in 2001 had already gone three years and then gotten their first two-year extension, therefore, that they could follow under the rules that they are now. So we subsequently, since the last time you saw it, have deleted that language because we find it's not necessary any longer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So is everybody on the same piece of music when they -- they're all five? Okay. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. They're all five now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, this is a good amendment, and the reason why, some people are clearing their land early. You can. You can get a permit and clear your land. And the reason they're clearing it is not that they have intention of building on it, it's because the market is what the market is. So by changing this to five years would hopefully correct that need to clear your property knowing that you're not going to use it just so that you stay compliant with the Land Development Code. I'm going to make a motion to approve 10.02.13. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 51 February 5, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries four votes. Next one is to amend 2.03.07, and the reason is, this provision was left out of the 04-41 LDC, and this is the Historical Architectural Board. I'm going to make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor ofthe motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. Next one is amendment 2.03.07H, and this looks like -- similar to the one that we just passed for the overlay of Santa Barbara. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve -- second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve, second by Commissioner Halas. It's not a duplicate, right? MS. F ABACHER: Correct. It's not a duplicate. It was -- the map was amended one cycle then we forgot to amend the boundaries. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by Page 52 February 5, 2008 saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. I see we're into it about an hour and a half. We don't need another break for what, two more hours, or is it -- what is it, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we could give the young lady a break. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, all right. You want to take a 10-minute break? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure, sounds great. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. We're going to take a ten-minute break. Be back at 10:35 -- 2:35. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The board's back in -- back from recess, and we're going to go back to the interim stormwater management amendment, and we want some direction from our Transportation Planner, Nick Casalanguida. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, sir. For the record, Nick Casalanguida with Transportation Planning for Collier County. Robert has proposed an amendment, and Commissioner Coletta, I understand, had a question about public roadway projects. While public roadway projects are exempt from county review, the district uses them as a guide for review in roadway projects. So I've asked Robert to add the language "except for public roadway projects" at the beginning of the amendment. He may have concerns about it he'd like to discuss, but he's comfortable adding that Page 53 February 5, 2008 language if the board is comfortable approving that language. Robert, do you have any -- MR. WILEY: Robert Wiley, for the record. Well, I wouldn't really say I'm comfortable, but I do follow direction. The distinction being between an issue, do you want to exempt out the water quality volumetric requirement of an additional 50 percent, or do you, likewise, want to also exempt them from meeting peak discharge rates? And there's a big difference in impact. Peak discharge rates affects the capacity of the canals and to contain water. Quality is an issue, but still, I will follow you all's direction where you want to put the exemption. I do have draft language already prepared if you want to see it on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Here's what I'm going to say, and then I'm going to go to Commissioner Halas. The reason for these watershed management regulations was so that we can meet the criteria for FEMA. Hopefully we're not going to have people sleeping on our roads. And if transportation doesn't get permits from the county, it doesn't apply. I mean, you get permits from somebody else, so I don't -- I don't think that we need to do anything with this because it's not applicable to transportation. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The district will look at the language and use it as a guide for their review, so it would be prudent to put "except for public roads" at the beginning of it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: See, I have a problem with that. I don't think anybody should be exempt, personally; especially government. That's my personal opinion. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: How will this affect our TMDLs then? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Excuse me, sir? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The total maximum daily loads, will this affect it? Page 54 February 5, 2008 MR. WILEY: Well, effectively right now there are no TMDLs to be imposed. That is still in the process. There's only a couple of spots that there's a possibility for them to be implemented in by 2013, which by then the watershed plans will be completed. There may be further imposition. But the water quality aspect is the key function of the TMDL, and roadways are very high in impervious area. They don't have pristine clean water coming off of them, so that is an issue for us to consider the impacts of what goes into the county's water system, because ultimately the county is responsible for the quality of the water where it discharges. