The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Minutes 08/13/2008 LDC Cycle I August 13, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CYCLEILDC Naples, Florida August 13, 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 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein (Absent) Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (Absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Susan Istenes, Planning Director Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 5:05 P.M., WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13,2008, 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 AVAILABLE 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 VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Land Development Code (LDC) Amendments . 4.07.02 Design Requirements (PUDS) 5.05. \2 Specific Stds. For Raw Water Wells et aJ. 3.05.07 Requirement for Removal of Exotics 10.02.03 Submittal Requirements for SDPs 10.02.04 Submittal Requirements for Plats 10.02.05 Submittal Requirements -Improve. Plans 4.02.01 Dimensional Stds. [Estates Side Setbacks] Phil Gramatges (pages 1-2) Phil Gramatges (pages 3-10) Susan O'Farrell (pages 121-128) Stan Chrzanowski (pagesI29-132) Stan Chrzanowski (pagesI33-134) Stan Chrzanowski (pages137-138) Catherine Fabacher (pages 245-246) . . . . . . 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. ADJOURN NEXT MEETING DATES August 28, 2008 - 8:30 A.M. 1 C:\Temporary Internet Files\OLK441 \Cepe AGENDA 081308.doc August 13, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're about to get started, and I've still not got a hot mic. MS. ISTENES: I'll turn you up a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody here? How's that, better? There you go. In case you're wondering why we have to start at 5:05, I would be the last to know. I think it ought to be 5:07 or 5:11. But 5:05, I don't know how that got picked, but anyway -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's supposed to be after 5:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. 5:01? If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance, (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, roll call by our secretary. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Mr. Kolflat is absent. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein is absent. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. Page 2 August 13, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #3 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning commission absences. For those of you who do not know, after the end of last meeting Commissioner Adelstein submitted his resignation. He has issues he's going to be dealing with and he needs more time than this board could afford, so he will no longer be with us on this podium. Although he will be certainly in our thoughts. He was a very good member of this planning commission and hung in there for long many years with us, so I know we'll all miss him. The absences coming up. We have a meeting on the 19th on the GMP adoption book that you all should have received either yesterday or today. It's about a three-inch book. But in that packet you'll find I believe six items for adoption. Of the six, only three will be discussed on the 19th. You'll notice -- if you haven't got the agenda, it should be in your e-mails when you get home today. You'll see several items being continued. And I'm bringing this up to you now so you all don't waste a lot of time reading items that aren't going to be heard on that day. The only ones that I believe are going to be heard are 4-A, 4-D and 4-E. That will make the day a bit shorter. But my next question is, pursuant to the time frames in which you all received the book, and knowing that next Thursday we have a planning commission meeting and you'll be receiving another book tomorrow, is there anybody here who -- MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, we're going to give that to you tonight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to give us the regular Page 3 August 13, 2008 hearing book for next Thursday? MS. F ABACHER: It's right here. Whenever you're ready. MS. ISTENES: No, that's for the 28th. MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. MS. ISTENES: We're going-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let me back up then. MS. F ABACHER: I confused -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a regular hearing on the 21st. With that we have three or four -- there's more on the agenda, but I'm going to get to that in a minute. There will be three regular items, two consent items and the noise ordinance. So you'll be getting that book tomorrow. That one is a hearing that we have to have next Thursday. It will be our regular meeting. I need to find out from those here if all of you will have an adequate number of days to read the GMP amendments that will be on the 19th, which is next Tuesday. The three that I just reiterated. If anybody feels uncomfortable with that, I need to know, because we certainly want the time taken to read them adequately. Is everybody okay with that? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't see a problem, I just have a question. On the 19th, according to my schedule, we're here from 8:30 to 12:00; is that correct, or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, I don't know that -- I'm sorry, I shouldn't say right. I don't know the time frames. Does anybody know if it's -- we'll start at 8:30, we'll just go till we finish and -- MS. ISTENES: If that's what it says on your calendar, I'm going to say yes, because I know we've got to rearrange the rooms with other -- use of the room with other people, so that's probably all you have it reserved for. But 1'11-- I can certainly check with Randy. Page 4 August 13, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we only -- we're down to three items so I think that would hopefully be adequate time to get through the three. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine, I just want to check, because there was a contradiction last week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that in mind, we'll leave the meeting set up like it is. Next Thursday -- yes, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I may not be there on the Tuesday morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I know we -- the five of us, everybody here, plus we have other members who may be here, so we'll at least have a quorum, so that will work. As far as next Thursday, we have an agenda for two consent items, and there's been a request to continue two items. And I'll just let you know those so you'll get confirmation of these bye-mail if they are followed through with a confirmation from the applicant. But applicants have requested a 9-C and a 9-E continuation. I'm telling you that now so you don't waste a lot of time reading and researching those two items. And the rest will stay on the agenda. Does everybody here plan to be here next Thursday? