Loading...
CCPC Minutes 07/30/2008 LDC July 30, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE CYCLE ONE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida July 30, 2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Development Review Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Land Development Code (LDC) Amendments 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. ADJOURN NEXT MEETING DATES August 13, 2008 - 8:30 A.M. August 28, 2008 - 8:30 A.M. 1 C:\Temporary lnternet Files\OLK2114\CCPC AGENDA 073008.doc July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the July 30th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. This is a meeting for the Cycle One Land Development Code. And I think it is the first legal meeting of the board on that issue. The last meeting, although it wasn't illegal, it wasn't a bona fide meeting, because we didn't have a quorum. So I think today's the first meeting. So all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ifthe secretary will please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 2 July 30, 2008 Item #3 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Planning commission absences. Are we all planning to be here next Thursday? Regular meeting, 8:30 in this room, four or five items on the agenda. Anybody know? Because you're going to be absent, please let us know now. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the next meeting that this meeting will continued to will be August 13th. By the end of the meeting we'll hopefully know what time on August 13th. We've got the whole day allocated, but we've got to make sure we have enough items to discuss for the whole day. And I think we do. Is everybody comfortable with August 13th? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What day of the week is that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew somebody would ask that. I should have -- MS. FABACHER: It's a Wednesday. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Wednesday. MS. FABACHER: Wednesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And that's here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, 8:30 in the morning, here in this room. Most likely we'll continue from Page 121 forward on that day. Item #4A ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - LDC AMENDMENTS COMMISSIONER STRAIN: As far as the agenda for today, a Page 3 July 30, 2008 long time ago the planning commission had requested that we be more orderly in the process in which these amendments are handled each time. And great thanks to Catherine for getting that accomplished. Although I have to admit, even though all of her hard work went into doing a very good job in organizing this, this time, through no fault of hers there's been quite a few changes. And so let's discuss those right off the bat. Pages 1 through 10 cannot be discussed today for matters beyond our control. So those items will go at the end of the book and they'll be picked up after we talk about Page 246, I believe it is, which is the last one in the book, maybe 245 -- yeah, 246. So 1 through 10 will be rediscussed after Page 246. Now, Catherine, we had some issues between Pages 91 to Page 102. Last week on Friday afternoon at 4:06 everybody was e-mailed 13 or 14 pages involving the transportation changes. They're very intense changes. They're complicated to read, they're certainly hard to read. It's important, though, that we read them all very carefully. The policy of this board has been set that anything over 10 pages gets sent to us hard copy. Those did not get sent to us hard copy. I've made it clear to staff in both departments that we may not hear those today if all the members of this panel have not had adequate time to read them, because these things are becoming way too important to just pass them out without sinking your teeth into them. So what I need to find out from the members of the commission, has everybody received and read those revised changes to the transportation? They began on Page 91 in our book. The new ones that came to you weren't numbered sequentially from 91, they were numbered -- well, the first page was blank, the second page was number two. And you would have recognized it by starting out, the author was Bob Mulhere. It said transportation services on top, and on the left column they Page 4 July 30, 2008 had a series of numbers for every line on the page. So the first page would have numbers one through 45, and it would be from Bob Mulhere as author. If you do not have that, that's not a problem, but I need to know because we don't want to go forward with it without you all having it. So David -- we'll start, David, do you have those documents? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Neither do I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lindy? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have them. COMMISSIONER CARON: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron has them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, and I reviewed them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I do but I haven't had time to read them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we will put those Pages 91 to 102 -- the revised 91 to 102 -- and by the way, they're being revised again -- those will now go after Page 10, which is after Page now 246. So those will go to the end of the cycle again. So today we will not be hearing Pages 1 through 10, we will not be hearing Pages 91 to 102. And I understand there's a change to Page 111 which was theoretically on today's agenda, which we haven't got yet. So now Page 111 goes to the end of Page 102. And now Catherine, yesterday in our discussions there was some issues about Pages 33 to 36? Are there any issues remaining there that we need to -- MS. FABACHER: I'm trying to-- Page 5 July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the Michael DeRuntz issue concerning the neighborhood parks. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Commissioner, yeah, David Weeks is here. He's the author of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I wanted to know is are we going to hear it today or not. MS. F ABACHER: I believe not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's all I need to know. So 33 and 36 now go after Page 246. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: After the transportation, you mentioned another page, was it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 111. COMMISSIONER CARON: 111 to 113. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thirteen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's that whole section that starts on Page 111. So I think Ms. Caron just noted it goes to 113. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And after that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll put them in order now that we've talked about them all. Catherine, before I do that, are there any other pages we can't discuss today than the first 120 pages? Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: I hear you, I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're looking at Jeff for salvation MS. FABACHER: No, I'm looking at Mr. Weeks, because we talked about this after you and I spoke yesterday, and there may be a possibility for pulling the affordable housing density bonus amendment -- no, you're good to go? Okay, sorry, David. Page 6 July 30, 2008 Then no, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's summarize it again so everybody's clear on it. Pages 1 through 10 are being continued to the end of the chapter -- or to the end of the book. Pages 33 through 36 are continued to the end of the book. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Hold on. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 91 to 102, which some of you don't have, but the new versions are going to the end of the book. And by the way, I understand you're going to even get more new versions. Pages 111 through 113 are going to the end of the book. So all those are off the schedule for today. So if anybody's here -- I see the room's full of public. If anybody's here to discuss this, we won't be discussing those today. Now, the other thing I wanted to sort out in the agenda is the next meeting date on the 13th. There's some issues with the environmental sections of the book. COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It seems they're going back and forth between staff and the EAC? MS. F ABACHER: And the DSAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the DSAC. All the sections that we can receive within a week of our meeting on the 13th, which means by the 6th, how much will we be missing by the 6th of August? MS. F ABACHER: None of it's been through DSAC, the environmental. I mean, we attempted, but there were four or five presented, but they -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we talked yesterday, Catherine, you indicated that you were going to get us some of the sections by the 6th, but that was approximately or near the date the EAC was Page 7 July 30, 2008 going to hear some remaining sections, and that the balance of those sections we could get by that Friday, which would be the 8th. Is that still a true statement? MS. FABACHER: That's a true statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifwe get everything in those two time frames, everything that we can by the 6th and a handful that are still left two days later on the Friday before the weekend that we meet, I would hope we would have enough time then over the weekend and the following Monday and Tuesday to finish reviewing the changes to the environmental ones so we can go on with the 13th. Is that comfortable with everybody here in this room? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you get those changes, you're going to have to e-mail and hard copy, both. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So somehow by 5:00 or evening of that Friday we have to have them, otherwise we're going to end up in the same situation we're in now. Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: These things are advertised. You just can't like pop up with a substantial change to an amendment, give it to you guys a couple days before and then expect the public here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you tell me -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what to tell you. These things are supposed to be advertised 15 days in advance. The public's supposed to have to be able to come here, be able to discuss it with you, all right? You're supposed to have something that's ready to go to the board, all right. And what's happening is we're playing ping pong again. And I Page 8 July 30, 2008 don't know from a notice standpoint how the public's supposed to participate in this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five years ago when Russell Budd was on this board with us, we made a strong attempt to enact policy that required us to get these things in an earlier manner. I think it was seven or 10 days mandatory. But we couldn't get that to work, we couldn't get support for that. If your department is now saying that we need to have more adequate time, believe me, wholeheartedly, I certainly endorse that, I think it would be a great idea. But I need to know what that means in regards to us receiving things on the 8th of August for a meeting on the 13th. If you're telling us we can't do it at that meeting, then just straight up tell us, and we won't -- MR. KLATZKOW: I'm telling you, staffs got to advertise these things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They did advertise as one massive advertisement. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay, and then we're going back to the third rewrite on something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you, I think it's wrong. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I understand you -- you can have minor changes to something that's advertised and still be okay. But you get to a point in the changes that what you're being presented is substantially different from what was advertised to the public. If I'm the public and I see something that doesn't bother me, I'm not going to show up. I don't know that it's been materially changed. That material change may bother me and I may want to show up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have absolutely no problem with taking it off the table for this cycle and moving it to the next or whatever we got to do. I think that's the right thing to do. So you'll find that this board is probably in your corner in this, Page 9 July 30, 2008 although we never got support on it before. MR. KLATZKOW: We've got more meetings that were scheduled. We can clean this up. But I'm telling you, you guys can't get this stuff a couple of days beforehand because material changed. One, it's not fair to you, but even more importantly it's not fair to the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that. This is the first time, though, we've had strong support for it. Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: I just wanted to address the issue of the advertising, the legal notices in the newspaper. They simply state the section that's being changed. It's either going to be added, amended or deleted, it doesn't tell you anything about the text. MR. KLA TZKOW: But they go onto your website and they look at it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. I was just going to ask-- MR. KLA TZKOW: -- and they see it and they say well, this is not an issue for me, all right? And then it continues to get changed and they don't know it. MS. FABACHER: Well, as soon as we change it, we revise the web page so that when you go on the web page to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, we don't need the debate. We should always defer to what's in the best interest of the public, because we're here to protect the public. And in that basis I am glad that Jeff has now brought this up. And I would love to see us enact that to a point where we don't hear anything unless it's had an adequate 10 days in advance set aside for the public, or 15 days, whatever Jeff says to do. So under that basis, now what do we have for the 13th? MR. SCHMITT: Well, I want to just point out that these are being debated in the public. They're being debated publicly in the EAC meetings and in the DSAC meetings. That's part of the public Page 10 July 30, 2008 review and vetting process. I don't argue that we need to get it to you 10 days prior, but these are bouncing back and forth because of comments made during those public meetings, which are advertised public meetings, noticed meetings, advertised meetings, agenda prepared, and that is part of the LDC review process. So this is not any -- nothing being done behind closed doors. And it is a fully open and public process. That being said, we will provide you the LDC -- I have no problems in assuring that there are at least 10 days, that you certainly have time 10 to 15 days, if that's your prerogative. I'm not -- this is not an issue of we have to meet dates. The issue here is I have to amend these portions of the LDC to become compliant with the EAR-based GMP amendments. So if we have to delay meetings or reschedule meetings, we will do that. I'm not deferring to the next cycle, I will change the dates of the meeting. MR. KLATZKOW: Just to be clear, there's no requirement that DSAC see any of this. We do that as part of the public process, and that's a good process -- MR. SCHMITT: Incorrect. It's the board's policy that the DSAC review -- MR. KLATZKOW: There's no-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, before you both go off on a tangent. The problem I have with the process you just said is you guys go to EAC and DSAC with an outline. They make changes. Those changes then come to us incorporated into the format of the amendment. That's where I think the process breaks down. Just like any other body that wants to comment on them, they could submit a list of comments about each one and then it would be up to us to evaluate the one that was advertised and the one that was posted on the website that people could have seen, and then decide if Page 11 July 30, 2008 the EAC's and DSAC's language ought to be incorporated into those. MR. SCHMITT: Well, no, they're not changed based on EAC and DSAC, they're changed based on staff concurrence with the changes. If we dispute those changes or if we do not believe that the changes clarifY or at least improve the LDC language, we leave it as staff recommendation. You get all the recommendations, you get the DSAC presentation, you get the EAC recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, Joe, what I'm trying to say is the public has no way of knowing what the final document is in a timely manner. And I think that's where Jeffs going. We don't -- what's posted now will be five days before the hearing on the environmental. The environmental ones are real difficult this time. MR. SCHMITT: They are probably -- I'll call it the crux of this cycle for EAR-based amendments were the environmental amendments. And the intent was, those eight or nine areas, to help, I'll call it clarifY and ease the process. But as it's been evolving through these amendments, it is becoming rather laborious, the language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, another thing, too, your statement earlier that these are all EAR-based amendments, they're someone's interpretation of what was told to us as an EAR intention, and then that intention has evolved into this. Had I known that some of what we're seeing now was what we voted on for the EAR, I can tell you I would never have voted on it. And I think that the boards during the EAR process were misled. Not intentionally, maybe, but at the time the true interpretation by some people in your department wasn't told to us. Now it's coming out and we see it in the form of these amendments that are much more intense than the things I thought I was voting on during the EAR process. Page 12 July 30, 2008 So from that perspective, they've all got to be analyzed as to -- if they're EAR-based or not and if that interpretation of the EAR is correct. And then we get into whether or not the implementation of the EAR is what we think is consistent with the -- what should happen. MR. SCHMITT: And I understand that. But understand, a lot of those amendments were developed through a collaborative process with the EAC sub-committee and then the EAC. So a lot of those were developed in cooperation and collaboration with both the industry and the EAC. So what you're seeing is a by-product of the end result of that collaboration. It's not something that was just dreamed up by staff as an interpretation of what the EAR-based amendments say. And that's the purpose of the public hearing, so we can discuss those. And I certainly want this body to review those amendments, because I believe in some cases they have gone beyond what was intended by or what was at least understood or the intent of the GMP amendment. But they are documents that were part of the public process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with that, Joe. I think the outcome, though, that's coming to us, I think we're the -- we're a quasi judicial board, so when it comes to us and goes to the BCC it has another level of scrutiny. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the public may want to be knowing exactly what's coming to us because we are the last threshold before the BCC and we do have a lot of hopefully interaction with the public. If they can't get it in a timely manner, it's just as detrimental as it is to us. MR. SCHMITT: I don't argue that. That's why we're taking them back to the DSAC. The DSAC -- actually, and for all intents and purposes are many times the practitioners who are going to put these things into practice. And I certainly respect their opinion and the Page 13 July 30, 2008 things that they've put into these LDC amendments as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow -- or Ms. Caron, did you have something you wanted to say? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think we should just get back to Mr. Klatzkow's point. We had requested and have requested many times that things be given to us in a timely fashion. And for amendments, we had suggested 15 days. I think that that seems to be where Mr. Klatzkow's going. It certainly was where this board was going. And I think we just need to go there. MR. SCHMITT: That's fine. We will notifY you -- and Catherine, when will these amendments be ready? And of course the next meeting's the 13th. If that's not going to happen, we probably need to be prepared to discuss that at the end of to day's meeting. MS. F ABACHER: I think we should look at that at the end of today's meeting. If I might say something -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. F ABACHER: -- about the EAC. On June 4th I was there for seven hours. We had 10 amendments, we passed three, and we had seven rewrites. On the next meeting that I went, July 2nd, we had those remaining seven. We passed three and four were sent back for rewrites CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many hours on the second did you spend? MS. F ABACHER: Eight hours. And they voted -- and they held up the ones that staff said that they did not agree with the changes. So then they therefore voted on each change. So it's kind of -- you see, I mean, it spent way too much time there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you-- MS. F ABACHER: And that's what's got, you know 10 amendments and what, 15 hours and now another eight -- Page 14 July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, that's more of a reason why we have to do as Ms. Caron suggested, provide the ample time for everybody to disseminate this. I have read all those current amendments. I can tell you, I am totally dissatisfied with the environmental section of this Land Development Code suggestions. I know a lot of other people are, too. I think they need adequate airing in the public. I'm finding both sides of the public have concerns over them, from the environmental side and from the business side. And I don't think they can do that in five days. I'm glad Mr. Klatzkow is willing to take a position on this, because we haven't had a strong position on this before. And if 15 days is the right number, then I would suggest that after you have a final version, our meetings get scheduled at least 15 days after that. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I think that we should go to the EAC, we should go to the DSAC, and when it's ready for this board, all right, we give the 15 days notice and it comes to you. And from you it goes to the board with your changes and we're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have a question relative to that, because Joe had indicated earlier, and I know that to be the case as well, that comments made by the EAC and others are given to the board as well. So in one case we have a statement of linearity, so to speak, and the other is we have it comes to them and it might come to us, we might hear it and then we have -- I'd like it -- we should be clear as to what this process really is. And I have no objections certainly for the board. It's good for the board to see anybody else's comments. But is it a linear activity or is it anybody can do their thing? I thought this was the last stop before the board. MR. SCHMITT: This is the last stop before the board. You see it last. Your version is what goes to the board. Page 15 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Theoretically the final version. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So therefore -- MR. SCHMITT: And if staff has a disagreement with what your recommendation is, we will point that out to the board. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. But the point then is that we really should not receive anything for a go unless it is a go, correct? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. MS. ISTENES: You aren't. Susan Murray for the record -- or Susan Istenes. One of those mornings already, I apologize. You aren't. I think what I hear you saying, though, and let me clarifY so we know what to do. You want at least 15 days -- you want to receive them at least 15 days after a final version; is that correct? Or do you want -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. ISTENES: -- a version -- okay. Tell us -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me explain. When the EAC finishes with their revisions, say it's the 8th of August, on that day that should -- the revisions should be posted and sent out to us. Fifteen days from that date is when we could then have our earliest meeting on those Issues. Mr. Vigliotti? MS. ISTENES: After they're sent to you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Doesn't DSAC go after the EAC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They're going back and forth-- MR. SCHMITT: It depends on timing. DSAC only meets once a month and EAC only meets once a month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but let's just say for sake of Page 16 July 30, 2008 conversation, the last party, the last board, the last person, the last individual, the last entity that changes an amendment, from that date that they change it, that it's put on the website, for 15 days we don't hear it until that 15-day period is up, period. So that covers everything. And that includes what happened in transportation. I know you got more changes coming, and I know we've had changes today. So if transportation changes things within that time frame, everybody across the board. I would love to see that as a policy. I'd like -- ifMr. Klatzkow will stand by that, then I certainly think this board should. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one thing, Mark, is and when we do get changes, it would be nice if they were double strike-through, double underline, or something so that we don't have to side by side parse the documents. The last thing we got from transport -- you know, the Bob Mulhere, there's no way to tell what was changed on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the first thing that was in your book and said on top, do not read this, do not review this. It was only a placeholder. So the theory was that we were just-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I didn't. But the point is that either it should be -- we've had this trouble in the past where it's difficult sometimes to see what the subtle amendment might be. MS. ISTENES: Unfortunately with Mulhere's amendment we are also -- that's part of the section that Mark White is working on. So it's kind of a unique situation. And we'd really rather not amend that section while at the same time working with another client. But we just don't seem to be able to get any cooperation on that. So we're trying to work with the system. MR. SCHMITT: And understand the issue with that amendment is because my staff and the transportation staff are in disagreement as Page 17 July 30, 2008 to the language in it and some of the unintended consequences that may result from it. So that's where that give and take is coming from. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think we should have Tylenol for all you folks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we -- is everybody clear on the-- Catherine, since you're in charge of the LDC amendments, are you clear on now how we're going to handle this? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then with that, we will move forward today's agenda. Does everybody understand what we're not going to hear today? Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I just want to make sure folks understand, we don't readvertise. Many of these things are continued. It's the same advertisement, they're continued. We will post -- it's not like we send out a new advertisement. It's an advertisement, as Catherine said, a generic statement as to what sections of the LDC will be amended. They can then visit our website if they want to review those. So just for clarification that we're not indicating that we're readvertising every time these meetings are bumped because of amendments and changes to these LDC amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Joe, but I think that the public ought to have adequate access to the changes in an amount of time that they can review them and be here. And maybe then we'd have more public participation. Because honestly, nobody knows when any of these changes are made, when they come out and they're coming -- if they do show up, likely they've got the wrong version. So I think this is a good process, I think it's a long time coming. And Mr. Klatzkow, thank you for pointing it out today. We appreciate it. And with that, if we'd like, we can get to Page 11 in our book. Page 18 July 30, 2008 book. And as we have done in the past, we normally have a staff presentation on each item and then we go page by page for questions. And unless there's an objection from this board, we'll continue with the same manner we have in the past. Okay, Ray, it's all yours. MR. SMITH: All right, thank you. For the record, Ray Smith, Director of Pollution Control Department. I'm here today to discuss with you the proposed changes to the Land Development Code Section 3.06 pertaining to groundwater protection. Within these proposed changes -- I hate to use that word after the last discussion -- but proposed improvements to the Land Development Code, we are taking a look at updating the wellfield protection zones. And I have those posted up there, I'll talk to those a little bit. And also some language changes associated with the further protecting our wellfield protection, or wellfields in Collier County. And if you don't mind, I'm just going to step over here. Hopefully there's a microphone. Okay, what I have here is what exists presently under the LDC pertaining to the Collier County wellfield protection zones 2004. And what we're proposing here under the Collier County wellfield protection zones 2007 is its title. As you can see -- and I brought this analogy up, but it's the best analogy that I can bring up during the EAC. You ever go to the Sunday news and you see one photo and then it has another photo and it says select the five different things between each photo? Well, that's the intent of this. So you have a full understanding about what's changed and what I'm proposing today. When you compare -- I'm going to be looking at the map, excuse me. When you compare to the 2004, what you'll find is that there's Page 19 July 30, 2008 been some changes to the Collier County Utilities Golden Gate wellfield where we had additional wells that we were provided information on. We also had, to the Florida Government Utility Authority Golden Gate City wellfield, there were some pump rate changes, and it changed the model. And based on those pump rate changes that we received from the utility, we're proposing that that model be changed also. There's a slight deviation right there, a change. Also, we have additional wells with the Orangetree wellfield, which looks like a little Mickey Mouse there. And the Ave Maria wellfield is a brand new wellfield. Did not exist. It has six wells. And it's referred to as the Ave Maria Utility Company wellfield. So one of the first things we did was we said, well, let's check and see if we have any impact on any existing land uses out there that we may be prohibiting. We do not. And as you go through Pages 11, it deals with the illustration change to the Collier County Utilities Golden Gate wellfield. As you go to Page 13 and 14, it deals with the illustration change to the Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate City wellfield. And as you go to Pages 15 and 16, it deals with the Orangetree wellfield changes. And as you go through Pages 17 and 18, that's that new wellfield, the Ave Maria wellfield, referred to as the Ave Maria Utility Company wellfield. Now again, all this information was specific to data gathered from utilities. We had confirmed that data and we had sent them that data, just to make sure we're not making an error. Because it's easy to put a decimal place in the wrong spot. We had confirmed the data to be correct. And at this point I'll answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start Pages -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just one. It may not be major, but I'm more curious, I think. Page 20 July 30, 2008 On the Orangetree, it seems to have diminished, the area, am I correct, or is that visually an issue here? MR. SMITH: Well, what you're taking a look at, and I'll explain a little bit more about what you're looking at first. You're looking at specific travel time zones in which a particle of water takes a period of time to -- if it was at this point, to reach the wellhead. And we have a one-year, a two-year, a five-year and a 20-year travel time zones. And they're depicted in various colors. For example, the orange or the red in close proximity, that would be one-year, and as you move out in different colors, that represents the travel time zones as you move further away from the wellfield. Now, if you take a look at the Orangetree wellfield, you'll notice that the change -- yes, there has been a change in shape, but you also have three wells which has a higher -- well, let's just say the one-year travel time zone is more pronounced around those wellfields. And the only thing I can say at this point is there are land use impacts associated with -- not in this case, but in association with the land use rule there may be more or greater impact on land use regarding the one-year travel time versus the 20-year travel time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For my poor brain, is it indicative of diminished availability of water? MR. SMITH: No, it's indicative of simply -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of only time -- MR. SMITH: Are you talking about the additional wells or -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: By shrinking the area -- by shrinking the area from what that dot is to that dot is and the change -- the modification or the configuration change. I'm not trying to make this a complicated issue because I don't think it's that important, but I think it may ultimately be important because you've touched on, you know, the impact to building, you know, when we start putting people out there. And I'm trying to find out if the depiction is representative of Page 21 July 30, 2008 availability or availability shrinking or -- MR. SMITH: It's based on pump rates and the number of wells primarily, and location of the wells. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have enough water, I guess maybe I should put it that way? MR. SMITH: This has no bearing on availability of water. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so it has to do with how to get it up, rather than -- MR. SMITH: This is more specific to the protection of the wellfields. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, all right. Thank you, that was my only question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? Mr. Schiffer after Mr. Kolflat. We're going to go through this, by the way, page by page. So if you have specific pages changes and you could hold your questions until we get to that page, it might be more organized. But go ahead if you have a general question. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: On the back side of each of these pages it's shown a map, but there's no indication of north. Don't you think a north arrow should be included on those? MR. SMITH: I can insert a north arrow. That shouldn't be an issue. If you prefer that I can do that. I was following the same format that was presently existing in the LDC. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, it would certainly identifY the direction, putting north on it. MR. SMITH: Sure, that shouldn't be a problem. I'll have a north arrow placed on there. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Then on Page 11, for the Golden Gate wellfield, if you turn to Page 19 where you identifY all the regulated wellfields, it's identified as the East Golden Gate wellfield. Is that the same, the one that says East Golden Gate Page 22 July 30, 2008 wellfield as well as Golden Gate wellfield? MR. SMITH: That should read Collier County Utilities wellfield. That's specific to the Collier County Utilities Golden Gate wellfield. And I can change the language to be -- no, it is not the East Golden Gate wellfield on Page 12. It is the Collier County Utilities Golden Gate wellfield. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, but I'm looking at Page 19. MR. SMITH: And on Page 19 -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: We're under A. MR. SMITH: Right. How about if I refer to that as simply the Collier County Utilities wellfield on the illustration on Page 12 so it matches the exact language on Page 19? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So that will be corrected then? MR. SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: All your headers need to be consistent. Just -- MR. SMITH: I will take a hard look at that and ensure that's taken care of. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Also, there was no update of the following wellfields that are identified under B, C, D and G on Page 19. Why was there no update on those wellfields? MR. SMITH: There was no change in the wellfields. When we contacted utilities, pump rates remained the same. There were no additional wells, there were wells taken offline, it all remained the same. So we left that alone. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So that's why they were left out? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. MR. SMITH: They're still in the book, but they're not in -- there's not a proposed amendment associated with the change. Page 23 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a Page 18 question, okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, I would wish that this commission would let us proceed in an organized manner like we have in the past -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we start with Page 11 and work our way through the pages. When we get to the page you have questions on, we then get to the questions from the committee. It seems a little better way to proceed through this, if you all don't mind. With that said, Page 11 and 12, does anybody have any comments on 11 and 12? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 12 and 13? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or actually 13 and 14, I'm sorry, they're the same subject. Page 15 and 16? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 177 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Schiffer, I know you've got something on Page 18. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, it's the layout of this thing. And I know what the bands mean, but it's kind of difficult to read what they are on this one. This, by the way is a beautiful wellfield, it looks like an eagle in flight. MR. SMITH: It looks like a dove, and Ave Maria sort of goes together. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm an eagle guy. Dove doesn't have that big a wing. Page 24 July 30, 2008 But is there any way we can break it down, because it's very difficult to determine what the four bands are on this map. I don't know if you can do it by a dotted line type or something but -- for example, looking at this, how many wells are out there that are drawing down? Is there -- MR. SMITH: There's six, I believe. One, two, three, four, five, six. Here, I'll point over here, but I won't talk. One, two, three, four, five, six. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, unfortunately the big ones you have the benefit of color, so that makes it easier. But I just wonder how we can make that are clearer to figure out what the different -- obviously the outer band -- well, it's not that obvious, actually. You see what I mean? There's a lot of overlap here and I'm not exactly sure -- MR. SMITH: I'm willing to work with Barbara on anything that may improve the appearance or understanding of these as it pertains to placement in the LDC. Do you have any suggestions -- MS. F ABACHER: Ray, you don't work with this yourself, you work with a larger map that shows all the streets and everything and the properties, correct? MR. SMITH: Yes, but the planners do take a look at this when they have projects come in. MS. F ABACHER: To more or less see where it is. Is it on-line, I wonder? MR. SMITH: It's presently under the zoning. When you go to the zoning map on-line, it exists there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Ray, my question is just purely the graphics. I mean, obviously if you could color it that would do it, but that's a nightmare in the thing. Could you use maybe different line types or something to try to see -- MR. SMITH: We can take a look at that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or another suggestion might be Page 25 July 30, 2008 is maybe put a dot which is the wellfield and then we can -- I think once you see the six wellfields, you can start to figure it out and count from there. So maybe just to make sure, put a dot or something in the center of the first drawdown date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, there's a pattern that can be used, different patterns that show up in black and white where you can intensifY the pattern's density from least to highest or something like that. Like a pepper, you know -- I don't know what architects call it. MR. SMITH: Would there be any concern associated with covering up the section numbers as we go through that process? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think you should -- just to make sure we locate it. You probably need it, don't you? I don't think they're causing any trouble. MR. SMITH: I'll talk to the GIS people and the LDC people and maybe we can come up with some clearer -- you know, really, I'm willing to work with this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Ray, another question would be is one of the reasons this is confusing is lines are on top of each other or -- but how would the drawdown -- it seems odd that something would be geometrically that anyway. What is just -- 25 words or less -- occurring that would cause, like in these wellfields, to have the same line on the perimeter drawdowns, as opposed to the typical drawdowns on the other sites where it's regions that reach out? Never mind, we'll go over that in private, if you want. It has nothing to do with the amendment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Page 18. I had one question, mostly for the county attorney. These zones that are shown for all the utilities, most of them have been in existence a long time. They're harder to discuss. Ave Maria is brand new. In following the trend with Ave Maria, there will be other zones out there for other towns that develop and have their Page 26 July 30, 2008 own potable water supplies. Ave Maria is kind of a private issue. Although it's stated here as public, it's for a private development. They are, by putting these wells in and having these cones of influence with W -1 through W-4 restrictions placed on those lands, is there any concern about the rights of property owners who have inadvertently had their lands say taken or interrupted by the placement of these zones over their lands without their permission? MR. KLA TZKOW: There's no taking here. The question is whether or not we've diminished these property rights to the point where a Bert Harris claim might be viable. I don't think we have. But even if we did, we don't got a choice, we have to protect these wellfields. And if it ever comes to a point where a property owner has been unfairly burdened by this, then the people who are utilizing that border ought to pay for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, we could have -- I know we did have a choice. At the time Ave Maria or any other utility or town out there is instituted, we could ask for this kind of analysis to be done so we know what effect they're going to have on the surrounding properties that they may not own. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, Ave Maria is going to be their own utility. If they've impacted anybody, it's going to be their claim, not ours. I don't think there's a claim, I truly don't. But ifthere is, one, we'll deal with it at the time, and the rate payers will have to bear the burden. But two, Commissioner, I don't know a way around it. I mean, people need water and wellfields have to be protected. MR. SCHMITT: It's a different public process. They apply through the state, they apply for certification to open these -- for this utility to operate. If you want to get more information on that, I can have Jamie French come in and discuss with this board, give you a full Page 27 July 30, 2008 briefing on the application process, because we have another one going to be starting soon and that has to do with the Big Cypress special district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only question was a legal one to make sure the taxpayers of the county weren't at risk for having any property restricted unfairly, where someone could have a case against us. Based on the county attorney's comments, I don't have a problem anymore. Okay, we're on Page 18, we're going to 19 and 20, which then wraps up the sections on the wellfields. Does anybody have any questions on 19 and 20? If not -- MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, I had a comment on 18. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do? MS. F ABACHER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You gave this to us, okay. MS. F ABACHER: And I also deal with Municode. And if you look through your current code and see how crummy the graphics are, which is a constant fight with me. So I'm saying, from the point of Municode, and I think my point was earlier, this is more or less representational and not to be really used because you're going to use the layer on the zoning map. If you're in here as a consultant or in here for your pre-app, then the staff will point that to you where you can see where your street is. I mean, you can't really see your project on this map. It's kind of -- you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then every one of the maps need to have a disclaimer put on the bottom that they're there for informational purposes only, and that should someone be looking at these for deciding on land use, they need to look at another map. So -- MS. F ABACHER: That's a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, are these maps on the Page 28 July 30, 2008 website? MR. SMITH: These maps are not on a pollution control department website. They're on the zoning maps that are on the website. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then maybe if we referenced where they were available on the website, somebody doing a study could immediately get access to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: They're on the zoning maps. When you open it up you'll see these things, and they're pretty clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They are. The W's are labeled and everything. So maybe -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's clear when you do it that way-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Reference that in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we at the bottom of each one of these or at the top somewhere just say this is for reference purposes only, please refer to the zoning maps for this area for a more definitive location or something to that effect. Is that fine with staff? MR. SMITH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, as we have in the past, we need to make a decision whether we need to see this again. I honestly think that we've given enough direction to staff. It can be cleaned up and we could take a vote on it. There are four issues that involve today. One of them is to add the north arrows. Next is to add the references on Page 19 to the appropriate language found in each previous section, Page 11 being one of them in conflict. Third is to highlight the wellfield zones in some manner. And the fourth is to add informational reference to the wellfield maps indicating that there's more detailed sources otherwhere. Page 29 July 30, 2008 Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. Is it convention, is it widely understood if not totally understood convention that maps are oriented to the north? MR. SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And is that the practice that we have here in Collier County? MR. SMITH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does it become redundant to put the north, Mark? I know it could be said to me that, well, you know, it doesn't hurt. But I think the Chair has also stated time past that every detail we add represents time and effort. If it's an understood convention, I don't necessarily see the need for it. But if that's part of it, that's fine. MR. SCHMITT: No problem with putting it on. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: We repeatedly receive maps for illustration here at these hearings in which sometimes the north is to the left, sometimes it's to the right. It's just a matter of edification and clarification, I don't see any harm in it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If that's true, then I would agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifa member of this panel doesn't know the convention that you just spoke of, Mr. Murray, which -- I knew the orientation because I know the county. But I don't know if it's that big of a concern just to add a north arrow to the maps. I mean, I don't know if it's worth a disagreement over. So I'd just as soon leave it as one of our recommendations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's fine. But my view was a billion here, a billion here. I mean, I recognize it's a minor point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, there are four Page 30 July 30, 2008 recommendations to go with these. Does this board want to see these come back again or are you comfortable with voting on them today? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Today. COMMISSIONER CARON: Today. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm very comfortable voting on them today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, consensus is today. So we have to take them one at a time. I'll need a motion to recommend approval for Section 3.06.06, regulated wellfields. And this would -- well, actually, they're all that section. So why don't we just take all -- Mr. Klatzkow, can we do all Pages 11 through 20 at one shot? MR. KLA TZKOW: Just put it in your motion, you're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a recommendation to approve Pages 11 through 20 with the stipulations that we previously reiterated -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for Section 3.06.06? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. Nobody's opposed. Page 31 July 30, 2008 I forgot to ask for opposition. I heard all these ayes, Cherie', sorry. So you've got to listen at the same time while you got to write. Now we'll move on to Page 21. MR. SMITH: This is also dealing with me. What this, Pages 21 and 22 deal with primarily is a proposed improvement to the language of the LDC, specifically the definitions that -- pertaining to aquaclude and aquatard that will be placed in the Section 1.08.02 under definitions. And then an actual change to -- or additions to 3.06.1.2(Z), which is existing and future excavation and mining operations, item one. And obviously the numeric items change as you move through there. The intent of this is to provide proposed language that is designed to further protect municipal potable water supply wellfields from potential pollutants originating from excavation areas. This proposed language prohibits the excavation, removal and/or breaching of existing aquatards and aquacludes within zones W -1 and W-2, one-year travel time and a two-year travel time, by providing further wellfield protection measures. The language, as you will see on Page 22 that's underlined, is broken out into three areas. The first sentence is more of a protective measure. That's the intent of what we're trying to do. In Collier County wellfield protection zones W-l and W-2, all future county permitted excavation and earth mining operations shall be prohibited from excavating, removing and/or breaching an aquatard, which is a semi-confining layer or unit, or an aquaclude, which is a confining layer or unit. The second sentence deals primarily with insurances pertaining to the permitting process for excavation. And it reads, a letter certified by a licensed State of Florida geologist stating the depth of an aquatard or aquaclude supported by an enclosed topographic -- and I would like to make a language change on that, but I'll come back to Page 32 July 30, 2008 that -- map and their specific dimensions associated with a map, followed by -- of an aquatard or aquaclude found within a proposed excavation area. And the depth of the excavation shall be submitted to the county prior to approval of future county permitted excavations within the wellfield risk management zones W-l and W-2. And through that process they'll be putting in specific soil borings to identifY the depths of the aquatard or aquacludes or the confining and semi-confining units. And the further protection measures read in the third sentence, all soil borings are to be grouted to grade with Florida Department of Environmental Protection-specified bentonite grout mixture to prevent connectivity between aquifers created by soil borings. That's the intent of the rule, to provide additional protection to the wellfields that have excavation in close proximity to that. Now, I have -- we had made a couple telephone calls to see if there were any property right issues associated with the removal of these confining or semi-confining units, and which is primarily Bonita Springs marl in Collier County. And we had spoken to -- Rod here had spoken to an area product manager from Apac-Southeast, which is a wellfield -- and I'll point -- excuse me, an excavation or mining operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to need the mic if you speak away from it. MR. SMITH: Which is an excavation mining operation in close proximity to this area of the wellfield. And he's pretty much indicated, along with another contact we made with a local consultant firm, CDM, and spoke to their professional geologist, that he assured me Apac has no -- well, this is the Apac guy, but pretty much there's not intention of and there's no worth associated with the Bonita Springs marl, and in the Apac Golden Gate quarry. And also, the gentleman from Apac had indicated that they're trying to in essence avoid this, because it gums up the drag line and it Page 33 July 30, 2008 impacts operations. So the question here is that is there an impact on -- regarding Bert Harris associated with the needs? We've done some preliminary contacts, we have not come up with any, to our knowledge, any impact associated with property right issues on this particular item. It's not saying there's somebody we didn't speak to out there, but that's simply saying who we spoke to. We spoke to a consultant firm. We've also spoken to the representative of the quarry out there. In addition, we had spoken to Bill Spencer, site plan reviewer of Collier County. And he provided us stipulations associated with a recent mine referred to as Jones Mine. And in that stipulation, they allowed up to 45 feet of depth of mining or to the level of the confining layer. So there are stipulations out there that are being proposed to the Board of County Commissioners and possibly the planning commission that is designed to protect these confining units. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions on Page 21 or 22? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. Ray, if a thing is accidentally, we'll call it accidentally breached, is there a way to repair it? MR. SMITH: No. I mean, I'm going to leave that question up to our geologist. I'm going to ask Rob Ward to come up. He's a -- works for the pollution control department. I am not a geologist, so he does have the qualifications to answer that. He is a Florida State licensed geologist. Rob? MR. WARD: For the record, Rob Ward, from Collier County Pollution Control. Accidentally breached. We're talking about a marl that's more or less considered to be a fat clay. This is a silt and clay that if you roll it Page 34 July 30, 2008 between your fingers, it's almost like Playdough. The drag line is going to enter this, and it's going to be very difficult to go through to start with, and you're not going to be able to accidentally excavate more than a foot or two without it becoming extremely evident to even the most inexperienced drag line operator. Breaching it through drilling wells, it's done on a regular basis. And there's a whole Florida State code that deals with properly mixing a bentonite grout mixture to pump down well casings to seal between the annulus from where it's drilled for the well and the formation around it. And that is successfully sealed in thousands of locations where there's artesian hydraulic pressure coming up from underneath, where you drill through this and other formations to stop salt water intrusion coming from a lower aquifer up to the surface. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions on Pages 21 or 22? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ray, just you had said you had topographic and you said you wanted to change something, you wanted to come back to it? MR. SMITH: Oh, yes, my apologies. In the language it reads in the one, two, three, four, five, six -- I believe the sixth line down, it reads to an aquatard or aquaclude supported by an enclosed topographic map. Rob and I had some discussion on this. The word topographic could be confused with the surface, whereas we're taking a look at the geologic. So we would like to offer to the board a recommendation that the term topographic map be changed to geologic map. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with that. Because topography is the surface. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 21 or 22? Page 35 July 30, 2008 Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, just one second here. Making that change. How many excavation and earth mining operations are in Collier County? MR. SMITH: I don't issue the permits for those so, ma'am, I don't have an answer for that. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, are we talking a few, a half a dozen, or are we talking hundreds? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Every project would have to have lakes excavated for water management, so you probably got hundreds. MR. SCHMITT: Hundreds. You're talking individual single-family homes that get excavation permits. Every project that digs lakes, excavation permits, hundreds. Now, if you're talking mining operations, that's a little bit different, there's probably -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, different story. MR. SMITH: And again, ma'am -- MR. SCHMITT: -- maybe a dozen of those. MR. SMITH: -- we're specific to zones W-1 and W-2 only, around municipal water supply wellfields. COMMISSIONER CARON: Understood, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, on Page 22, your definitions, the aquaclude. A body of rock or sediment that will absorb water slowly. How slow is slowly? MR. SMITH: I'm going to refer to Rob to answer that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And who makes that determination? MR. WARD: It's a relative type of definition between what is an aquaclude here. In another area where the aquifer is less productive, that could be considered the aquifer. It's where you're going to get the greatest amount of water production and/or limiting factor on the vertical transmissivity that allows the water to pass between one vertical unit and another. Page 36 July 30, 2008 There is no known exact numeric quantification on these items as it varies from one locality to another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Further on it says but not transmitted fast enough. So someone has to make a determination whether it's moving at the speed they think is correct or not. And then under aquatard, you have similar language. A confining bed that significantly retards. Well, how much is significant? And the last line, it may provide some storage for groundwater. How much is some? That kind of ambiguity -- those kind of language, we've always been concerned about, because someone has to make a decision on that, and I was wondering what criteria you use for that decision-making process. MR. WARD: The criteria that's used by it in practical application is where is going to be a production zone that a well driller is going to put a well into. And those production zones are if the surficial aquifer is deep enough and the water quality is high enough, in other words, not a low enough iron content in the surficial aquifer to provide the water that is necessary for the consumptive use that's intended, they'll stop at the surficial aquifer before they go through the Bonita Springs marl. The Bonita Springs marl is a much higher clay content, which means a very, very reduced porosity. And the storage content of water in the smaller particle sizes of that clay won't provide a production of water that's adequate enough to provide a consumptive use that's desired. You'd have to drill through the Bonita Springs marl if it were present at the location that you happen to be talking about, down into the lower Tamiami formation where you have a greater porosity in the limestone and the sand to get a production of water that would satisfY the intended consumptive use. Page 37 July 30, 2008 So the lower Tamiami and the surficial are aquifers, and the lower comparatively storativity that's in the Bonita Springs marl makes it an aquaclude -- or an aquatard, excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These particular layers, whether it's Bonita Springs marl or solid limestone rock or whatever, vary in thickness and depth. MR. WARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who makes the decision whether that thickness is adequate to absorb water slowly or fast enough to supply water to a well? Is it you or is it the applicant who produces an engineer like Tom Mismer or somebody who puts together whether or not it's legitimate, whether this layer is confining or not? Who makes that decision? MR. WARD: If you're talking about a municipal well, only on-- on private wells? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any well. MR. WARD: Any well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any well where the question -- if someone were to apply for an application, who makes the decision on these ambiguous forms of language? Is it your department? MR. WARD: No, no. The permits for the wells are issued initially by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to get to, so thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You could supplant that word -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You could supplant that by simply saying over time, that will absorb water over time. And you may construe that as not exact enough, but it's a confining bed and because of the variation there's no way of really determining a rate of, I would think. MR. WARD: It varies in thickness from zero to over 60 feet Page 38 July 30, 2008 throughout the county. And it is not consistent in the variance. It's more or less a confining bed that's intermittent and it pinches out and gets thicker and thinner throughout areas of the county. And sometimes it will pinch out to a few feet thick and sometimes completely out. So it's definitely not consistent and it is site specific dependent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is it important to continue in that sentence to say, but not transmitted fast enough to supply a well or spring? Could it not be a body of rock or sediment that will absorb water over time, a confining bed? Would that convey what it is you want as a definition? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, the idea of substituting that over time I think is more problematic if not equally problematic as this. So from that perspective I don't know why we'd want to change it. Just so you know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, over time is fairly commonly used to indicate something that is not adequately measurable. It's just a matter of over time. But that's okay. That was my attempt at trying to help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on Pages 21 or 22? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have we resolved what it is that you raised? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm fine with the explanation that another agency who probably has a lot of information on how slow and things -- how they get transmitted is also reviewing this as well. So I don't have that much of a concern with it. MR. SMITH: I just wanted to point out, Rob does work for the pollution control department and not another agency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand that. But he said that the DEP, I think it was, or one of the other agencies. And I know that there's a lot of data that will tell transmissivity of layers, because I've Page 39 July 30, 2008 actually seen some of that in reports. So I'm not that concerned now with that point. Anybody else, 21 and 22? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion to recommend approval of Section 1.08.02 and 3.06.12 with the change to remove the word topographic and replace it with geologic? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat made the motion, Mr. Adelstein seconded it. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) (Ms. Caron is absent.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. We will move on to Page 23. Catherine, it's no nice we're doing these in order. It makes it so much easier. Thank you. Page 23, Michael DeRuntz is making the presentation, but he's not here. I think that means -- MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, he's not here, but David Weeks is here to handle his amendment requests. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Page 40 July 30, 2008 David Weeks of the comprehensive planning department. As you're aware, this is one of the several amendments from our department that are based upon the evaluation and appraisal report-based GMP amendments that were approved in January of 2007. This specific one pertains to an amendment to the Immokalee Area Master Plan. And I hope you've had a chance to look, if you're interested. Near the back of your binder for these amendments, there's a separate area where there's an appendix titled Appendix GMP. And located there is the text from the GMP amendment that you can then compare to the LDC amendment. The idea being you can see what the Genesis is. Here's what the GMP says and then the LDC amendment based upon that. This specific one, we're on Page 23 in the text, it's the Appendix GMP-l, the very first one. In my book it's probably about a dozen pages or so from the back of the book. There's one of these thick yellow papers that divide it. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, David, I think they have tabs. MR. WEEKS: Good. At any rate, specially the Immokalee Master Plan was amended under the industrial subdistrict, which is where the Immokalee Airport property lies, to provide for vehicle racing as an allowed use, subject to conditional use requirement. And then also allowing campgrounds accessory to vehicle racing and campgrounds accessory to special events at the airport, such as air shows. And then you'll see the same change being made then over in the industrial zoning district on Page 23 and 24 where recreational vehicle campground is allowed as an accessory use subject to the special event and then separately subject to -- excuse me, accessory to the vehicle racing. And then you see vehicle racing added as a conditional use. Page 41 July 30, 2008 And similarly on Page 25 under the business park zoning district, the same changes are being made. And also, as you can see, there's a specific reference to Section 5.05.1 0 of the LDC, which is the section of the LDC that contains various development standards for an RV park, such as provision of parking spaces, water and sewer and access to internal. streets and so forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions. We start on Page 23 and go through 26. Questions? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: David, how do we get auto vehicle racing? How did that come to be? Whose request was that and whose suggestion? MR. WEEKS: Well, again, it goes back to the EAR-based GMP amendments. But the request came from the Immokalee community. And there historically has been some vehicle racing at the airport, I know under temporary use permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, then Mr. Kolflat. MR. SCHMITT: The Airport Authority is sponsored -- well, the Airport Authority hosts. It's a private endeavor. But the Airport Authority in Immokalee -- and Immokalee is one of the airports under the Collier County Airport Authority -- has drag racing. It's a drag racmg venue. It's never been an approved use out there per se as part of the zoning. It's been a temporary use, as David alluded to. And the attempt here was trying to get something in the LDC that allows for that use. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good idea. MR. SCHMITT: You're going to see the entire Immokalee Page 42 . July 30, 2008 Airport -- well, it will be a PUD amendment, it's coming in for an entire PUD review and that's a future hearing. But this now puts it in the LDC so it basically legitimizes the operation that's been going on out there for years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Dave, do you think there should be any identification or definition of what constitutes a vehicle for that vehicle racing proviso there? I mean a vehicle could consist of scooters, mopeds, motorcycles, automobiles, trucks. MR. WEEKS: I think the community would like it broad. I can tell you, there was not much if any discussion on that point. But I believe the community would like the latitude to have the variety of vehicle racing not be limited to just automobiles, for example, or motorcycles. I think they'd like that latitude. From a noise perspective, I'm certainly no expert, but from my layman's observation, I don't know that there would be a difference in the type of vehicle and the noise that's generated. One thing that I think is very important to note is that both the GMP language and then of course the LDC language does require a conditional use so that any vehicle racing can be vetted fully through the public hearing process, because noise certainly would be a consideration and a possible concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions through Page 26? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 24, David, under accessory uses, number four, only the final portion of that line is underlined. Should the entire paragraph be underlined, or is some of this current language? MR. WEEKS: The latter. Some of that is current. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And where was -- where did the current language end? Was there before a period after like? Page 43 July 30, 2008 MR. WEEKS: Yes, there was. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions, Page 23 through 26? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, your reference to 5.05.10, that's the TTRVC zoning. That's set up as a zoning -- like a subdistrict. There's requirements for sanitary facilities, flushing toilets and showers within 300 feet of walking distance from every camp site. There's potable water supplies required, certain sizes for every space, a number of parking spaces for every space. Then if you want to do cabins, you've got to have a max number of cabins per lot at any park. I'm not saying these are wrong things, but does that -- are the people out there aware that by enacting this provision those restrictions will come into play? The few times I've been to these kind of events, the guys driving the big rigs with their race cars and stuff just -- I mean, it's not as organized as it seems the section you're referring to requires it to be. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if they're aware or not. I certainly don't know. I can tell you that it's a little bit difficult in the sense that we could have two different scenarios. One could be a very temporary use where you have the racing, you have the air show, like we sometimes have here at the Naples Airport, where the RV campers and so forth are just brought in for a matter of days and then they leave. The other scenario though could be the permanent RV facilities; that is, the infrastructure being in place permanently. Most particularly in the context of vehicle racing as a conditional use, then that could become a permanent use for the park -- for the airport property, therefore the associated accessory R V park could become a permanent part of the site. And most certainly for a permanent facility I believe it would be Page 44 July 30, 2008 appropriate to have those standards met. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Is the airport zoning one that allows that TTRVC zoning to be within it? MR. WEEKS: It does not allow the zoning but it allows this use, the RV park use as an accessory use, as we're stating here. And the reference to the section in the LDC, 5.05.10, is actually not to the zoning district, it's to the design standards for an RV park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Why don't we just simply add the use for the airport as a TTRVC, and then you're -- we don't even have to approach it this way. I mean, if we gave them -- if that airport had that as a permitted use by right, wouldn't we be doing the same thing without having to go through all this? MR. WEEKS: Well, two things with that. One, if we simply add it as a use by right, then that's a principal use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: And that is contrary to what the GMP says. The GMP says it's an accessory use and only in these specific limited circumstances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, then if -- I understand exactly where you're going, which is where I'm trying to go. If it's an accessory use and not considered a principal use, is there any concern about making it so permanent as we have with the reference to the TTRVC sites? Because then in essence it becomes a very permanent use on that airport. MR. WEEKS: One thought, and looking through the specific standards under that LDC section, it might be appropriate to exclude, for example, the -- I think it's subsection C-l1, the camping cabins, not to allow those. Another section for park models, which I think is your point, Mr. Chairman, that is, those permanent structures perhaps should not be Page 45 July 30, 2008 allowed, whereas the camping lot should be allowed. So that you can bring in -- you have the infrastructure there to bring in the camper trucks and the travel trailers and motor homes, but those are all on wheels and they go out. So there's no -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think the intent was probably so the guys with the race cars and stuff have a place to stay while they're racmg. And I'd hate to see this open the door for a more permanent motor home facility out there that takes away from the industrial use of an airport that really needs to be protected for the future. Because when that airport finally reaches its day, it's a bigger airport than most anything else in Collier County, I believe, and it's got a very sizable runway, so -- MR. SCHMITT: It's only a mile long. It's about 5,000 feet, five -- but they're working on -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 12,000. MR. SCHMITT: -- a process to extend it to seven and then eventually to 10. But you're -- the point is exactly well taken. I mean, from a standpoint of what the intent was out there was just nothing more than overnight stay for fans who go out there or for participants. And that -- at one time they had a submittal in for review for a -- that type of park. It's gone nowhere. But this thing has evolved. At one time a former airport director wanted this to be something like Sebring, which has everything from planes to race cars. And that's how we got to where we are in this LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, personally I think that we need to make sure this is real clear so we don't open up the airport for uses that become so permanent we can't undo them because of rights obtained through this reference. Do you have a way to do that with verbiage today or would you rather come back at a time in the future? Page 46 July 30, 2008 MR. WEEKS: I think come back. I'd like a chance to talk to zoning staff about this. I think there's two possible ways. And I'll just throw out the general ideas and then leave it at that. One would be to establish specific exclusions to that Section 5.05.10, those that deal with park models, the permanent structures. The other way might be to simply -- rather than by that reference simply say no permanent structures are allowed. To try to make it clear in the language that you can only have these R V type vehicles that are just that, vehicles that come and that go, that nothing can stay on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that would be good to have it come back then. If the racing stopped, could any of these recreational vehicle accessory uses be retained, or can they only be there as long as the racing's used on that airport? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It says -- MR. WEEKS: Well, because there's also the opportunity for the temporary events such as the air show, I would argue that yes, that you could still have the R V park there, the infrastructure there. I think it really comes down to, and I think perhaps we're in agreement, that there's not a concern about the infrastructure being there, it's the actual use. That it's not a permanent use, that it truly only functions as accessory when you're having vehicle racing or when you're having a special event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you focus on that to rewrite I think that would be helpful. Does anybody have an objection? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, but I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, just saying I think striking the reference to the section would be better anyway. I mean, these guys are going to come out, they're going to stay overnight for two Page 47 July 30, 2008 nights at the most. You start providing them sanitary hookups and stuff like that, you're going to -- you know, they're not going to go away right away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you ought to -- I think David ought to take all that into consideration when they look at that hard standards in that 5.05.10 section, because there's a lot more in there that leads to more permanence than to temporary, so -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, you mentioned an air show and that's certainly not -- you know, under number five, B-5, accessory uses it references vehicle racing. And if it's an expanded as air show, you might want to consider any other thing that historically has happened, to have that included if you're going to keep that paragraph at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, David, I think the consensus is that it needs to come back. I think you've got enough possible direction on it. Are you comfortable with what you've heard? MR. WEEKS: Yes, I am, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's actually Donna, when she was talking made me realize this. A statement in accessory use four on Page 24, by adding that sentence that it only applies to Immokalee Airport, are there any other industrial zones that could have taken advantage of this? MR. WEEKS: Oh, yes, there's a lot of industrial zoning in Immokalee. But again, the genesis being the GMP language. The GMP language is specific to the Immokalee Airport. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but once you add that last sentence it eliminates the ability for an industrial zone to let's say have an art fair or something where they want to bring in recreational Page 48 July 30, 2008 vehicles for overnight, right? MR. WEEKS: That's true. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that could do it prior to you adding that sentence, so -- in other words, when you add that you're essentially taking that clause and totally focusing it on the regional airport. MR. WEEKS: Which we believe was the intent. Because the initial language that was added, that original reading of four, was intended to be focused to the airport. That's why the existing language states in part temporary special events such as air shows and the like. That focus always was towards the airport. It was never intended to be broadly applicable to the industrial zoning district. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't think you're removing any rights that somebody might have? MR. WEEKS: Certainly someone can may make the argument, as you're suggesting, but I think staffs position would be absolutely not. That was never, never the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, David, we'll let that one come back. And you're up next I think, too, on Golden Gate, Pages 27 through Page 30. The Golden Gate downtown district. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. The changes here are very minor. Well, I think so. On Page 29 you see two uses up at the top. D and E are added. These are simply oversights. They had existed in the Golden Gate Master Plan since this overlay district was -- excuse me, subdistrict was created in the master plan. They were just inadvertently omitted from the LDC provision. Similarly, at the bottom of Page 29, the underlined text there also was already in the subdistrict. It was inadvertently omitted from this language here. On Page 28, the very simple change under the paragraph number Page 49 July 30, 2008 two, very minor wording change occurred in the GMP. We struck through the word "which" and added that. And then you see a reference to the subdistrict map by title. If you did have to look over the GMP language, you'll see that the Golden Gate Area Master Plan language refers to a specific map number, whereas here in the LDC we're just referring to the map title. That's because we have in process right now a GMP amendment, part of the 2006 cycle, that will delete all the map numbers and simply refer to the various maps by title, which would then make this LDC amendment consistent with the GMP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: David, are you working with a community group there, or who are you working with? MR. WEEKS: For this we're not. For the establishment of the subdistrict, originally there was a committee appointed by the board that staff worked with. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is that still in existence? MR. WEEKS: No, they're not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Golden Gate Master Plan committee for a while looked at it, then the subcommittee was formed and went and looked at it in more detail. And that's how I think this got generated. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Done. The committees are done? MR. WEEKS: Yes, they are. Any other questions through Page 30? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I have one, and it's not anything that was underlined, but I want to bring it up just as a matter of concern. On Page 29, A-I, the conversions have to take effect within Page 50 July 30, 2008 seven years after the date of adoption, the effective date, which was January, 2005. That's almost exactly three and a half years from when this has been in effect, which means we have three and a half years to go. How many properties have utilized this conversion? MR. WEEKS: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Seeing as how we're in an extremely difficult market and commercial is probably overbuilt for eons, the probability of any of this happening in the next three and a half years may be difficult. Has staff or anybody thought to consider extending that time frame? MR. WEEKS: No, we have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any reason why we couldn't do it through this cycle analysis as part of a recommended logical possibility that because between the market and the fact in the three and a half years no one's done anything, they may want to give these owners more time before all this breaks loose on them? What's your thoughts on it? And Mr. Klatzkow, I would have to ask you the same thing. Because the seven years was a pretty big subject of debate when it came up. MR. KLA TZKOW: I think it's in your compo plan that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it in the compo plan for seven years? MR. KLA TZKOW: I'm pretty sure this is in your compo plan. MR. WEEKS: Yes, but the first step would be we'd have to amend the comprehensive plan to change that seven-year time period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that the -- in another three and a half years the fact that we have a market that's fairly declined and there's a lot of commercial already out there, the probability of this all happening isn't probably too great. We could run into some problems that we didn't anticipate. Page 51 July 30, 2008 Is anybody thinking we ought to consider changing that in the GMP? I mean, I guess nobody has. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What, the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we can bring it up to -- well, I'll talk to the civic group and see what they think. MR. WEEKS: Just note, for your information, this is the second such provision. The seven-year limitation first came about and still exists in the Santa Barbara commercial overlay corridor, and then it was expanded a year or two ago. But it was the first one to have that seven-year conversion requirement. So there's a lot more properties than just the ones here. . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. All of it with the market today is a little concerning, but we'll just see what happens. Okay, we have Pages 27 through 30. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll ask a recommend -- is there a recommendation for Section 2.03.07 for the changes indicated by staff on Pages 27 through 30? Recommendation to either approve or deny. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Approve. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein so moved approval, Mr. Wolfley seconded it. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 52 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody -- okay, everybody agrees 8-0. Okay, we have -- David, I was going to try to get you out of here for break, it doesn't look like it, so we'll just continue to 10:00 and then go on from there. Page 31 and Page 32. David, it's yours. MR. WEEKS: The changes on Page 32. And again, the language in the future land use element as well as in the housing element provides that no new mobile homes will be placed within the coastal high hazard area. And we have an existing LDC provision here. You can see we've reworded it, I'll say substantially, inverting the sentence somewhat, but carrying that forward that the only way to put new mobile homes in the coastal high hazard area or within a floodway is if it's an existing mobile home subdivision or park, or if it's existing zoning that allows mobile home use. That way we're not taking away the rights anyone has. For example, we know there's some mobile home zoning that's undeveloped in the coastal high hazard area down off State Road 951. And that property would still be allowed to be developed even though it's raw land today, will still be allowed to be developed with a mobile home development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions on Pages 31 or 32? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, if a mobile home park was destroyed in a storm, would it be able to be rebuilt then? Obviously, I guess it would. Based on what you just said it would have existing zoning, but -- MR. WEEKS: Most likely so. The assumption would be that the zoning on the property allows mobile homes to be there. In that case, Page 53 July 30, 2008 yes, it could redevelop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But if this is a health, safety issue, why are we not trying to correct that? I mean, why are we adding or land already zoned? Especially if it's undeveloped, why aren't we making that change? MR. SCHMITT: There's a couple of issues here. One, there is a state statute, I'd have to look it up, that basically prohibits counties from taking away zoned mobile home parks. There's a state law, it's a very strong lobby, the manufactured home lobby. And to answer Brad's question, under civil emergencies there's a rebuild clause, and there's other measures that would go into effect based on a declaration of a disaster. And it does allow for the rebuilding to the existing zoning, previous existing zoning. But the most significant here would be the state statute for this -- any loss of mobile home density or mobile home parks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: But you also have up in Vanderbilt Beach area, have some encroachment into the area. And I remember clearly that when we dealt with that, I'm pretty darn sure that a prohibition was made in there that should any of that fail, through storm or other hazard, that they could not rebuild at the construction line, they had to move back. You know, they were not allowed to be able to rebuild. MR. SCHMITT: Kind of two different issues, but yes-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I recognize that, but the implications are the same, no? MR. SCHMITT: But Vanderbilt Beach has a 75-foot height limit, but there are buildings there in excess of 200 feet and they would be allowed to rebuild back to the 200- foot level. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, maybe I didn't make Page 54 July 30, 2008 myself clear -- MR. SCHMITT: But I know you're talking about a setback line COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm talking about. MR. SCHMITT: They would have -- there would be different variances and other things involved in the coastal construction setback line. We're going down a whole different path-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I don't mean to take us anywhere other than where Commissioner Caron was relating, and I thought she had a very good point. So, okay, if it's not possible, it's not possible. But it seems plausible we should look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Pages 31 and 32? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a recommendation on Section 3.02.09? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved for approval or denial? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Approval, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley made a motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein seconded. Discussion? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question of the Chair. You apparently looked at all the EAR-based amendments to verifY them against these, am I correct in that assumption? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're attached to the back. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I'm going to -- maybe you make the comment each time, but do you concur that this is in conformance with the EAR-based amendment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the motion maker would have to Page 55 July 30, 2008 be the one. But yeah, I went through everything-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, you're the one who went through it, you stated that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But each board member should make up his own mind in the approval of the motion if they concur it's pursuant to the GMP, if they so believe. It's not just up to me. I did read it. I went through -- but see, the difference in what normally happens, I made appointments with staff and went through all my questions earlier, so a lot of the questions I had have already been answered. So if you don't see me asking a lot of questions, because I already had my stuff answered. Anyway, back to -- there's been a recommendation to approve. We called for the motion. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. We'll take a 15-minute break. When we come back, we'll resume on Page 37. And that will be David, I believe. Thank you. Back at 10:15. (Short recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody resume their seats, we can get back underway. We left off with Mr. Weeks. And the next page we're going to is Page 36 -- 37, I'm sorry. Page 56 July 30, 2008 David, it's -- seems simple enough. MR. WEEKS : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you want to talk for a while about how to go from 240 to $270, go right ahead. MR. WEEKS: Not at all. Again, very straightforward change, directly correlated to the change made to the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have a question. When we did those changes to the EAR, it was a while back. The changes that we did to the EAR at the time were based on circumstances at the time, circumstances involving the cost of the land, the cost of construction, the cost of all other kinds of other things. Well, as we know, a lot of items have gone down in price, land in particular. Now we're seeing an increase that we seem to be locked into because we did it in the EAR. And I guess I want to ask the county attorney or whoever would be most knowledgeable is what choice do we have in this matter, and if we have no choice, why are we even discussing it? Because I'm not inclined to feel this is necessarily research under today's pricing, and it concerns me to be giving away the store for higher prices when we may not need to. Can anybody respond to that? MR. KLATZKOW: Your compo plan says 270. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: I would just make the general observation that again, whether we like it or not, agree with it or not, this change and the others immediately following are specifically housecleaning in the sense that they are made to make the LDC conform to what the GMP says. The second general observation I would make is that as market conditions change, and of course any given year things can go up or down, we could -- theoretically we could evaluate this annually. We could be constantly making changes to the level of service standards. Page 57 July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is this in the LDC? Wouldn't this be better in the administrative code or somewhere else so it could be changed without -- I mean, if it's going to be -- MR. KLATZKOW: We don't have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. But isn't -- is this -- if it's going to be done in a GMP, and that's where it's going to be publicly debated, why do we need to keep doing it twice? Because times change so much between the way we bring this forward. Catherine? MS. FABACHER: That was exactly the same comment made by DSAC, that it could either go to the Code of Laws level of service or it could go into the administrative code that we're trying to create for the LDC. But you're right, it does not need to go through this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess the consensus is from everyone we haven't any basis in which to be able to change this today. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we either -- in fact, we haven't any basis to turn it down today. So given all that information, rather than belabor the point, is there a motion -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to say motion to approve this time because that's -- they're telling us that's basically all we can do -- 6.02.05. COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron made the motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 58 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. David, I think we have language cleanup in 39. I hope you don't need to discuss this. MR. WEEKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming everybody read it. Is there any questions on Pages 39 and 40? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron made a motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Page 59 July 30, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was for LDC Section 6.02.06. Let me catch up on my stuff here. We're now on Page 41. And it's one of those same kind of things. COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve 6.02.07. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. I'd like to make it clear that the only reason I'm voting to approve these is because we locked ourselves in by the EAR. Had we known then what we know now, I would think circumstances would have been different. Page 43 and 44 is a similar one -- well, no, it's not -- yeah, it is similar, solid waste. COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve 6.02.08. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray. Motion made Page 60 July 30, 2008 by Commissioner Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Boy, I disagree with some of these. Man, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. Page 45. COMMISSIONER CARON: No choice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 45 is David again. And this one is a correction to take Category A and convert it to reference just all public facilities. Are there any questions, Pages 45 to 48? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, one question I have is when you refer to all public facilities, that takes us out of just Category A then? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. But as a practical matter, it's only those for which we collect impact fees, for which we measure for adequate public facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is everything that we collect impact fees for a measurement at a public facility then? MR. WEEKS: To the best of my knowledge, there is a direct Page 61 July 30, 2008 correlation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on Pages 45 to 48? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to make a comment. On the top of Page 46-A, this is not anything you've made a change on, but that is a very run-on sentence paragraph that you might want to take a look at for the future. Anyway -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I will recommend approval for 10.02.07. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Murray seconded. All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Wolfley stepped out for a moment. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I'm here. I'm just hiding-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're hiding behind Bob, sorry. 8-0. I stand corrected. Okay, we're now into Carolina. Thank you, David. That last presentation was just great. Page 62 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Very informative. MS. VALERA: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with the Comprehensive Planning. Your next amendment is also EAR-based. It's to allow portable workforce housing either by public hearing or by right. I have the tags, the original tags that was amended in the GMP. If you did not have it, I can place it on the overhead, ifneeded. I don't know if you have it in your binder or not. But I do have it here, if you wish to see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, everything's been provided, yeah. By the way, a compliment to staff. Whoever thought of the idea of including these amendments to the back of the package, that was very helpful. It sure saved a lot of time and clarified. COMMISSIONER CARON: Made it so much easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So thank you. MS. F ABACHER: I'd like to acknowledge that it came from Joe, as I told you yesterday, and Susan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was a very good move because it helped -- MS. FABACHER: Constant reminders and threaten of beating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It paid off. It saved a lot of time here and I think it will make the meetings go faster. So thank you. MS. VALERA: One thing you'll see different in this text that you have here in the -- for the LDC amendment is that the last two sentences of the affordable workforce housing bonus by right was proposed to be just a different number, just to make it a bit more understood that it applies both to number one and number two. So that was DSAC's suggestion. And that's the only difference from the original GMP text. One note I would like to make is that the maximum bonus, affordable workforce housing bonus that you may get by right in the Immokalee urban area is eight units per acre. That's because that's the Page 63 July 30, 2008 maximum allowed in the FLUE, in the Future Land Use Element, and in the LDC tables, density tables. The affordable workforce housing bonus by public hearing will allow someone to go to up to 12 units per acre. So that's why you have two different systems and two ways to get affordable workforce housing; one that will be by right and that will allow you to have the maximum allowable by the FLUE and by the LDC, and another one that will let you go beyond that, which is through the public hearing process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to Page 52, if that's all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to take the whole section. So let's just take it altogether and go right ahead -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, then I'll wait until we get done. I thought she was finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no-- MS. VALERA: I am done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going through Page 52, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to, under B of 4, where it says and must deny grant or grant with conditions, what -- I find that curious, grant with conditions, if it's granting it. What are some of those conditions that they might place upon something that they've already said by right? Did you follow where I am? MS. VALERA: Yes. And I'm reading -- is a recommendation. MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, for the record. The answer is we don't know. But we've copied this language from the preceding paragraph. We're writing it to be consistent with the preceding paragraph, which has the very same terminology of approved, deny or approve with conditions. Page 64 July 30, 2008 From an administrative standpoint, I'm not sure what conditions staff would have the authority to impose. MS. V ALERA: Right. It is the same process that we have followed throughout the years for, you know, the process of someone seeking affordable housing through our affordable housing department. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, is it ultimately just a tripping hazard to somebody who wants to go through with the process, or is it something that really is an opportunity for the county to correct something or modifY something that benefits? MS. VALERA: I would believe so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be the intent, right? MS. VALERA: I would believe so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But would it also be a tripping hazard to a project, to somebody who came in with a project and we don't care for some of their behaviors or some of their other things? It says that the county manager can grant with conditions. And I just -- it would seem to me that it's pretty confining. It can be pretty strong, right? Jump through three hoops on the left side on Thursday. If you can't tell me what conditions that you can think of, I'm wondering if it's applicable. MS. VALERA: Again, I mean, this is the same language that we have used. We in the comprehensive planning department, we don't use actually this language, because it's not our purview to, you know, do the -- you know, we don't have this process. This is the affordable housing department. But 1 can certainly find out with them what are some of their conditions that they may impose or have imposed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I know in the past when I've made issue of where the things were not underlined, I was remonstrated that it was not applicable to our project. And here's an underlined group. So I think maybe it is a good thing to go check. Page 65 July 30, 2008 Maybe there are appropriate conditions. But we do hear from the industry arguments about, you know, those people in permitting, they stop us from -- and I see that as a question that potentially could be raised. And ifthere's a viable basis for it, let's go with it. If not, I think maybe -- MS. VALERA: And again, I apologize, I don't know the whole, you know, process -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you find out? MS. VALERA: Sure, definitely. And I also understand that, you know, they have -- they apply to the state. I mean, there are many -- it's a very complex process. But yes, I can find out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Once it's down to the level of the county manager or designee -- which means you, right? MS. VALERA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- then it becomes a question of argument. That's what I'm trying to go into. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think Mr. Murray is right. I had a note on this section as well, because it also -- I mean, it allows you to sort of by the language pick and choose provisions too that you may want to apply to somebody and not apply to somebody. So I think we either need to define the conditions or something needs to happen with this paragraph. MS. VALERA: Maybe they're well defined somewhere else. So I do need to check on that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Question. Do we need to say in that paragraph, do we need to say Immokalee urban area or something so that it -- MS. VALERA: No. I believe these are for -- this process is for any affordable workforce housing that they apply, not just for the Immokalee urban area -- Page 66 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: No, it's by right. So the only place they can do it by right is in Immokalee. MS. VALERA: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: But for future reference, see, you think it's for everybody. So you just proved my point. It needs to state Immokalee in there. MS. VALERA: Well taken. MR. SCHMITT: The LDC is clear by right. It's specific in Paragraph B-2 for Immokalee. All -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand. MR. SCHMITT: -- this does is say that affordable housing by right and then it gives the conditions. But -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand, Mr. Schmitt. But Carolina just proved the point that somebody could -- MS. V ALERA: It doesn't hurt at all to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: To restate it. And there are a couple of other places where it would probably be good to reiterate Immokalee, because somebody will assume it's for someplace else and get tripped up somehow. MR. SCHMITT: I would change it as by right as defined in Paragraph B-2. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure, there you go. MR. SCHMITT: Because the board may at any time want to expand that elsewhere. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. VALERA: I'll have the section referenced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Carolina, back to 4-B. Should the Affordable Housing Commission playa role in this? They theoretically review applications for rezoning, but -- I don't think they do, but -- would they be involved in this process? Page 67 July 30, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: No, they have no involvement in this. That's a nonprofit organization. It is not an entity of Collier County or Collier County government. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean isn't -- the Affordable Housing Commission is actually charged by the commission. Remember, that's the committee that we had to send a planning commissioner to that I went to? I mean, it is a county, it's not a-- MR. SCHMITT: There's the affordable housing advisory committee. That's a different-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the name was changed to -- I think it's been changed to Affordable Housing Commission. I may be wrong. But do they -- the county staff, I mean, who's going to be the one that would review this application? Would it -- shouldn't it go through their, the affordable housing division over there, Marcy and the gang? MR. SCHMITT: It goes Marcy -- MS. VALERA: It goes -- yes, to the affordable housing department, Marcy Krumbine, Director. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would they be the designee we're talking about? MS. VALERA: Yes. She's the director of the housing department, Marcy Krumbine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So she probably would be the designee they're referring to here? MS. VALERA: I would believe so. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I guess I've got a question of Susan. Lucky you, Susan. Page 50, B-2. They're talking about allowing this by right in areas zoned ago in the Estates. And even RSF -I and 2. Those are really low density areas. So someone could buy a five-acre estate lot in the middle of an Page 68 July 30, 2008 estate-zoned subdivision in Immokalee and by right walk in and put in eight units per acre next to someone who has probably lived there like I have in my place, thinking I'm living in a subdivision zoned like me. I think that's wrong. I think that's going beyond what we thought it should. And I would think that from compatibility purposes, I don't even know how we could justifY the compatibility of a project like that in the middle of an estates subdivision, or even in an ago area next to something that isn't as equally dense. Susan, do you have any thoughts on this? I mean, you're basically who we'd be looking to for compatibility analysis. MS. ISTENES: Couple thoughts, yes. First of all, let me just confirm that this is an amendment to implement the EAR-based GMP amendments; is that correct, so -- MS. VALERA: That is correct. MS. ISTENES: And I apologize, I did not compare -- even though I made sure that the GMP was in there, I did not compare this to the GMP. I have no problem admitting to that. But I'm going to assume then the language is -- MS. VALERA: Verbatim. MS. ISTENES: -- consistent with the GMP. Verbatim, okay. Other thing I would point out relative to your concern, Mr. Chairman, is that there's still the requirement to meet all the development standards of the zoning district. So -- and I'll ask David to jump in if I'm not completely understanding this. So if you could have eight dwelling units per acre, you still have to have a minimum of a five-acre lot in agricultural zoning. So I'm not sure what we're achieving here. But I may be missing something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go too far, David, when I read this, that's not where I was reading. And it's not verbatim from the GMP and the EAR, and that's probably why I have the question. Page 69 July 30, 2008 In the EAR, in the language you have in front of us it says, within the applicable areas of the capital M, Mixed, Capital U, Use, capital D, District. Now, we're talking about a defined area. So within the applicable areas of that Mixed Use District, all properties then zoned A, agricultural, E, Estates and RSF -1, 2, and 3 will be provided by right. So first of all, where's the definition of the Mixed Use District and where do those districts occur in the Immokalee urban area? And then only those areas within the Mixed Use District zoned like this would then be applicable for the use by right. Is that the way this reads? MR. WEEKS: Yes. And Commissioners, part of the problem here really is a problem, is that we did not provide you -- we failed to provide you with the GMP language. That's only one of three pages. The language goes on in the GMP to specifY the certain subdistricts. I believe it's in the GMP language that we've identified, because the entire Mixed Use district is not appropriate. We have some that are commercial subdistricts. That would not be appropriate for residential at all. Therefore, it would be silly to say you can have affordable density bonus by right. It simply is not applicable there. But let me back up, in may. There's I think -- that's information you don't have, the full GMP language to make a comparison, and you need that. So we definitely need to continue this item. Aside from the point you -- question earlier that Mr. Murray I think had asked about that we need to check further on. Secondly, this is not the only amendment that's going to be necessary to implement this density by right provision. I say that because it ties right in point I think to the question you've asked. If you go to the various zoning districts that are identified here, and you mentioned agriculture, estates, single-family, the development standards there are in the context for the uses and density Page 70 July 30, 2008 specified in those zoning districts. One unit per five acres, one per two-and-a-quarter, et cetera. And yet, as you accurately pointed out, through this process someone could have approved administratively an eight unit per acre project that in addition to a much larger density it might include multi-family structures versus single-family that's not identified as being allowed in the zoning district. The development standards make no sense, you know, to have the development standard setbacks and so forth for the ago zoning district to be applicable to an eight unit per acre development. The ago zoning district allows barbed wire fences. It allows keeping of farm animals, which again would not be appropriate. We really need to have a second amendment that deals with all of those level of details, which is where compatibility in some manner could be addressed. The timing is such that we're -- the county is initiating this first step in the process. The next step is going to come from the LDC amendments that are initiated by the Immokalee community themselves. As you I think are generally aware, the Immokalee master plan envisioning committee has been meeting for probably two years or so now. They are getting close to submitting their GMP amendments to the Immokalee Master Plan, which will then be followed by Land Development Code amendments. Staffs thought is that through those subsequent LDC amendments submitted by the community, this second part of this process would be addressed. Because they are proposing significant changes to the master plan, which in turn are going to result in significant changes to the zoning regulations for the Immokalee community. So that's where we'll get, if you will, the second half of this amendment to make it implementable. MS. ISTENES: May I offer one more comment as a completion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I have more questions too but I want to get -- is it on my original question, or -- Page 71 July 30, 2008 MS. ISTENES: Yes, on your original question. I didn't finish. And I'm not intimately involved with the Immokalee Area Master Plan, but it seems to me, as a professional planner, if you're going to have agricultural zoning districts and allow eight units per acre, what's the point of having zoning? So I, you know-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I agree with you. MS. ISTENES: -- I'll throw that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think that this should not be coming before us now, it should wait and come as a whole -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- EAR or not. I just think that we're going to end up having to redo this again, because this is just -- it's totally wrong. I mean, I had the same questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we delay an EAR-based amendment to a further future date, depending on -- as you have said, more is coming forward. Do we have to address this in this time frame or can it be delayed? MR. WEEKS: Well, 1 suppose we can delay it. I believe the GMP has language that -- typically we adopt GMP language that says within one year and the next available cycle. But I'd have to assume that the board had the discretion to say no, it's not ready, we're not going to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think in our haste to try to accommodate affordable housing, we didn't think out the inconveniences that are obvious in this one. The compatibility issues here are blatant, and I don't think it would be fair to any community to have this put upon them. MR. SCHMITT: If you recall, we debated this in significant detail during the EAR-based amendment process, the by right amendment, the affordable workforce housing density bonus by right in Immokalee. And it was debated, well -- Page 72 July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Joe, in the decade that the -- I shouldn't say decade, but it seems like it. In the decade that the Immokalee master plan committee has been floating around out there, have they discussed this issue? Because they are the ones that are supposedly representing the community, the community should be participating in. I know how it happened here. There weren't that -- there wasn't representation here, except a handful -- we relied on Mr. Midney who said they need it. And he's right, they do. But I'm not sure everybody thought about the extent that that would envelop, based on the language we see today. MR. WEEKS: My recollection is that Fred Thomas, who's the chairman of the visioning committee and of the CRA, or at least was at that time up here before the County Commissioners in support of this. I can tell you that staff -- for what it's worth, staff did not support this amendment for the very same reasons that you're raising: Compatibility concerns, the lack of public hearing process. But nonetheless, ultimately both this body and the Board of County Commissioners did approve it. MR. SCHMITT: And my recollection is that the planning commission didn't approve this either. MR. WEEKS: Sorry, Joe, but I checked the record and they did. MR. SCHMITT: They did? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For just Paul. Paul insisted that Immokalee needed this. And then we isolated it out so it would only apply to Immokalee. I thought I remembered that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I remembered. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we really-- MR. WEEKS: It was proposed broadly, not isolated, and the decision was made yes, to narrow it down just to Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And without Paul here today it would Page 73 July 30, 2008 be nice that we -- certainly this shouldn't go forward today. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, wouldn't this be cured if you just remove the comma after district? Because what Mark was saying isn't really the intent of the wording of this. It's -- MS. VALERA: I'm sorry, Commissioner, where? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because you -- and first of all, I would capitalize Urban Mixed Use-- MS. VALERA: I'm not sure where you are, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is on Page 52 where this item's written. I think if you got rid of the comma after district, it would be clear that it's only within the district that these zoning categories apply. By having that comma, you start making a list that starts to confuse Mark. You see what I mean, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't confused, I thought I read it right. I think you're confused. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, if you read it the way it is with the comma, it means in the Immokalee district or any other property zoned A-Rural. But if you take the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand what you're saying. But see where it says -- it starts to define where it's to apply. It says Immokalee Urban Mixed Use District. Then it goes to properties zoned. So by using the words property zoned prior to those and after the Mixed Use District, my thought was that if you have a mixed use district defined in the urban area, only within that mixed used district should you have these zonings, then you can apply it. MS. VALERA: That is correct. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the intent. And the problem is the comma after district starts to create a list, which isn't Page 74 July 30, 2008 what you want to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but I-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You should hand out copies of COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mixed Use District property, I think it's the same thing. MR. WEEKS: Excuse me, I don't think -- I think we need the comma just as a matter of sentence structure to provide the break. And I do not think it does any harm. I mean, we were only identifying one single broad location and that is the Immokalee Urban Mixed Use District. Then, as the chairman has stated, then we're saying here's the zoning districts within that one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. That it apply only within that district. MR. WEEKS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It has to be a subset of that district. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do you have a concern with it, Mark, if it is a subset of that district? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my next question. Where is a map that's coming forward from the committee, let's say, or currently that shows us where that mixed use district is within the Immokalee urban area? Then we can know what the impact of all this is. MS. VALERA: And you're absolutely right, Commissioner. They even changed all the zoning district. Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This shouldn't go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And ms. Murray's point is well taken. I mean, if there's ago and we suddenly say there can be eight Page 75 July 30, 2008 units an acre on it, why have ag.? Why have zoning? It really isn't making -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To answer that, Donna, I mean, if they decide in the master plan to put ago in the mixed use district, I don't think they intend for it to be ago I mean, that's the wrong description -- COMMISSIONER CARON: But I'm not sure they've thought it through that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: The mixed use district is already identified on the Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map. This is not some new provision, it's already there. So the geography has already been identified. MR. SCHMITT: And there are ago areas still within that-- MR. WEEKS: Oh, tremendous. In the Immokalee area there's thousands of acres zoned A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Within the mixed use urban area-- mixed use district? MR. WEEKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could it not be subject to rezone CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For -- you know, Ag. A, subject to rezone or something that would -- I mean, not that I think this should go forward today but -- MR. WEEKS: Then it's no longer by right. And that's the whole premise. This is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That doesn't make sense. MR. WEEKS: -- this is such a significant departure. I mean, the status quo, the way it is now, you have to go through a rezoning process where compatibility is addressed, the appropriate density, Page 76 July 30, 2008 infrastructure impacts, the whole ball of wax. This is a radical departure from the status quo. And that's what ultimately the Board of County Commissioners in approving it, I would say, had in mind. And if you might remember, the affordable housing, especially if you go back a couple of years before the present economic conditions, affordable housing was viewed by many as a crisis. And this was one means, one tool in the toolbox as to how to possibly address that critical need. Let's make it easier, let's give certainty to the process, let's make the timing less and the cost less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I talked to a guy who was selling some property in Kentucky a couple years back and I asked him, I said what's your zoning around your property like? He says, what do you mean? I said, what can go up next door to this farm you're trying to sell? He said, let me tell you something, son. This is the United States of America and nobody tells anybody what they can do with their land. Well, this puts us back to that mindset. It puts us back in the Stone Age and I'm real concerned about it, so I don't see it happening today at all. And I'll leave it up to you to determine what you think you can do with it for our next meeting, if that even needs to be. MR. WEEKS: Yeah, I was going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, seems like I have two choices here. Staff go back and answer a few questions, get more information for you, provide you with the GMP language and so forth. But it really seems like many of you are at a fundamental point of it doesn't matter what information you provide us and background, we don't support this. And I would just put it back to you, Mr. Chairman. If the commissioners are not inclined to endorse this, then let that be your recommendation. Page 77 July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only problem I have is -- I have absolute respect for Commissioner Midney. I wish he was here today to talk with us about this because I don't want to do anything kind of not behind his back, because it's in the public, but without his input. So I don't think it would be fair to say no, absolutely without him understanding our reasoning and being part of it. Under that premise alone, I think it would be fair for us to have another conversation over this when we know he's going to be here. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I think Mr. Murray hit a point that I believe was supposed -- was I think implied here, that it was -- and David's right, it was to allow for certainty that you would be able to get by right the affordable housing density bonus. But I believe it did imply that you still had to have it rezoned if it was ago And I think we need to go back and look at that. David, am I wrong? MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry, Joe, but you are. MR. SCHMITT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I didn't understand it that way either. That's what caused the major controversy to begin with, because it could have applied with absolutely no restrictions almost everywhere. . MR. WEEKS: That's why the language in the Immokalee Master Plan explicitly identifies all those different zoning districts that it would apply to: Ag., estates, single-family, RMF-6. MR. SCHMITT: You're going to see one here shortly where Mr. Freeman had to come in and he has to do an amendment from mobile home overlay to single-family residential, which is certainly a significant administrative process. And he's simply replacing what existed on a mobile home site, is now putting basically a stick-built single-family home, and it required an administrative process for rezonmg. I think this is -- if I go back then, that this would -- if somebody Page 78 July 30, 2008 came in for an affordable housing density bonus project, they would just merely get it by right -- MR. WEEKS: That's correct. MR. SCHMITT: -- no matter what the zoning. MR. WEEKS: Purely an administrative process. There's no public hearing, there's no notification to neighbors. It would be a companion to probably an SDP, or the only public venue would be if there were a plat associated with it. But as I think you know, plats are reviewed on a rather technical basis, pipe sizing and lot detentions and so forth, not compatibility, not appropriateness of use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the commission comfortable with this coming back at a future meeting possibly with some further input from you guys and when Commissioner Midney is here? Is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what we'll do with this one then. MS. VALERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now we'll move on to Page 53. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, that is going to be me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was wondering who staffwas. MS. F ABACHER: Generally me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're staff, huh? Okay. MS. FABACHER: Anyway, this is an issue that we had for a project we were working on, you know, what is it, the Ngala. Do you know that; familiar with that one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm familiar with it. MS. F ABACHER: So to permit them in that area, we're just changing the language. It's at the bottom of your spreadsheet, the Page 79 July 30, 2008 change. I'm on Page S on your spreadsheet. We struck out educational, because educational facilities to the school boards means school facilities. And we changed it to cultural, ecological, recreational facilities that provide opportunities for educational experience, ecotourism and agrotourism and their related CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Catherine, before you go too far, you started out by saying that this was being done to accommodate Ngala. So basically I didn't see that in my reading of your reasoning. The reasoning seemed to correct a confusion in reference to education that didn't need to be there because education is a permitted use in the agricultural zoning district, not a conditional use. MS. FABACHER: You're correct. I misspoke. We didn't -- it came to our attention when we were working on that project. I'm sorry, I misspoke. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure we got it right. MS. F ABACHER: That's when we saw that we had a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I understand. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you for that correction. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to approve-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is there a second? By Mr. Schiffer. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 80 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8-0, motion carries. MS. FABACHER: Okay, Commissioners, the next one is on Page 57 and T on your summary sheet. And it's to include or allow -- it's Section 4.02.01, Cherie'. It's to include or allow for the encroachment of unenclosed pool and pump equipment into required yards consistent with staff practice. And right now an air conditioner on a pad can go anywhere in the side yard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would ask that you -- under LDC sections the word principle should probably be changed to A-L, principal. Principal uses as opposed to principle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. It's in 4.02.01, the line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's probably right in the code but it didn't get right in this paper. You see what Mr. Murray's talking about? MS. F ABACHER: I'm on the spreadsheet or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 57, the darkened bold word, the fourth word in on line that starts with 4.02.01. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a simple correction. MS. F ABACHER: All right, I'm presenting but I didn't write it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Catherine, unenclosed. What do you really mean by that? Page 81 July 30, 2008 MS. FABACHER: Thank you for asking. We got a staff clarification on that. And unenclosed means not roofed in this case. Fences and walls were always okay, but housing as in a pump house is not. So unenclosed just means it doesn't have a roof. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the concern I had raised yesterday. Because if it meant walls and fences, actually a lot of communities, their deed restrictions require this for sound purposes to be walled and fenced and all kinds of things. MS. FABACHER: Right. And walls and fences are okay, it's the roof that makes it enclosed, according to staff clarification. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we use a better word and not require clarification? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Completely enclosed? I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We could say not within structures, not within buildings -- buildings would be better than structures. Because putting a wall around something is considered enclosing it, so -- I mean, ifby your intent just say uncovered pool equipment or something and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- then that's better than enclosed but still not the best. MS. F ABACHER: Umoofed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Umoofed would be better. But the intent is that nobody should interpret this to build a building within the setbacks to put the equipment -- MS. FABACHER: To build a pump house, essentially. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Because we consider it a building. So why don't we just say not within buildings or something then. MS. F ABACHER: And not enclosed within buildings maybe? Page 82 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just say -- if you want to, say not enclosed by buildings or something. Within buildings, that's fine. But that's your intent is not to build walls with a roof on it and stick it in there. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. And so they're just trying to make this clear and give people more latitude. There's really no difference between a compressor on a pad and an open pool pump or these other -- what else did you have? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other questions is do we want to deal with generators or did -- whatever happened -- MS. FABACHER: We already dealt with generators. They can only encroach so much and then you need to go -- I think we -- what did we say, Susan, three feet, as I recall? MS. ISTENES: I believe so, in recall. MS. FABACHER: We said we can encroach three feet and if they couldn't get it within the three feet, they needed to go to the back of the house. Just because they're so noisy. And those are permanent generators. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But should we reference that section of the code here? That's kind ofthe point. In other words, because they are allowed within the base design standards. In other words, what somebody would have to do is actually go find generators to see that they too are -- fit into this paragraph, right? MS. FABACHER: Well, I think we have that somewhere else. Unfortunately my computer's not working so I can't search it out for you today, but we have that in another section where it's pretty clear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only thought is maybe in here say, for generators see section such and such so everybody knows. But that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have something? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. The first thing is that what needs to change also in this section is the Table 1 headers. If you cull Page 83 July 30, 2008 them up, they are -- Table 1 gives you headers for height and not for setbacks. So when I looked it up, I'm just telling you, that's a problem on -- that needs to be corrected. I've asked about that. MS. FABACHER: I can give you a history of my trials and tribulations with Municode to fix it. COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand. I just want to reiterate it one more time. I ask about it every time. MS. F ABACHER: I understand. It will be fixed this next supplement, which should be here in about a month, supplement four. But yes, I've written them letters, I asked them to reprint it and they just -- I guess they don't want our business, I don't know. COMMISSIONER CARON: Anyway, the other comment that I want to make is that the section that's referred to starts out by saying that we're going to establish minimums. And then what we go on to do is allow encroachments into minimums. I don't understand the concept of establishing a minimum and then applying 1,000 exceptions, exemptions and encroachments and whatever. It's either a minimum or it's not. And this just gets me to the fact that we're rewriting portions of the LDC to make them clearer. And I don't know, maybe we need to take out the word minimum, because it seems like there is not really a minimum in this county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in regards to this issue, the minimum would be for the structure that's involved. And then you have other things that are not structures such as this that support the structure, and we're establishing minimums and maximums for those in which they vary from where a structure could be. COMMISSIONER CARON: Walls are structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not building-- MS. F ABACHER: No, they're not. Fences and walls are not structures -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that livable building is Page 84 July 30, 2008 where our minimums may apply more -- MS. FABACHER: -- by definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and we have exceptions to that. And Donna, if you want to bring that up as an amendment to the discussion for the LDC at another time, but I'm not sure -- we need to focus on the six or seven words that are written here today to get past it. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's fine. Because I will bring it up. We've had many instances here where that's been the case. And so I'll bring it up and I'll give you lists of specifics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At that point then, the only changes on Pages 57, 58 is instead of the word enclosed, I would assume, Brad, that we would say and pool equipment and well pumps when not enclosed within buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just add one thing, Mark, and it's just for user friendliness of the code. Could we refer generators to the section of code that they are? Because essentially they are within the setback. They really are akin to pool equipment but they do have their own special treatment, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is number nine under D. Does any of the other exceptions reference generators, so we don't be redundant in D-9? Because it may be in D-8 or D-7 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's a good point, you're right. I don't know. But anyway, if it isn't, I think just to make sure somebody knows how to deal with a generator, they -- because if they're in here looking at this stuff, that might be why they're looking for it. MS. FABACHER: I'll have to check on that for you. I'm sorry, I don't remember where we put it last cycle. I really don't. Page 85 July 30, 2008 MS. ISTENES: Yeah, it's not codified yet. So I've got all the ordinances pulled up but -- MS. FABACHER: Right. I can't remember ifit had its own 5.05 section, you know, or something. MS. ISTENES: We can look it up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And do you see what I'm saying, Catherine, it would just be nice to reference it so that -- because you wouldn't somebody to treat a generator the same as this. MS. F ABACHER: I understand. And kind of in answer to you and of course to Ms. Caron's major point, which is a good point, but unfortunately we have this code and these questions come up all the time and they have to be addressed and then they need to be codified -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Catherine, we had a motion on the table. Rather than -- let's just get to the point. And pool equipment and well pumps when not enclosed within buildings. And staff will research the reference to a generator. And if one is not found in an exception area here, they'll put a reference to generators as another item and where to look for it in the code. Is that fair? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a recommendation to approve -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 4.02.01? By Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Move for approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 86 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries 8-0. Page 59, staff again. MS. FABACHER: Okay, once again. This was because of the problem -- you'll recall this is on Page 59 in your book, the problem with the practice, somehow that got started, of allowing accessory uses in the Estates to sit 10 feet off the rear property line. It was a bad interpretation years ago. And now just to set the record straight, I think you see the resolution we put in that the board passed. So we have completely retitled both of our dimensional standards for accessory uses to say in zoning districts other than the Estates so that that won't happen again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron, did you have a -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER CARON: There is a footnote on Page 62. It's footnote number two. Can you show me where on the chart footnote number two is? I think I'm going blind. I can find one, three, four, but I cannot find two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's right up at the title. At the title. And Donna, that's kind of my statement, too -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait a minute. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Next to the word Estates (E) on the top of the table description. Page 87 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: I have no two anywhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Neither do I. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here it is there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, you're looking at asterisk two, not footnote two. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I'm looking at footnote two. In those cases where the coastal construction control line is involved, the coastal construction control line will apply. But that footnote is missing on this chart and it needs to get put back in. MS. F ABACHER: All right, I'll get staff on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't staff take a look and see if-- MR. SCHMITT: It's just a general statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to say where -- if it is to apply or is that just another footnote as a general statement, not necessarily referencing any part of the table. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then it shouldn't be a footnote number two. It's got -- you know, number -- footnote number one is on line three under structure to structure. Footnote number three is on line number four under rear yard setback. Footnote number four is on line 12 under rear yard setback. Footnote number two either shouldn't be a footnote, should be an asterisk or it should apply to a line and it should be noted there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would staff take a look at that-- MS. F ABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and if we need to do an LDC scriveners error in the future, we need to correct it then ifthere's a problem. And if it's a general note, then so be it. But if there's a correction needed, that's another issue for you to take a look at. Is there any questions with the changes made? Mr. Schiffer, then I think Mr. Kolflat had something too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is just maybe another way to handle it. The way you decided to do this is to add to the title Page 88 July 30, 2008 of the table that this doesn't include -- this is every district except Estates? MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why wouldn't we just add Estates as one of the categories and then just put same as principal structure, SPS, in all of those things like we do essentially for the front on most of them? Because here's what you've kind of done is you say go to this table except for the Estates, and then you put a requirement for the Estates, which is the double asterisk. So I think if you just put Estates -- actually, I think to make it real clear, it would be nice if it became the new number one, and then just put SPS in all the categories on both charts. And then that way it's cl ear. Because you're kind of inventing a new way to do it, which is -- and also there could be an argument that here you have a title of a table that excludes something and then you put a requirement for that something within it. MS. ISTENES: I'm not sure I understand the comment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The comment is like, for example, take parking garages, the front setback is SPS. Essentially what we're doing here is we're taking Estates and making all of them SPS. So why don't we just add it in there? MS. ISTENES: Well, it's inconsistent with the organization of the table. The table is just identifying all of the -- MS. FABACHER: Accessory. MS. ISTENES: -- types of accessory uses, not the zoning districts. It's somewhat inconsistent both ways, but I wouldn't want to introduce the Estates zoning in the table when the table just identifies the uses for the structures. I see what you're saying, though. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if we could say all accessories -- in Estates zoning all or something. Page 89 July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either way, I think it makes it clear. I think your format is one that could be selected if done differently. But I'm not sure this format hurts anything. It is referencing accessory buildings and structures. And by putting a zoning district in a table that references accessory building and structures -- MS. FABACHER: It's confusing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'm not sure if -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think if you put in Estates district, it would mean every accessory structure. I mean, because you're under the accessory structures. So what we're saying is in the Estates district, every accessory structure, and then we'll SPS all the categories. MS. ISTENES: I like the addition of the in zoning districts, it's -- that clarifies it. But then you have the exception, which the code is really full of exceptions, as we just discussed. MS. F ABACHER: I kind of see what Brad is saying. It might be possible, I don't know, we'll have to check with staff, but to say all accessory uses in the Estates -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right -- MS. FABACHER: -- instead of-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you could make that clear. MS. F ABACHER: Just put it that way, all -- you know what I'm saying, Susan? MS. ISTENES: Yes -- MS. F ABACHER: And then SPS all the way across. MS. ISTENES: We'll take a look at that, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't staff take a look at that and come back with that one. Any other questions on the Estates ones before we move on to the next? Because staff will have to come back with this. Mr. Kolflat, did you have something you wanted to add? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Are we on Page 59 yet? Page 90 July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The last sentence on Page 59 under A says, accessory buildings and structures must be constructed simultaneously with or following the construction of the principal structure and shall conform with the following setbacks and building separations. Now, this indicates there is no time limit set as far as accessory structure, that it can be constructed a long time after the principal structure. Is this a concern? Is there any reason to have a time limit? MS. FABACHER: I think I know the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. F ABACHER: I think this is to prevent people from building guesthouses and living in them while they construct the principal, primary structure -- primary residence. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to Page 63. MS. FABACHER: Okay, 63, from zoning staff. And this is on Page 63 in your book and on V on your summary sheet. And it says exactly what it says in the description. It just means that for apartment buildings and multi-family buildings, when people move in -- in fact, I live in River Reach -- they don't use a loading dock, they pull up in front of their unit. So some of the review staff said it's ridiculous to require an apartment house or a multi-family building -- unless it's mixed use and has a grocery or cafeteria, it's kind of silly to make them provide a loading zone when the moving trucks just pull up to the door. And that's the genesis of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think in a large tower that's not a good idea. I mean, take a high-rise building, we definitely design loading areas. But I guess if you don't require it, that's -- Page 91 July 30, 2008 MS. FABACHER: Well, this is residential. If you had a high-rise, would that all be residential? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sure. That's what made this county full of people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I mean, I don't know -- if there is a loading zone provided, are they required to use it? That may be a different twist on what you're doing. You're saying that we now provide -- require a loading zone, but nobody uses them. MS. FABACHER: Yes, for all of these many multiple floor apartment units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I guess then is there a need to require it ifno one's using it in any structure? Do you know if they're not using it in the high-rises? Because those vertical towers 20 stories high, where do they unload at? MS. FABACHER: I've never even been in one of those. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I like getting rid of regulations so I think if we dump it, the guys designing the towers would be smart enough to -- MS. F ABACHER: And perhaps we could put something about at the discretion of the County Manager or designee. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why did you bring it up for, Brad, if you didn't care? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Big mistake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's forget Brad mentioned it and go back to -- any other questions? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Can we go back a comment about the principal structures? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page? Page 92 July 30, 2008 MS. FABACHER: We're back at the last amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 63. Are you-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, no, I'm back. It just hit me, something -- MS. F ABACHER: He's back to Mr. Kolflat's comments. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Kolflat's comment. And it was just at the end it was stated that it's to prevent building a guest home first while your principal structure is being built. What was the issue with that again? I missed something. MS. F ABACHER: I'm just speaking from my experience as a planner. The towns I've been in, we did not allow people to buy a big lot, then put together some little something to live in and live on the site while they built the house. We just -- we didn't allow that there, and I have a feeling that that's the case here. MS. ISTENES: It might be somewhat, but I think -- I'll give you maybe a better example, like a boat dock. If you have a vacant lot and you throw our boat dock up and -- I mean, it's not in conjunction with the residential land use, which is -- you're in a residential zone and people expect you're living there rather than turning it into somewhat of a recreational or commercial use. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Let's just take it back to the Estates. You bought 20 acres and you're building a 10,000 square foot home, takes a year, year-and-a-halfto build. There is -- you cannot build a two-bedroom, two-bath guest home to live in while your primary is being constructed? I know it's old language, but I had an issue eight years or whenever and I kind of do now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. You can build -- you can go in with a guesthouse but call it your primary residence. You get it built and then build a primary residence, it becomes your main house. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, exactly, that was my-- Page 93 July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's nothing wrong with -- this doesn't stop that. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, at the end of the day, as long as the two structures meet the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The percentages. MS. ISTENES: -- the percentages in the standards, yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right, all right. I understood it and I was incorrect. Okay, thank you. Now let's go back to 63. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 63. Any other comments on the Estates that's going to have to come back, so we'll go on to -- I'm sorry, we passed that, we're on Page 63, which is the multi-family dwellings. Mr. Schiffer has reconsidered his comments and we're not going to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion to approve, and that is for LDC Section 4.05.06. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded it. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Any opposed? Page 94 July 30, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8-0, motion carries. We're going to Page 67. MS. F ABACHER: All right, that's me again. We lost the applicability to require during recodification -- let's see, let me check on Page 67 here. We're on 67. And what we lost was CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go, does anybody have any questions on Pages 67 and 68? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I do, and it's regarding the number of bicycle parking spaces. I was just -- when reading through this, I was wondering if it shouldn't be a greater percent, due to the fact, you know, the oil and gas. I know it's not a major urban area and people don't ride their bicycles to work much, but I was just curious about that percentage. Where did that come from? And should it not be a greater percentage? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's asking about where did the percentage come from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, this is language brought forward that was in the existing code before we recodified. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is current law, it is current language, it just got misplaced. How much is that open for discussion today? MS. FABACHER: Well, I'd like to say that the LDC -- LDR sub-committee of DSAC wanted us to rewrite the whole section on bicycle parking and redesign all of that. And we just didn't have the staff time and suggested that they form a work group, if they want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well that doesn't answer my question. MS. ISTENES: Let me make a suggestion. I would suggest you Page 95 July 30, 2008 all just look at this language and decide to approve it or not. And then if you want to revisit that issue, I think it's a great point, maybe make a suggestion that staff look at it for next cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just as Ms. Caron is making a list of things that she believes we should look at, Mr. Wolfley, I suggest that you approach it that way. Because this is just bringing language back in that was missed in the recodification. Ifwe want to now change that language, it may take a different process to go through to get there, not something we could accomplish today. So -- MR. KLA TZKOW: There is a minor change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. KLA TZKOW: There is a minor change. And that is the old one just applies to parking for commercial developments and here we're saying it's voluntary within all the zoning classifications. And that is an addition. Now, it may be true but it's still an addition. MS. ISTENES: Where is that, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: That's your change. It says voluntary within all other zoning classifications. MS. F ABACHER: Page 68, Susan. MR. KLATZKOW: Whereas Page 67, the old title simply said, bicycle parking for commercial developments. So if all we're going to do is just put in the omission -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, why are we adding that language? I agree with Jeff, either we're going to -- how was this advertised, as a recodification move, or was it as a change to the code? MS. F ABACHER: It was advertised as amending Section 4.05.08, bicycle parking requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then Mr. Wolfley is correct then. It does opens it up for a complete discussion if that's the way it was advertised, I would imagine. Page 96 July 30, 2008 MS. ISTENES: Well, that's the way they're all advertised. So it's -- yeah, to answer your question specifically, certainly it was just a recommendation that maybe we bring this back later. Because this isn't a topic that has been vetted through DSAC, you know, and I think we ought to give them the opportunity to at least look at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What hasn't been vetted through DSAC? MS. ISTENES: A proposal to increase the number of bike parking spaces. Mr. Wolfley's suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: But aside from that, I don't look favorable upon a discovery of introduction to something that we're being led to believe is a complete move from A to B position. That doesn't give us a whole lot of -- I don't know that it was done intentionally. Maybe it was done intentionally with the idea that it would be logical. But if it's a change, it's a change. MS. ISTENES: Right. It's not stated in there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not stated in there. It needs to be if it's going -- MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, did you have something? MS. FABACHER: Well, my comment was, I think the thinking was it's not mandated, it's just voluntary. And the point is to say if you want to go ahead and build it in something other than commercial, we'd like you to use these standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, we don't have anything brought into the code now involving this issue. So we're trying to bring something in. Something in regards to Mr. Wolfley's concern is better than nothing. Mr. Wolfley wants to increase that something, which may not be a bad idea. But if all we're doing is bringing it over to get something initiated so we have something in the code to fall back on, I think Mr. Page 97 July 30, 2008 Klatzkow's point is very well taken, we shouldn't be adding language to it. And if we want to change it and modifY language, then we need to come back with the studies and go through the process to do that. So I certainly think we ought to strike the words after developments in A. MS. F ABACHER: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it wasn't -- it's not put forth as that. And as far as any changes in quantity, out of fairness to other agencies, other committees, I think it would have to go back to them for discussion, which means we need to bring that back at a different time if it's so determined to be needed in the future. Mr. Wolfley, does that get you to where you understand? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, is there any other comments other than dropping the words after developments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion then with that stipulation to recommend approval for 4.05.08? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, we will see that again, though? We will see that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We won't see it again unless at a future cycle -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But a courtesy copy could be provided to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's back up then. Mr. Murray, let me understand what you're asking so I understand what you're trying to get to. In Page 68, Item A where the word developments is in bold, Page 98 July 30, 2008 there would be a period and the rest of that would be stricken. Is that what you want to come back to you? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I want to see a document. My concern was is that we had a modification that was made and this thing was given to us as though it had come directly from the past. I think as a courtesy when it's changed to where it should be what it was, we ought to be able to see that. Just as a courtesy. We don't have to act on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but I just want to make sure I understand your -- if you think there's more coming out, I want to know so we understand the motion. Just the period after the word developments and the striking of those seven words. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have a problem with any of that. I'm just asking for when that's done give us a copy so we see that it's done, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just didn't know if you thought there was more out of it than that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was there a motion or is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make the motion to approve based on what you've said and request a courtesy copy for myself of the finished product. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 99 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you -- anybody oppose? Nobody opposed; 8-0. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, what's the format that caused this whole section to be reevaluated? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess at some point someone has to bring it up. We can have an old business or new business discussion at the end of one of our agendas and we can discuss it and then see ifthere's enough people who feel that it's warranted and then go into that kind of issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, Joe, if we want to initiate a Land Development Code change, I would suggest that we do so with the consensus of the Board of County Commissioners so staff isn't wasting time on something the board doesn't want us to waste time on. Is that a fair assumption, or not? MR. KLATZKOW: You can make-- MR. SCHMITT: The planning commission can make any recommendation or recommend to the staff to bring back any LDC amendment. And that change would be treated like any other staff-initiated LDC amendment. It would come to the board as a proposal from the planning commission. Unless you so direct, we would take the section and we could bring it to the board and say this is what the planning commission Page 100 July 30, 2008 wants to amend and ask the board for permission to amend it. Is that what you're asking? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was thinking of staff time. I mean, we could have -- we could get really involved in something only to find out that the BCC never really wanted us to go there in the first place and it would be a waste of staffs time to produce it. If it's not an issue, then that's great, we can just go ahead move forward. I just wanted to make sure we're not wasting time of staff. MR. SCHMITT: Statutorily you have every right to direct staff MR. KLATZKOW: Right-- MR. SCHMITT: -- to propose an amendment to the LDC -- MR. KLATZKOW: You've got that right. But to save your time, Joe, I think Mark makes a good point. What we can do is you can make a recommendation to the board that an LDC amendment go through, we can put it on consent. And then if the board doesn't have an issue with it, you can spend staff time. If the board thinks it's a bad idea, you just saved staff time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. We never want to be in a position where we're usurping or making it appear that we are in opposition of . the board. So I feel a lot more comfortable if the board kind of blessed what we did so that we're not going out of line. MR. SCHMITT: That puts you in a position where you don't appear to be making policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a very good way to do it then. Thank you, Mr. Klatzkow. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just on that, though. But one problem is the board may not fully understand what we're thinking. Wouldn't it be okay if we had a volunteer off of the commission to Page 101 July 30, 2008 actually do the -- prepare the amendment? I mean, it's not that difficult to -- you just follow the format -- MR. SCHMITT: That would do is what Jeff said. You tell us what we're going to change, even if it's a recommended change, and we would put it into the board in executive summary saying this is what the planning commission proposes and this is what they want to change and why. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the only thing I'm afraid of is like, let's say take this issue, the planning commission wants to change the bicycle ordinance. So now we've got the Board of Commissioners saying why do they want to change it. So to properly do that we have to come up with a good -- you know, I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we should before we request staff to waste time. We ought to have a good reason. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what I'm saying is an alternate way might be is if we actually did the staff preparation of the amendment and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think, Brad, you don't want nine different people writing things. That won't work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, one person could volunteer. But anyway, move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 69. This is Bruce. Welcome. MR. McNALL: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Bruce McNall, Landscape Architect, Zoning and Land Development Review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, before you go too far, does anybody have any questions on Pages 69 through 74? It's a massive scrivener's error, striking out one, bringing in another. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one comment-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and maybe it's a question. On Page 69, Bruce, under B-1, there's an awful lot of bold type. Page 102 July 30, 2008 And it's my understanding that we use bold type ordinarily to reflect what's a defined word or words in the LDC. By putting this in bold, have we gone away from, have we departed from what that procedure had been? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: I think I can answer that for you, Commissioner. We copied it from folio views. And you'll find many times in Municode online or in their folio view version they'll turn on the bold for the word and then forget to turn it off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to answer Mr. Murray's question, though? Do we need it all in bold or not? MR. KLATZKOW: It's not in bold. When it gets -- you're not changing anything and the LDC is not in bold. This will not be in bold. You're absolutely right. It was just when they cut and pasted it, it got the bold. MS. F ABACHER: They picked it up from folio view. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions between Pages 69 and 74? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, one more I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under three on Page 71, we use per current FDOT design standards. I'm just wondering, what occurred to me, always trying to figure out what the right way to do something. Current. What would be a problem with current? There have been in the past -- MR. McNALL: Well, current, I believe what-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's an interpretation issue -- MR. McNALL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I think it is. MR. McNALL: And I believe that the FDOT manual is being Page 103 July 30, 2008 updated. And so we're talking about the current standards, the current approved FDOT standards. I think that's what that word means. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would it be inappropriate to put a parenthetical next to that providing a date of the current standard? MR. McNALL: Well, if it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because if the standard changes MR. McNALL: -- if the document's being constantly updated, then what's current? I mean, what's current is the latest publication. I guess you could say the latest publication of the FDOT standards? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I appreciate that. And I think, you know, I understand, and I don't try to make it complicated. But I was trying to figure out if everybody's on the same page, as they like to say, and a current FDOT standard is clear, because it's their standard and we would always relate to that. So it would never be a situation where a planner or a person of responsibility would pull out of their desk a then current two years ago standard and relate to that -- (Mr. Adelstein leaves the room.) MR. McNALL: I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and have a problem. MR. McNALL: Makes perfect sense. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it makes sense to me, it may not to anybody else. MR. McNALL: The current updated latest edition version of the COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understood your intent. I was just trying to figure out, as we typically try to do a better job of being more exacting, and I thought perhaps, just perhaps we might put a parenthetical and indicate the last standard. Because people do tend to hold on to documents and sometimes that creates a problem. But if this board doesn't feel that way, that's fine, too. Page 104 July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any concerns about the word current? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else through Page 74? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation for Section 4.06.03? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded. Discussions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Make the record note that Mr. Adelstein had to leave. We're on Page 75. MR. McNALL: Okay, this proposed amendment would exclude cypress as a source of mulch. Page 105 July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on Page 75 and 76? Bruce, I'm going to help you move through this because a lot of this is so simple, hopefully we don't need the presentation too much. MR. McNALL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to approve. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Move on to Page 77. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Kolflat, the one time you had a good jump on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's really just a point of information. Bruce, is that true that if you have drip and bubbler, you're not -- there's no restrictions on your ability to water? MR. McNALL: That is exempt from the South Florida Water , Page 106 July 30, 2008 Management District restrictions, water restrictions, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's reward enough. MR. McNALL: Low pressure. Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Murray now has a-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 78 under the next to the last paragraph where it says all trees, begins all trees shall be irrigated. The last sentence there, it says it is recommended that turf areas be minimized where possible to promote water conservation. Well, that's a good suggestion but does it belong in the code as a recommendation? Does it have any force of law or any purpose other than as a recommendation? MR. McNALL: No, it does not, you're correct. It's merely a suggestion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't have a-- MR. McNALL: Hopefully it will be taken literally to reduce turf areas, which are the highest maintenance of all landscape. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So a planner sitting down with a developer would not, as the developer sometimes like to say, be strong armed by somebody who says look, it's highly recommended, you know. So it's not a force of law and it's just an issue? I wonder if recommendations like that should be put into a parenthetical or some other form, maybe. I don't know. That's an issue that I have anyway. It may not be an issue anybody else has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bruce, isn't the concern is that turf can't be watered by a bubbler or drip system? MR. McNALL: No, turf typically is watered by the conventional method of a sprayer or a rotor system, which is the most inconsistent and water-consumptive method. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And isn't governed by the water restrictions. So aren't you kind of just reminding everybody of that? Page 107 July 30, 2008 MR. McNALL: Basically. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat made a motion to approve. Does that still stand, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer seconded it. And that was for Section 4.06.05. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Move on to Page 79. And this is -- thank you, Bruce. We're going back to staff now. You must not be staff. Go ahead. MS. F ABACHER: I'm afraid that's me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MS. FABACHER: We were asked by our staff and also the building -- the sign review staff to -- but we have no provisions. If you have a nonresidential use in a residential district, which could be an Page 108 July 30, 2008 ALF, a hotel, any number ofthings, a hospital -- well, not hospital, but a church, there are no provisions for them to have signs in a residential area. So what we've done is add this small number 8 into the sign code as permitted -- well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions through Page 83? Page 79 through Page 83? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, on that question of four feet height, does that four feet include the pole if it's a pole sign? MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So you could have a pole that's three feet and a sign one foot high, for a total of four feet. MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's all I want to know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question for clarity on Page 83 in small ii. Under A it says, such signs shall follow the requirements for signs within non-residential district except as follows. I just want to be clear on this. Commercial signage for conditional uses within residential and agricultural districts. And I have to be honest, I went around and around and around trying to figure out what the heck that meant. That may be very clear to anybody else, but I'm still not catching it. MS. FABACHER: Well, it just means that you don't automatically get to use these signs because it's a conditional use. And then the signage will be determined as a condition of that conditional use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm still not clear, but okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: But -- Page 109 July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- only if it's a conditional use. MS. F ABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: What about PUD's that have-- MS. F ABACHER: They wouldn't have a conditional use, so they would follow -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever the PUD said. MS. FABACHER: -- the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Most PUD's have their own sign section. COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I was like Mr. Murray, I was confused on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, are we all-- any other questions on -- from Page 79 to 83? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion for Section 5.06.02? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. Page 110 July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 7-0. Move on to Page 85. MS. F ABACHER: Okay, Page 85 is -- you can see with -- on 86, you can see what the old language was, and it was very confusing. I'm on Page 86, I'm at small Roman numeral v under B. And it was just very hard to enforce this. The sign shall be located within 1,000 feet of the intersection of the arterial roadway. Well, it was -- I maybe have to ask Susan to help me out on this, but it was giving us fits -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see if we need some help first. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to say, I think you're missing a word in v. It should be, the sign shall be located no more than 1,000 feet from the property serving the building structure or use. We're missing the word from or some connecting word here. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, yeah, we found that at one of the earlier meetings, we just hadn't changed it yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yesterday morning. MS. F ABACHER: No, no, no, at a DSAC meeting that just hasn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions through Page 86? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's to approve Section 5.06.04? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ms. Caron. Any discussion? Page III July 30, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7-0, passed. We're on to Page 87, and that one would be through Page 90. Staff again. Those people keep popping up. MS. FABACHER: Well, this was something -- you know how we always have so many omissions. I think this was pulled out of the LDC during a recodification, 04-41, because it was intended to go in at administrative code. And when we do create our administrative code, we will be putting it in that section. That's why it was taken out, and the administrative code, you know, was never constructed. So for the time being, staff asked that this be put back for now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions, Pages 87 through Page 90? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to recommend approval for Section 8.03.08? COMMISSIONER CARON: Motion to approve 8.03.08. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 112 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 7-0, passes. Pages 91 through 102 are off to some time in the future. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: They're gone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're on Page 103 then at this point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My 103 is still-- well, maybe it's the way it printed in my machine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 103 is-- MS. FABACHER: The beginning of the 4.02.27 overlay -- I mean the State Road 29-A in Immokalee -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, transportation. MS. FABACHER: -- and transportation staff is here to address this. MS. KOEHLER: Good morning. Lisa Koehler, for the record, transportation planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far, does anybody have any questions on Pages 103 and 104? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to say I'm not sure you need to have do have. You either have it or -- I think you can eliminate a word there. MS. KOEHLER: I'm sorry, where? COMMISSIONER CARON: Parcels that have a minimum. It Page 113 July 30, 2008 doesn't have to say do have a minimum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 103-A. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 103-A. MS. KOEHLER: And I have one change at the top of Page 104 where it says directly access. To could be stricken. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, where was that again? MS. KOEHLER: At the top of Page 104. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The word to, right? MS. KOEHLER: Yeah, the word to. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Directly access -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Access -- MS. KOEHLER: T-O. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so on Page 103, Ms. Caron was suggesting striking the words parcels that have instead of -- so strike the word do; is that correct? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. MS. KOEHLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Page 104 you want to strike the word to. These are -- two letters here all the time. Anything else? MS. KOEHLER: And I have one more. At the bottom, and it was -- the recommended changes by DSAC was to strike the word provided and it just didn't get struck through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell us where? MS. KOEHLER: On D-2. So it says deceleration and acceleration lanes shall be consistent. The word provided should be stricken. MS. FABACHER: If! could say, this was at the July 9th DSAC, and you'll note that most of these changes are listed, but we gave you your book on July 9th, so we anticipated that we would give you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a problem, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: Okay. I'm just saying-- Page 114 July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Pages 103 and 104? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve with the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve section 4.02.27. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Now we'll move to Page 105. Lisa, before you -- may I ask you one question? Do you have any changes to 105 or 106? MS. KOEHLER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on Pages 105 and.l 06? This is a massive change. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray Page 115 July 30, 2008 to approve 4.03.08. Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One point. Please, can there be something added in the future that allows staff to make these kind of corrections? All you did is change it from Ordinance No. 93-63 to 203.37. And it sure seems like a lot of effort to go to just for something that could be corrected so simply. Anyway, that's my comment. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Lisa, this will be your easiest day. And you know why? Because Nick isn't here. You can tell him I said that. MS. KOEHLER: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 107 and 108. Do you have any corrections, Lisa? MS. KOEHLER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on Page 107 to 108? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Page 108 at six you use the word public and private streets, and I'm not really sure what public Page 116 July 30, 2008 means if it's not something the county has responsibility for. MS. KOEHLER: Well, A public street would be something that's open to the public versus private, which would be behind perhaps a gated community in a PUD. So a public -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Public would be something that's open to the public. Well, you know, under adverse possession rules and other rules where you can go across property and if you continue to do that for a year or whatever the law is here in Florida, it becomes a right-of-way, a common right-of-way, common use. So I don't understand the public there. MR. SCHMITT: For clarification, a gated community doesn't necessarily mean a private road. You can have a public road on a gated community. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I would see any common use road there, right, is that what you mean? I want to be sure I'm clear on this, that's all I'm trying to be. MR. SCHMITT: CDD is a -- we get into the whole discussion of CDD and public roads. But you can have a gated community and still have a public road. Pelican Marsh, the road from Airport to 41 is a public road. It's a gated community, they can stop and ask you for identification, your license or whatever because it's maintained privately. But it is a public road because it was funded through municipal bonds. So we get into that whole debate. But it is a public road. It's publicly accepted and approved by the county but privately maintained. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The PUD's would then have excluded the responsibility of Collier County from maintaining that? MR. SCHMITT: Not necessarily all of them. That depends on the zoning. . COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So my question has relevance here because we're using -- I think what we're trying to do is fine, Page 117 July 30, 2008 that's not -- I have no objection to that. Where my concern comes from is the use of the term public which can be, as I just pointed out, there may be some issues there. For instance, if! wanted to go into Pelican Marsh, I cannot go. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, you can. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure you can. MR. SCHMITT: You certainly can. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I was precluded because they have gates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. A COD, you cannot be kept out ofa CDD, Mr. Murray, you're allowed to go into any CDD in Collier County . COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, Verona Walk has a CDD and you can't go in there unless you identify where you're going and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, that's illegal, they cannot ask you that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know it's illegal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then go in. Honestly, a CDD cannot stop you from entering on a public highway. That's not-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can't do it. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- but I know what de facto conditions are and I think you do too, so -- MR. SCHMITT: They do not have the legal authority to stop you or to prevent you from going in. You can go in, they can ask for your insurance card, they can ask for your driver's license, those kinds of things, but it is not a restrictive community, per se. It's a public road. It was funded with public funds. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, in the event that this is passed, which it probably will be, and they are required to maintain those roads, does that -- do they still remain public roads? MR. SCHMITT: The language is to clarify that they're privately Page 118 July 30, 2008 maintained. That's the intent of the language, to ensure that they understand that this is a privately maintained roadway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Even though it's a public road. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: So everybody's clear, let's take the Vineyards as an example and Vineyards Boulevard. Now they're grandfathered so this doesn't affect them, but if you had a substantially similar development, Vineyards Boulevard would then be maintained by the homeowners associations, not the county. It would be a public road the people would have the right to transverse on, but the actual maintenance of that road would be the responsibility of the homeowners associations. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So if at any time gates were removed for whatever reason, the homeowners -- MR. KLATZKOW: This has nothing to do with gates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing to do with gates. MR. KLA TZKOW: What I'm saying is that when a new development is going in and they're putting in roads and those roads are public, it is that development that maintains those roads, not the county . MS. KOEHLER: Perhaps an example-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I appreciate. I do understand all of the -- I was trying to root it out further to see if we had a potential later on for associations to get banged for high maintenance because of public use -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, that's what this is about. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would have thought that the county -- and I know the county is shy on dollars, but I would have thought public access, public routes should be borne by the public for the expense of maintenance for vehicles and transportation using the public road. Suppose at a later time we put a bus route through it. Page 119 July 30, 2008 MS. KOEHLER: Well, and I think that we tried to address that with DSAC's concern. They added -- if you'll see in your amendment the shaded area in grey is what the amendment suggestion was by DSAC, which they added that this could be excepted by the BCC. If there is an exceptional reason why a roadway should benefit the public or will benefit the public, the BCC can make the decision that the county take that over and maintain it. So there is that option in this amendment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll remain quiet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, regarding this item six, is the standard and level of maintenance determined by the owner, the county or the developer under what condition? I mean, what kind of standard of maintenance is established and who is responsible for that? In other words, is it a tar covered road, could it be a gravel road? MS. KOEHLER: There are standards for how you have to build a public or private road. And really, the big difference is that there is less subgrade on a private road than there is a public road and an additional inch of asphalt. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And those standards are established by who, the county? MS. KOEHLER: I believe, Mike, and correct me if I'm wrong, those are in the right-of-way handbook? Yes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just -- sort of a comment. Do you think this action is going to cause more gated communities from the get-go? I mean, why, if the homeowners association has to pay for the maintenance would they want to have their roads open to the public? MS. KOEHLER: That interconnection primarily serves the residents of those communities. COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand, for the most part. Page 120 July 30, 2008 MS. KOEHLER: And so I think you're still going to find that developers are going to put those cut-throughs in or those interconnections through. And from what I'm told, we're already seeing some developments doing that, and the homeowners are going to be maintaining those interconnections. So I don't think you're going to see -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we're requiring those interconnections is what we're doing, not -- MR. SCHMITT: Your question probably was decided by the developer long before any homes were even built. It depends on how the developer funded that infrastructure in many cases. COMMISSIONER CARON: You're right about that, if it's a CDD, yeah. MR. SCHMITT: If it's a CDD, then that inherently creates the requirement that they are public roads. You can still have a CDD and fund some infrastructure with a CDD and have a privately built, privately maintained road. There are areas, there are communities that have that as well. So I guess what I'm saying is those decisions were probably made long before the development even had the first home built. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- if Treviso Bay, which has a TPC course and is going to have some kind of a tournament, that's a CDD road, so everybody and his brother can come up to that gate and say I'm going in. That's the net effect of that particular issue. MR. SCHMITT: Again, they can control access. If it's a tournament and if it's an event, I'm not debating that. I'm just saying, I don't know how Treviso Bay funded the roads back in -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: CDD. MR. SCHMITT: But the CDD may have not funded the roads. Page 121 July 30, 2008 The roads may be privately built, privately maintained. You'd have to look at the plat and we'd have to determine that through the zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, for example, Bay Colony in Pelican Bay is a CDD. But Bay Colony's roads were not paid for by the CDD, just the utilities ~ere. So what happens is they can restrict the public because the surface that you drive on is what's got to be paid for by the CDD. And if the CDD has paid for that surface and the roads are owned by the CDD, they also maintain them, but they also are open to the public because they used fund public bonds to finance those roads with, and that's why it's open to the public. So any CDD in the county, as long as they paid for the roads and not just the underground piping, then those roads have got to be accessible to the public and the public has to be let in. They can simply ask for an I.D., take your driver's license number and the license of your car and they have to let you through. And you don't have to tell them where you're going. They can tell you where you're allowed to go by telling you what are CDD roads and what are not, but that's the limitations that they're restricted to. So -- if that helps clarify the matter. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it certainly helps me as a planning commissioner. But I don't think it does a bit of good for anybody who's the average citizen in terms of what they want to do. But that's okay, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it anymore. MR. SCHMITT: This is a point of confusion in many, many communities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, as far as the most of the item goes, number six, Lisa, the only concern I had with it, I think it's a good idea but we have item -- places like Vineyards. Say the Vineyards was coming along now. That interconnection that they were required to have between Pine Ridge and Vanderbilt was a good public benefit. Page 122 July 30, 2008 The public would be allowed to use it, say they're required to use it and it had to be an interconnection that we demanded. Even though the public uses that to the extent they do, the residents would be responsible for all the upkeep on that road. Is that what this would mean? MS. KOEHLER: That is what it would mean. Again, unless it was shown that it was going to be significantly used by the public, in which' the BCC could accept that and take it over as maintenance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they went forward with their PUD and said our traffic counts show that 40 percent of the roadway would be used by the public, therefore, 40 percent of the maintenance costs ought to be allocated by the county, that's something the BCC could make a decision on? MS. KOEHLER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fair. Anybody else have any questions or concerns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion regarding Item 4.07.02? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made a motion to approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley seconded. Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. Page 123 July 30, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray opposes. Item passes 6-1. Before we go into the next item, we have 10 pages to finish up. It's 11 :50. We can move through them pretty fast. We've either got to take a break for 15 minutes or we take a break for lunch for an hour and then we come back and finish it up. What's the preferences of this board? MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry, because we had lost those first 10 pages, Stan is here, and staffs prepared to go a few more pages on Stan's amendments. I'm just saying we also have that too -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, but when members of the public called me, I specifically told them we would be stopping at Page 120. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And honestly, that's 20 pages past what you had wanted to stop at. And I don't think we should take a chance on people not showing up because we told everybody we'd be to 120. And I had told many people that. MS. F ABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that in mind, what does this board want to do for the next 10 pages? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Get 'er done. COMMISSIONER CARON: Take 15 now and go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Because the last time I made that choice, we ended up being here for two hours. So we'll come back here at five minutes after 12:00 and resume. (Short recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from our short lunch. Hopefully we'll blow through this in a short period of time. Page 124 July 30, 2008 We're on Page 109. And Lisa, do we have any -- do you have any changes to Page 109 or 11 O? MS. KOEHLER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions from the commission on Pages 109 and 11 O? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that pursuant to Section 6.02.02-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 6.02.02. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and 6.02.03? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And 603, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. We're on Page 111. Lisa, do you have any changes? You notice I'm asking you this each time now to be careful. MS. KOEHLER: This is the one that I think you've continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 111 to 114 have been pulled. Is that a future date or is it pulled for good? Page 125 July 30, 2008 MS. F ABACHER: No, no, no for a future date, because we had a late revision from DSAC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on Page 115 and that goes to Page 116. Lisa, do you have any changes? MS. KOEHLER: No changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions from the commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Lisa, on Page 116, 3-A and B, why are you pulling those out of the requirements for updated drawings? MS. KOEHLER: That was at the recommendation ofDSAC. Those were basically the number of counts of units, and we're going to continue to do those. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, so wouldn't -- I mean, is there any reason not to have that information to track? I mean, the answer I was looking for, it's someplace else. Is that true, do you think or-- , MS. KOEHLER: Well, staffwill continue -- or I guess we'll be responsible for looking at that, the number of units that have been built and left to be built out. So we will not be asking that from the applicant. And that was just at the request of the DSAC members. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, in the square footage also. So you'll be the one keeping that tabulation? MS. KOEHLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you'll be basing it on permits as -- MS. KOEHLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the information's not dropped, it's just in your hand, not the -- MS. KOEHLER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- owner's hands. Page 126 July 30, 2008 MS. KOEHLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, on Page 116, item 3-A, it says all on-site or off-site infrastructure. Shouldn't that be all on-site and off-site? And instead of or? MS. KOEHLER: Well, maybe it's and/or. It would -- you might have off-site in some cases and only on-site. So we can certainly -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But you could have both too. MS. KOEHLER: You could. So maybe we just add the word and. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And/or. MS. KOEHLER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On that Page 116, it's probably pretty simplistic, but on item under G, both one and three, we use the term latest in one and we talked about up-to-date drawing in another. Just make me comfortable by telling me you keep a log or some other journal that reflects what in fact are the most up to date. How is that obtained or verified? MS. KOEHLER: Well, we're currently -- I can't really speak to the past, and maybe somebody else can, but I do know that we have -- are in the process of implementing a computer tracking system which is going to log all those commitments and have the most recent or the up-to-date PUD or ordinance with those commitments. I would say previously I would suspect that they would be in the files and that would be up to the planner -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But we are going to increase our capability by reliance on a system that works more effectively. MS. KOEHLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That's all I really was concerned about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 127 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm going to go back to Mr. Schiffer's questioning of3-A and B and why they're coming out. Why would you as staff want to add that responsibility when it was to be provided to you? Why -- MS. KOEHLER: Why would we agree to take it out? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. I don't understand the reasoning. I mean, I understand why DSAC might want it, because that's one less thing for them to have to do, but I don't understand staff going along with that recommendation. MS. KOEHLER: I think it's because we do it now and I think with the computer tracking system, and we thought that we would be able just to do it as easily. And so for purposes of just moving the amendment along, we do it currently and can continue to do that. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you've been doing it right along. MS. KOEHLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that's -- MS. KOEHLER: So, you know, certainly if you want it to be added back -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No need. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I think that's fine, if that's what you've been doing. MS. KOEHLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, on Page 116 again up at the top under G, you deleted a registered engineer as a requirement there, just have an applicant. Why was that done? Why would you have a non-resident (sic) engineer? MS. KOEHLER: I think the feeling was that an engineer didn't need to certify and put their license to the certification, that the applicant who is submitting that application could certainly certify that. And so we didn't need a registered engineer to do that. Page 128 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You don't feel that you need the quality or the technical experience if an engineer were registered. MS. KOEHLER: We feel we'll get adequate information from the applicant. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, when you accept SDP's, do you accept them from non-professionals? They have water management in them, they have dimensions in them, they have street design in them, they have piping designs in them. MR. SCHMITT: No, all SDP's have to be -- submitted have to be stamped and sealed by a registered design professional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had the same question that Mr. Kolflat had. I think it would be absolutely wrong to make the submittal the responsibility of the applicant for those documents. The engineers do those. And the fact they put their professional license on the line is why those things will be done correctly. An applicant, and we've had plenty of them in this town that are here for a few minutes and leave. They don't care as much. And the professional's here all the time and his license is on the hook. So I strongly recommend we strike the word applicant and put in the word a registered engineer as originally provided to this -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with that. MS. KOEHLER: That's fine. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, there was a lot of discussion and a lot of -- Stan got a lot of e-mails, I wish he hadn't left, from all of the registered engineers, and they're not willing to sign an affidavit assuring that certain developer commitments have been completed. They don't think that's within the scope -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stop, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Read G-2, and tell me where it says an engineer in that sentence. It says a notarized affidavit from the owner Page 129 July 30, 2008 or agent. It doesn't say engineer there. I suggested changing -- taking the word applicant out of G and putting in a registered engineer. G-2 says you're looking for a notarized affidavit from the owner/agent. Doesn't say engineer. I agree with your concern, and that's why I think it fits. Because the engineers are the ones that submit the SDP's and those documents, and the owner/agent can certify the PUD agreements, because that's their responsibility. Go ahead, Mr. -- MR. SCHMITT: Let me correct your statement. Normally an applicant can come in, it can be a permit runner, but as long as the SDP is stamped and sealed by a registered professional, we -- that's -- to answer your question, so the SOP has to be a design professional that submits the SDP plat or plan. But they may not necessarily be the applicant. So I want to make sure we -- you understand. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't. Can you explain it? Because if the applicant isn't the one submitting the SDP, as in all the rest of these, then why are we discussing this? Now you've got me baffled. MR. SCHMITT: I think I'm talking semantics. It's the engineer that submits the SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I just want to make sure the engineer is on the hook for the SDP. It's his calculations. And if we're getting there, that's fine. I think it's right and I think Catherine is right, and I think Stan's comments are right, if he made such, that the engineers don't want to be on the hook for the notarized affidavit. Well, this says they're not, this says the owner/agent is. MR. SCHMITT: I'm fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now I'm -- you guys. MR. SCHMITT: I just want to make -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we're all on the same page here. Page 130 July 30, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: That's why I want to make sure we're on the same page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, actually, I think you're not on the same page, because G is a header and it says that the registered engineer has to submit all of the three below that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but he submits number two that's been signed by the owner. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. As long as -- MR. SCHMITT: As long as that's the interpretation, I'm fine with what Mr. Strain has said. And I think as a read that's correct. All the engineer's doing is submitting the affidavit. But that affidavit does not have to be signed by the design professional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's how we currently do it. MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, so this doesn't change anything, it just kind ofrecodifies it so you're unders -- okay. Then the only other thing I would suggest on G-2 where it says owner/agent, you can put from the applicant to match -- would that -- or I guess owner/agent's okay there. Just leave it alone. MR. SCHMITT: We want it to specifically be the owner/agent there because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine. MR. SCHMITT: -- we wanted to point the responsibility to somebody that we could hold responsible for the information that was presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, so in G we're going to change the appli -- strike the applicant and put a registered engineer, put it back like it was. MS. KOEHLER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The registered engineer would then be responsible to put the copies of the agreements and the PUD ordinance Page 131 July 30, 2008 together, which they should do, it's part of their package currently. They'll include in their package a notarized affidavit from the owner/agent, which is what they do currently. And in number three, the up-to-date drawings, nobody but the engineer can do those to begin with. And then we just tell them then what we want the updated drawings to include. So I don't see how this would be objectionable. It's what they do now, and it just kind of recodifies what they do, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That means we're keeping all four items in three? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just 3-A and B. The first A and B, the ones that were struck, they're just redundant. I have to agree with staff that that tracking's already done. They do it in monitoring reports. They keep -- every time something's submitted, that data is collected. It would be a real burden to go back and reinvent it every time a new engineer submits a new tract within a different PUD. That may be a huge cost that isn't needed because the county keeps that. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's make sure we're done with discussion first. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe a small point, but under Page 116, the new A that's there, it ends with et cetera. Didn't we have a discussion about et cetera was inappropriate some time ago, or is that acceptable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with et cetera. Does anybody else have a problem? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was trying to remember whether or not -- I know we had -- a long time ago we had a discussion about it, and I thought you, Mark, had indicated that you Page 132 July 30, 2008 didn't think et cetera was appropriate to be in these things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see it as a concern here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, it's not a clear recollection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat, you made a motion to approve with the changes of taking the applicant out and putting back the registered engineer; is that correct? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. And also the question of an and/or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And/or in 3-A. Is there a second to that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded. And that was for 10.02.02. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. And we're getting to now Page 117. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Seventeen through 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, 117. This is the last one for today, 117 through 120. Lisa, do you have any changes? Page 133 July 30, 2008 MS. KOEHLER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm making your job easy today. Make sure you tell Nick if he was here it would have been much more difficult. MR. SCHMITT: I think we do it again when Nick comes back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be appropriate. Okay, comments? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 118, B under I, and my note to myself here is do we really want this? Where it says the written report shall be submitted to and be in a format established by the county manager or designee unless payment in lieu is provided. Why would we want a report and then never mind, give me the money instead? Why would we want to do that? MS. KOEHLER: I'm not sure I understand your question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, would you read "I" there for yourself and see. MR. SCHMITT: The payment in lieu is where the county conducts the counts. MS. F ABACHER: Right. MR. SCHMITT: And they make that choice, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the way that's done is the developer goes out and gets a price to do the monitoring from a private institution, and that could be anyone of the number of traffic engmeers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They provide a price and then they can pay that price to the county and let the county do the monitoring. It's just a timely issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It wasn't as clear to me as obviously you folks are clear on that. All right, also you'll want to pay attention to, under ii where you have it in bold, you'll want it to be not bold, all that area. Some of it, Page 134 July 30, 2008 perhaps, but -- you understand what I mean, Lisa? MS. KOEHLER: No, I don't see the bold area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under ii, it says impact -- at the bottom of ii it says impact fees for all Category A capital blah, blah, blah. They all have to be reduced from bold because they're not definitions. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: He's referring to A-ii. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 118. MS. KOEHLER: Same issue on Page 118. MS. FABACHER: We understand, Mr. Murray. It's the same issue we had earlier. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're telling me I shouldn't raise the issue? MS. F ABACHER: No, not at all, sir, I'm telling you that we understand your concern and this happened earlier on in another amendment, and we agreed that we would -- probably not even that way in the LDC. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You answered my question, Mark, regarding it. But I didn't really realize it in here about that. I understand what you said to me, but I didn't realize it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have something further? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Lisa, on Page 119, iii, A, it's discussing that the person who retains the development rights, any density or intensity? Do we know who those people are necessarily? Take for example Pelican Bay, that was a whole bunch ofleft behind, you know, residential units, they're moving square footage back and forth. But how do you know who owns that or -- I mean, who is that person? MS. KOEHLER: Well, I'm not sure if! understand your Page 135 July 30, 2008 question. If you're asking how do we check who the property owner is? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who owns the development rights that's left over? In other words, there are projects I guess that are built out, still have development rights that weren't used. I mean, we discussed them in transportation as the phantom units and -- MS. KOEHLER: It would be whoever is that -- is the owner of those units or that property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the original-- okay. MS. KOEHLER: So if it's still the original developer, ifhe hasn't sold that section off, then it still would be that original developer. Ifhe sold it to somebody else, it would be the new property owner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And ifhe sold it to multiple people, multiple people could have that condition. MS. KOEHLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In four, we give them 30 days, but do we have anything in the code that if we have a disruption like a hurricane, that timing ceases or something, or -- because that 90 days would be good if -- I mean, if some poor guy had a hurricane, right, he could get himself 30 days late. MR. KLATZKOW: Ifwe have a hurricane, the last thing we're worrying about is something like this. I think everything throughout the code gets put off. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there's no need to worry about -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- being fined or anything-- MR. KLATZKOW: No, we're too worried getting electricity back on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. In 5-C, ifthere's no traffic -- I mean, ifthere's no activity, what you're saying is that you could go to the county manager and not have to put a report. Wouldn't Page 136 July 30, 2008 it be just as easy to submit the last report saying no activity, or-- MS. KOEHLER: Well, I think our reasoning is why should you have to submit anything on an annual basis if there's been no activity. So we just want to provide that waiver, if you will -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Other than to say there's no activity. But that's okay, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if there's no questions, then is there a motion to approve -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Section 10.02.07(C)(l)(B)? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Before we finish, I need one more motion. I need a motion Page 137 July 30, 2008 maker to say that we've made all our motions consistent -- those that passed today were all consistent with the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the motion, find it consistent with the GMP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. With that, we need to continue this meeting. In order to continue it, I need to know a date. And since we can't use the 13th -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why can't we use the 13th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the 13th is not 15 days from the 8th. So now we're looking at the 27th. And I think it's 1 :00 in the afternoon is our next date, isn't it? MS. F ABACHER: I think it's the 28th. Let me check my calendar in the front of the book. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's right here on your agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, that is, but I thought we had the 27th set aside as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Page 138 July 30, 2008 MS. F ABACHER: No. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, we do, on this chart here. MS. F ABACHER: Oh, well, that's not my chart and that was not my doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I pulled it off of-- MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, this is-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The chart that staff gave us, you're not that staff, you're a different staff. MS. F ABACHER: Yeah, I don't know who does that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'm really clear on that. So the 27th we do not have a meeting. MS. F ABACHER: Right. Our next scheduled meeting is Thursday, August 28th at 8:30 a.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to continue this meeting to Thursday, August 28th at 8:30 a.m in this building? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Wolfley. Second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Fabacher. MS. F ABACHER: I was just going to say that I believe Jeff will back me up that since we did not get a quorum for our nighttime meeting and we do have amendments that changed, the list of permitted, conditional or accessory uses, we're required by code to have one meeting after 5:00 p.m. We didn't have a quorum, so we'll need to reschedule something at night. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we figure the night meeting for the redos. Page 139 July 30, 2008 MS. F ABACHER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can't do it on the 27th, because we're going to start here at 8:30 but why don't we maybe look at the -- or 28th, I mean. Maybe we look at the 29th for a -- if we get caught up on the 27th. MS. F ABACHER: That's a Friday night. COMMISSIONER CARON: GMP on the 29th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the GMP. Well, we'll have to reschedule. You've got to do it by what date to meet your advertising criteria? MS. F ABACHER: I've got to do it by the first week of September. I have five weeks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the problem we have is if we need 15 -- you may have to readvertise. Because if we need 15 days in which to hear something, we can't -- what could we discuss on a night next -- say on the 13th. Say we kept the 13th for an evening meeting. Is there something we can discuss on the Thursday or just open and close the meeting? MR. SCHMITT: Ifwe come back on the 13th, you could cover the amendments that Stan was prepared to discuss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: But that won't be 15 -- you won't get it -- like Bob Mulhere -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no changes. MR. SCHMITT: There's no changes. MS. F ABACHER: No, but I'm just saying, the only other thing would be Bob Mulhere's, but it's not 15 days -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifthere's no changes, we can discuss it. So why don't you go through, and everything that doesn't have any changes we'll schedule for the evening on the 13th. And then any of these cleanups that they can have accomplished by then -- oh, no, I think we need 15 days notice because there's going Page 140 July 30, 2008 to be language changes. So any items that don't have any changes let's schedule for the 13th. And I've got to ask the second and the motion-maker to take back their motion for continuance to the 28th. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I take that back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, what I'm looking for -- and before we take another motion, there's a gentleman in the audience. And I want to make sure that ifthere's any comments from the public that we hear any on the items that came today. Did anybody have any slips? Anybody know of any? MS. FABACHER: I spoke to the gentleman, and he's just very fascinated by seeing you all. He's seen you on television before and then he said he had some flood issues about Fiddler's Creek. And I said, well, there is a man here you could talk to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's right. But I see he's got a beard, so he's going to be reasonable. (Laughter. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that said, now we're looking for a motion to continue this meeting till 5:05 on the 13th in this room. Is there such a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley had his hand up, Mr. Murray seconded it. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 141 July 30, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We'll see you all at August 13th, 5:05 in this room. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: This meeting that was shown on the schedule as the 27th now is canceled; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct, sir. MS. ISTENES: 28th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next meeting we will probably continue to after the 13th is the 28th. MR. SCHMITT: I would ask that Catherine send an e-mail to you all with the amendments that we will be hearing -- that you will be looking at on the 13th, just so you're clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, absolutely. I think that's -- please, that would be very helpful. MR. SCHMITT: Because right now it will be the amendments -- primarily Stan's amendments. I don't know if it will be Susan O'Farrell's amendment that's in there too, that one amendment? MS. FABACHER: Yeah, there are no changes to that. MR. SCHMITT: So, yeah, we'll go through the list and make sure you know which ones will be on the 13th. And then at that meeting we can continue to the 28th. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Reissued? And then we will address it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, the nonconformities one, pursuant to our discussion, you're going to reissue the pages specifically involved in the manner we're used to having, for the Page 142 July 30, 2008 changes in that, and you'll get those to us within 15 days of the day we expect to hear them. MS. FABACHER: Exactly. As we discussed. We're not quite sure yet what date that will be, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine. MS. F ABACHER: -- it will be in September. MR. SCHMITT: Will Phil Gramatges be -- any changes to his? Will you be able to hear his on the 13th? MS. F ABACHER: I'll check with his staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's fine. Ifwe have to move some of those up to Phil on the 13th, that works. MR. SCHMITT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you all. And with that, we'll see everybody on the -- well, actually next Thursday. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:28 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 143