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you. Yeah, this was a concern that I have. I mean, this commission, for what now, seven years and some months, has recognized roads as the number one priority to serve the public's benefit. And to be honest with you, unless we have that language in there excluding Collier County, I'm not going to vote for the motion and I won't move it forward. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- entertain a motion to continue these amendments, interim management? Want to do that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Continue it for what reason? CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's not enough votes to put additional language in it, or do you -- entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there's not enough support here, I guess, for the word excluding. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd give my support, but that doesn't make any difference because we need a four vote, right? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is Nick trying to say -- Page 55 February 5, 2008 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, Commissioners, typically your roadway projects aren't required to be reviewed by the LDC. Your typical sections that you require development to build by, whether it be for sidewalks and bike lanes, they're all reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The transportation system follows best management practices in all our roadway projects. We coordinate with the district and the Corps for discharge rates. If there was a canal or discharge system that was failing, we would take that into consideration. The only concern we have is by putting this in there and not excluding the roads, it gives the Corps and the district a guide that they would use to review us, and that's why we recommend just saying, "except for public roads." We still have to go through Corps and district review on our roadway projects. That wouldn't stop us from doing that, and I'd hate to see Robert's amendment be put away for other requirements because of this public issue. I would recommend putting it in there, but it's the board's discretion to do as they will. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And I'll reiterate my concern. First of all, I don't think it applies to roads because you don't -- you don't have to get permits from the county. The second concern that I have is just like the other concern on the docks. It's private property rights in the Constitution. It doesn't say, you give government more right than the individual private property owner, and I just can't support anything else. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But by the very nature of government itself, you do give them more rights. That's why you have the ability to be able to build roads, libraries, and to be able to provide an infrastructure. There are some things -- the government is nothing more than an extension of the public at large collectively acting through us. So, you Page 56 February 5, 2008 know, there is -- there is a distinction, you know, between an individual and government. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, yeah, I totally agree, but our Constitution, in the amendment 14, I believe, recognizes private property rights. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I would suggest to Commissioner Coletta that we continue this probably till the next meeting and -- because I'm not sure if you'll have enough votes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In may suggest? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I almost think that it might be futile to carry it forward. I think we've got a Mexican standoff here. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't -- I don't -- I don't personally think it's going to be a Mexican standoff. I think what we need to do is wait till we have one more commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you what, I'll second your motion, sir. I mean, I think it's only out of respect for you. I don't think in the end we're going to probably carry it, but I'd like to hear from all five commissioners. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's a motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta, to -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Continue this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- continue the interim water management plan regulations. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. Page 57 February 5, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, thank you very much for letting me bring this item forward at this time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is 5.03.02(A). COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 119. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Page 119. MS. FABACHER: Page 119, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hi, good afternoon, Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Michelle Arnold for the record. This item is requesting that we add language to the Land Development Code that would specify that a permit would be required for fences. There was previously included in your amendment packet reasons that there is an omission from a prior LDC that was incorrect. It actually was pointed out by the DSAC when this item went to them months ago, and it should have been omitted from your packet prior to these hearings, so I apologize for that error. There was a question that, I think, Commissioner Henning asked at the last meeting, whether or not there was language previously in the Land Development Code that allowed for permits, or specified that permits should be issued, and we searched and could not find any prior language in the Land Development Code for this particular request. So staff is at this time requesting that the board include that language that specifies that all fences and walls shall require a building permit pursuant to subsection 1 0.02.06B lA unless Page 58 February 5, 2008 specifically exempted in this section of the Land Development Code. Section 10.02.06BIA is the language in the Land Development Code that says all alterations, modifications to structures and buildings shall require a permit; however, in your Land Development Code, the definition of a structure exempts fences so that there's an internal conflict. And we believe that the addition to this language would just clarify that internal conflict, so that if code enforcement has a case where someone's erected a fence without a permit, we can cite all these applicable sections so that it's clear that they need to get a permit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve with the additional language. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas to approve the amendment. I have some questions. So are we saying by this amendment under, whereas the Florida Building Code as amended requires a compliance of structural standard and then the permit shall be reviewed in compliance with these regulations, are we saying that a fence or wall is a structure? MS. ARNOLD: According to the Florida Building Code, a fence would be considered a structure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: A fence would be considered a structure. And you stated -- structure definition in our Land Development Code does say what is a structure, but it says fences and walls and gates and posts are not -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- intended to be, so that would be internally inconsistent. MS. ARNOLD: Right. That's why we're asking for this amendment so that we can clarify that you need to obtain a -- although Page 59 February 5, 2008 in the Land Development Code under the definition, a fence is not considered a structure, you still need a permit for it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But in 5.03.02, as we're asked being amended, we're saying it is a structure, but our definition says it isn't a structure. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. The memo that I provided yesterday, or the zoning director, we have a dec. statement or declaratory statement from 2004, and the Florida Building Code basically states -- the answer we got -- and this has to do with specificity under the Florida Building Code -- though unclear whether fences are structures, it is reasonable to include fences in the requirement -- requirements of this code section which stipulates that building components may be anchored against wind-induced displacement. So basically what they were saying, if a fence is deemed to create -- there are fences that are solid wall fences, simulated wood slat fences and other type of fences. Sometimes the term wall and fence is interchangeable. But if it's a type of fence that's going to create that wind load has to be looked at, then what they're saying is then it should be reviewed for a building permit. So it never really came out and said, every fence needs to be reviewed, but they're basically saying that it's a good practice to look at what type of fence it is going to be and determine whether there has to be proper engineering and proper anchoring for that fence. If it's a chain-link fence, probably from a building code perspective, it would -- we would not require a review from the building code side. We may look at it for anchoring, how deep the post holes are going to be, those types of things, but there is really no . . engmeenng. The engineering comes into play when it's deemed that a fence, a solid fence, may create some kind of a hazard if it's -- in a wind load Page 60 February 5, 2008 area within the county. So it's -- there's really no definite answer to the question that -- is it a fence -- specifically a structure. And I -- so it's -- it depends. Because again, some of these fences -- especially those type of fences that surround some of our PUDs. They're not really masonry walls. The most common we see in Collier County are those -- they're made from a concrete mix, they look like wood, they're simulated wood. They're actually a concrete mix and those are subject to wind load. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Reviewing the Florida Building Code, the only thing that I can see a requirement for a fence under that would be in association with a pool. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That doesn't say it -- so they're applying it as health, safety, and welfare and they're not recognizing what I see, a fence around a PUD. Again, the only thing it says in the Florida Building Code about fences is around a pool. MR. SCHMITT: Right. That's the child protective barrier. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: It's required either to have a pool cage or some type of child protective barrier. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And what you're asking us is to go further than that. You're asking us that certain particular fences and walls, and probably -- probably won't apply to cyclone fences, an extra review, such as certified engineering, and-- MR. SCHMITT: But the permit is issued by the building department. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right now what you require on a fence is to mark it on the survey -- MR. SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to make sure that it fits -- MR. SCHMITT: Location criteria. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- whatever -- the location, and that Page 61 February 5, 2008 that's it. MS. ISTENES: Height. MR. SCHMITT: Height. MS. ISTENES: And materials. MR. SCHMITT: And materials. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What do you mean? Materials of the fence? MS. ISTENES: Yeah. Your Land Development Code requires-- first of all, you have height limitations, height restrictions, you have your visibility triangle restrictions you have certain types of fences. You have your facing; the finish side has to face out, so it's reviewed for that. And then you also have architectural standards in commercial districts and other districts that restrict the type of fencing used within a certain location, so you have to review for that as well. So I think maybe the mix-up here is, the permit from the zoning perspective is issued by the building department, and so I think we have a habit of just calling it a building permit. And from a zoning perspective, we're looking at that permit to ensure that it meets the height, the facing, the proper material, the location. I'm probably leaving something out. Whether or not it's required to be then further reviewed in accordance with the building code is whatever the building code determines and sets forth. And if that's the case, then it will require to be reviewed for that compliance with that criteria, otherwise the permit is just looked at from a zoning perspective. MR. SCHMITT: Our only other method is through an SIP or through an SDP -- and for a zoning permit because that's a zoning permit or some kind of plat or plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, three years ago I went and got a permit myself. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I took my survey, I marked on the Page 62 February 5, 2008 survey where the fence is going. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I received a permit. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So this is a different process that we're going to be going through? MR. SCHMITT: No, same process. MS. ARNOLD: No, same process. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I mean, I didn't have to take it to zoning, it was just at the desk. MS. ARNOLD: And we're not asking -- by putting this in here, it's not asking to change the process at all. It's only intended to clarify that you need to get a permit for a fence. That's it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Well, also what you need to get a permit for, that's not in the code, is electrical over $200 and plumbing. That's not in the code; it doesn't say where you need a permit. And it doesn't say where you need a permit for a mobile home tie-down. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, it's interpreted by all structures and buildings, and those types of things that are associated with buildings would be required to get a permit. The only reason why we're requesting this is that it was brought to our attention by the County Attorney's Office that there may be an issue with the fact that we -- in our Land Development Code, we have in our definition that excludes fences as structures. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And who's that? MS. ARNOLD: It was Jennifer Belpedio that brought that to our attention. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Belpedio, is this amendment needed to enforce the fence permit? MS. BELPEDIO: Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney for the record. Page 63 February 5, 2008 I don't believe that the amendment is absolutely necessary; however, from a legal standpoint, I believe that the amendment can go forward if code enforcement believes that it is necessary for them in their enforcement process. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me ask you a question. In section 8.02, the powers of the Board of Commissioners, it can establish reasonable fees to be paid by an applicant so the county can recoup its expenses and review and enforce developer orders and developer permits, or any other development approvals or applications. Isn't that enough to say? Since we know that the fence permit is needed in the fee schedule, isn't that enough to say to code enforcement that they have the ability in certain zoning districts to -- they must have a fence permit? MS. BELPEDIO: Commissioner, consider looking at it from a code enforcement prosecution perspective. There's two ways to look at this. There's the clarity in the LDC amendment, then there's also the prosecution of the cases. And in order for us to take a case forward, we need to be able to specifically allege what the violation is. And in this instance if, for instance, somebody did not have a permit for a fence, we would need to be able to say, you know, section such and such says you are required to have a permit for this structure or building, and then whatever it is has to fit that definition. It's difficult to allege in the Notice of Violation a provision in a resolution that specifically delineates a fee. But they both should be consistent with each other, the fee and the requirement to have the permit. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. This permit for fences -- and this would be directed to Joe -- is this also to meet engineering standards in regards to wind loads on fences? Would that be incorporated that they'd have to have engineering drawings in regards Page 64 February 5, 2008 to the support system? MR. SCHMITT: Well, that's a question that -- it depends. It depends on what's being built. Normally in most fences, no. It's just a matter of -- the permit is normally an over-the-counter permit. Let me take an example. If you're going to build a fence along a PUD boundary, and it may be more specific. We'll be looking for the type of fence, because there's location criteria. We have to know where it's going to be within that -- on that -- that property. Will it be on whose property -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- the type of fence, because there are criteria listed as far as chain-link, where a chain-link fence can and cannot be used. So those are the type of reviews. But not the engineering. The engineering piece will be nothing more than just dig the post holes, whatever it may be, two feet, and then structural, just sign off on it. We just sign off on it. It's not really a -- it's not -- there's nothing in the building code that requires a detailed structural review. Only-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not detailed structural review, but in regards -- let's say if somebody puts up a cement fence, okay. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they don't put the posts in far enough in the ground or whatever the supporting apparatus is that's going to be in the ground for the wind load and the fence blows down in a storm. Is there anything that we have at the present time that gives you the jurisdiction to look at what the supporting members of a, say, a concrete fence are? We know in a chain-link fence you put the post in the ground and you pour cement around it. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Normally-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So that's the supporting member. MR. SCHMITT: Right. Page 65 February 5, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: But what about a concrete fence that goes around a PUD? Somebody could just say, well, I'm only going to put about 12 inches or maybe eight inches of concrete below the surface and that's it and that's going to be the supporting support of this concrete fence that's going to be eight or six feet high and it blows over. So is there a permit -- MR. SCHMITT: We would review that as part of the permitting review, the application. That normally would come in under -- from a fence contractor or be signed off by a professional engineer, and that's all we're looking for is that it's certified by someone -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- who is licensed to put in the fence, and they're attesting that it's going to be put in in accordance with the manufacturer's standards. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that would be the fee that we're asking for? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. That's all we're looking for is that they're in compliance with manufacturer standards or that a -- an engineer signed off on the design. Normally those types of fences that are walls or those that have to be designed for wind load criteria are normally signed offby a -- either by a registered engineer or registered professional or -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: You answered my question. MR. SCHMITT: -- they are authorized by a certified licensed professional, licensed contractor who is certified to install those fences, and they'll install them to the manufacturer's standards. That's all we're looking for. But in most instances, what Susan was talking about, the fence -- the building permit side is relatively easy. What can be complicated is the -- ensuring that zoning standards are met, location, size, material, that type of things. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? Page 66 February 5, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Halas made a motion, or is it Commissioner Fiala made a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala made a motion to approve. Commissioner Halas seconded it? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe I did. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think so. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's been a while. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Aye. You know, one part we say it's not a structure; another part we say it is a structure. If we're going to put those things in the code, we also should put things like rental registration, a need to get a rental registration. You take care of these through other mechanisms. Y '? es, SIr. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Henning, you know, the vote was 3-1, and I realize it takes four to be able to pass it; however, just a couple votes before we put off the final decision we made until we had five commissioners. I was wondering if you'd give reconsideration to that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think they have the ability to come back through amendments anytime; is that right? MS. ARNOLD: And, quite frankly, if the County Attorney's Office is saying that we can cite a section that it was our understanding they told us we previously couldn't use, we don't need Page 67 February 5, 2008 this -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: -- amendment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is that your understanding? MS. BELPEDIO: It is my opinion that the provisions should both be cited, that the provision in the LDC requiring permits for structures and buildings be cited, along with the reference to the Florida Building Code. That's in 104. MS. ARNOLD: Which is what we used to do. And so if we're able to proceed that way, we're going to continue to proceed that way. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I was confused because the direction we were given previously was the contrary. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm glad we got it straightened out. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Michelle, do you have any others that we need to get done here? MS. ARNOLD: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I was saying, because we'd get them done real quick while you're standing up. The next one is, correct me if I'm wrong, 6.02.00, adequate public facilities, and the reason that is a typographical error on an LDC during recodification? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve this amendment. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. Page 68 February 5, 2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Now we're going to go to the recodifications. MS. F ABACHER: Reconversion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Reconversions. MS. F ABACHER: Deconversion. Commissioners, this is the pink book where we're going to go away from the permitted or permissible use tables that we currently have in the LDC and we have quite a few problems with, and we're going to go back to the, kind of the laundry list style of just each district will now list what is a permitted use, what is an accessory use, what is a conditional use. In the case of prohibited use, it would list that also. We have -- this has been deferred from the last cycle, but we have -- first, I would like to recognize John Kelly, who single-handedly, just about, has spent, I can't tell -- untold hours trying to put this back together as -- we took it from 91-102 from the very beginning and tried to bring it forward, and I think you'll notice the codes on the front of your front sheet show you exactly -- it's really kind of a valuable document -- where everything came from and so forth. And I believe this -- that the direction of the board was, at the last cycle, to give the County Attorney's Office the chance to really rigorously go over the -- and review the document. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. And as you can see by these tabs, we did that. I would just like to preface this by saying that this is the type of amendment that requires two hearings, and the LDC requires one be at five unless waived by the board unanimously. Page 69 February 5, 2008 We're meeting at five o'clock anyway on the 19th to go over the continued items. We can get rid of the five o'clock requirement by just hearing it then. MS. FABACHER: For the first time. MR. KLATZKOW: The first time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Otherwise we have to waive the five o'clock requirement. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, the five o'clock this evening? MS. FABACHER: No. That would be on February 19th, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. MS. FABACHER: Ifwe continue these other amendments, that would be Tuesday, February 19th at 5:05. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a -- I have a question on the amendment, but also the process. This is our third meeting on this cycle? MR. KLATZKOW: This is the first time we're hearing this one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hearing this one? MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. ISTENES: This cycle. MS. F ABACHER: This cycle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have other things that we're going to consider on this cycle? MS. FABACHER: On the 19th? MS. ISTENES: Well, you have the items that you continued today to the 19th, and I think there's three. MR. SCHMITT: Three items. MS. ISTENES: And that starts at 5:05. So I think what Jeff is suggesting is -- and we do have to have a 5:05 meeting for this and that we could just defer this one until that time, and then they would Page 70 February 5, 2008 have to have another hearing, correct, Jeff, to approve this -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. MS. ISTENES: -- and then they could do that at a regular meeting; is that the intent? MR. KLATZKOW: We can do that at a regular BCC meeting because, quite frankly, if everybody did their jobs right, there isn't a single comment really here that's any different than the board's already passed. This is simply going back to what the board originally enacted. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Yeah, I only have one question, and the question is, in the Estates zoning districts, the allowable use is a guesthouse under 5.03.03 -- I lost my page because I went through a lot of this stuff. And maybe if someone could assist me on what page we should be on. Here it is. MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, we're on page 18. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Actually, it's page 10, isn't it? Is that correct? No, that's a different district. MS. F ABACHER: No, Commissioner. That's agriculture. Estates follows. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Eighteen? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I should have tabbed that. The question is, on 5.03.03, it has -- and it says, D, and I'll read it. The following site standards apply to guesthouses. One, minimum lot shall be 4,300 -- 43,562 square feet; two, minimum lot shall be 105 feet; three, maximum area -- floor area shall be 40 percent. It's not in the book. I mean, I'm pulling this from the -- from this book. Four, detached guesthouses shall be no closer than 20 feet. Does all that need to apply to this or is it -- just needs to meet one of them? MS. ISTENES: All of them. Page 71 February 5, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Has to meet all of them, good. Thank you. That's the only question I have. Do you need a motion on this one? No. MR. KLATZKOW: No, we can't take one yet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: The only -- again, we'll bring this back at the 5:05 just to make the LDC requirements. MR. SCHMITT: You can do a motion on that 5:0 -- you can do it next week. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. Should they not at least put on the record that they're -- no, okay. MS. F ABACHER: I'm believing that will be our first hearing of it at 5:05. MR. SCHMITT: Got it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else? Commissioner Coletta, do you have anything? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for asking. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have anything. MS. F ABACHER: Just for clarification -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: -- Commissioner. I think Joe had said we were bringing three back, but we're bringing back the interim watershed to discuss the road issue and to have another commissioner available, and then we were going to come back with the wet slips and the Manatee Protection Plan. I'm afraid I don't have the third one. I know we voted to deny the fence permit. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How about let's just say, we're going to bring back the items that the board continued? MS. FABACHER: Well, I mean-- MR. SCHMITT: They approved the transportation one was -- Page 72 February 5, 2008 MS. F ABACHER: My records -- yes that was approved. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. So it's only two. MS. FABACHER: It's only two. Okay, good. And I think, Commissioner, we need to say that we're going to continue this public hearing to Tuesday, February 19th at 5:05 in this chamber. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And so we're going to adjourn this meeting and reconvene February 19th at 5:05. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we don't need a motion on that because we're continuing it. MR. KLATZKOW: We're continued. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're continued. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3: 16 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL . ,'1\ ' if ATTEST: .. DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK u , 11lJHtw't .1, J:lJau These minutes approved by the Board on ~ t1, LO[f{, as presented \/ or as corrected . Page 73