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're good to go. Next Thursday is also the noise ordinance too, so that will certainly have a longer, interesting conversation in the afternoon by the time we get there. Item #4 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING - LDC CYCLE I. Page 5 August 13, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we'll move into our advertised public hearings for this evening. And this is the continuation of the LDC Cycle 1,2008. Our first meeting was a couple of weeks ago or so. We continued it to tonight. We have seven items on tonight's agenda. And Catherine, I'll let you take us through them. MS. FABACHER: All right, certainly. Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. All right. On your agenda, we're first going to go with amendment to Section 4.07.02, design requirements for PUD's. It's on Page 1 in your package. And this is Phil Gramatges, Interim Director of Public Utilities Engineering, and he's here to present this amendment. MR. GRAMATGES: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'm Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities Engineering, and I'm here to answer your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, those are the best kind of presentations in this atmosphere. That's good. This one is just two pages, Pages land 2. We'll take them-- anybody have any questions concerning those two pages? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm not sure why this is even needed. Number four on -- this is on Page 2. If you look at number four, it already is a requirement. It says it shall be required to be dedicated to public use. As long -- all we have to do is prove that it's directly related to the impacts created by the proposed development. I'm not sure why we're suddenly turning around and giving them credit for something that's a requirement today. MR. GRAMATGES: Commissioner, the idea behind this change is to provide an incentive to the developers to donate land that could be utilized, that would be utilized for -- specifically for raw Page 6 August 13,2008 water wells. And what it does is provides them with a credit equal to twice the size of that easement towards this requirement for useable open space. I was looking for the right word, excuse me. So in fact what we are doing is we know that there is a requirement for usable open space, and what this is doing is giving them credit for the amount of land -- (Commissioner Kolflat enters the boardroom.) MR. GRAMATGES: -- that they are giving the county for the use of the well. In other words, that land that they're providing that -- twice the size of that land will be excluded from the requirement for the usable open space. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I do want to ask the County Attorney about this, because I think that four is very clear that it says an appropriate percentage of the gross project area shall be required to be dedicated. It doesn't say shall be required to be paid for, shall be required to add incentives for, shall be required to anything. It says it shall be dedicated if, and here's the catch here, is the amount of the area dedicated is directly related to the impacts created by the proposed development. Which certainly only makes sense, if you cause -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- where the problem's been is the utility department has been coming forward to this commission and to the board, obviously, with a request for well sites. And we have asked them in many instances where the well sites -- how they're -- where the rational nexus is. And I think the language you just quoted becomes the problem, not the solution. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I think that's not true. What happens is they've not been able to give us reasons. We've asked them, why do you need that well site, what -- is this development Page 7 August 13, 2008 actually impacting this. And they have not been able to answer that question for us. If they could, then it would just be a requirement to have that land dedicated. But they've not been able to give us that answer. MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, I understand your concern. I was actually the genesis of this, because I've noted both the Board of County Commissioners and this board has not been happy with some public utility requests for wells. And the idea was if you didn't have that nexus that's required to do it, okay, it was considered by some to be an extraction. So the idea was instead of public utilities having to go out and paying for the sites, that we would give a developer incentive to give us the sites for free. And what they would get then would be a credit against their open space requirements. But you're right, you're right the way it's structured. And I think it would be best, instead of this being 4.A, we should do this 5 with an introductory clause where it's not required that it be dedicated pursuant to paragraph four, but in such event, and we could go on with the rest. So in other words, the first one sort of -- if you have a very large development that requires the wells, then they fall into four. If they don't fall under four but public utilities still wants the wells, then they can trade the open site. I fully understand your concern, and what we'll do is we'll just restructure it. MR. GRAMATGES: We can do that. COMMISSIONER CARON: That makes more sense to me, Mr. Klatzkow, because you already have a rational nexus in four. And the rational nexus is stated there very clearly in that the impacts created by the proposed development require this. So that -- you have a rational nexus. Again, like Mr. Strain said, when they would come before us, Page 8 August 13,2008 they were not -- on some of these I think they were asking everybody, no matter whether there was an impact or not. And so if you can cover that in five that way, then that makes sense to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments on this one? (No response.) MS. ISTENES: May I ask for a point of clarification on that change? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well I was -- go ahead. I haven't even asked my questions yet. MS. ISTENES: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go right ahead. MS. ISTENES: Let me make sure I understand. Because the way it's -- I think the way I understood you to say it is when there is not a requirement then you're going to give this incentive; is that correct? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, that's the idea. MS. ISTENES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I can't recall, and I've been sitting on this board for a while, at any point that we've ever shown there's been a rational nexus to the request that's come forward. Some have gone through and some have not. I understand what we're trying to do, instead of 4.A, it will be 5; and A will be replaced by 5 and we'll have a new paragraph. But we're almost back into the same Catch-22 we currently have. If you recall, every developer that comes in here currently being requested to provide these sites is not doing so because of a rational nexus, it's being -- doing so because they're pressured into calling it a donation. And 1'11-- now, they're not willing to say that on the record. I've spoken to enough people off record to know that there's a lot of pressure put on people to agree to do this to get through the system. By using this new paragraph five with the reference to a Page 9 August 13,2008 donation, I'm concerned that we're providing exactly the opportunity that we've been trying to avoid, and that is if you need money to pay for this, then raise impact fees or do whatever you have to do. And I'm not advocating that, I'm just saying the aboveboard way to do it in my opinion is to do it straightforward. You get an appraisal on the amount of property you want, you pay for it fairly, you pay for it out of your budgets in any way you can, and if your budgets need more money, you request that money increase or the Board of County Commissioners will adjust your budget accordingly. I don't think this reference to a donation helps the process. I think everybody's going to be forced to do a donation. And that's kind of where this whole thing started, from my perspective, so -- MR. GRAMA TGES: If! may, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir. MR. GRAMA TGES: This is a voluntary donation, this is not something that would be required over every development. The developer may choose to take this route, they may choose to request that we pay for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. And currently every development that's come forward has told us they choose to taken (sic) this route. Because as I've been told off record, they've been pressured by your department to do so. So I don't really see this as a solution to that. I would rather see that the language be changed so that the idea of a donation is taken out. And that if you want additional land, you pay for it fairly or you provide an impact fee credit, just like other departments do for takings like this. And I don't know why we wouldn't want to have that above board and do it that way. MR. GRAMA TGES: If I may, sir, I may remind you that the board has instructed us at a certain point in time, which unfortunately I can't mention right now because I don't remember, that we should pay for these donations -- we should pay for these easements, unless Page 10 August 13, 2008 of course the owners of the developments were willing to donate the easement or donate the land on fee simple. Weare under instructions by the board to either pay for these lands or to request them as donations. But obviously, as you have seen, quite a few of the PUD's that have come before you in the past have requested that we pay for them, and we certainly have agreed to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, my concern is the word donation. And, I mean, I still have a problem with that. If the county attorney -- we're going to have this come back with a reformatting anyway. If you'd want to look at that, that would certainly help my concerns. I don't know about the rest of this panel. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We keep saying donation, donation. It seems like every PUD or every developer comes through here. And they do donate it. Of all the donated sites, how many do you use? And if you had to go pay for them, would you necessarily need that many? MR. GRAMATGES: We have not -- we started this process relatively recently, and it takes a long time for us to develop a wellfield. The way in which we're going about it is whenever we see the opportunity to request land in an area that we know is favorable for the development of a field, we request it. However, though, if there is only one or two easements in the general area, it's generally not financially feasible for us to put the necessary infrastructure to take all that raw water all the way to the plant for us to use. So we have to wait until we have enough of these to justify making the development or doing -- making the investments. These are investments for the relatively long term. We have not, as far as I recall, used any of these so far. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I guess my question is, if you Page 11 August 13,2008 had to buy each and every site that's donated to you, would you do so? MR. GRAMATGES: Ifwe had to buy -- we would have-- certainly money is not abundant, so we would have to be very careful as to what we request and what we do not, to be sure. There are some in fact that we have requested have been donated and we have returned to the owners, because we have not seen after a certain period of time that there is any possibility that we will have any more wells in the area. So yeah, to answer your question directly, we would probably not request as many. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just said something that's troubling. These sites, the ones that did go through, are always conditions of the PUD's. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your department can't decide those are no longer conditions. That's a zoning matter that helps this board determine whether or not that site was qualified to get what they were seeking. So if you've been doing this, I don't know who should be looking at that, but that's not the way the process is supposed to' allow. Staff has not got that right. Go ahead, sir. MR. GRAMATGES: Mr. Chairman, we -- I know of only one instance where this has happened, and this was a reapplication. It went before you previously with a well, and the second time it went without the well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If staff -- you're clarifying the record then staff is not un-donating -- unaccepting these contributions then. Because honestly, that's not the process I believe you have to go through to do it. MR. ORAMA TGES: No. In order to clarify the record, let me Page 12 August 13, 2008 say that the only way in which this will happen is if the person that is presenting the PUD would request it previous to a re-review by this board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because it would have to be-- this board makes a recommendation and the BCC is the one that makes that decision and nobody else. So I just want to make sure we're understanding you correctly. MR. GRAMATGES: You're absolutely right. I'm sorry if I misspoke. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil, how big are these sites typically? MR. GRAMATGES: I beg your pardon, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sites, how big are they typically? MR. GRAMATGES: They vary, depending on whether or not they are going to have a -- we foresee that they will have a generator or not. Generally they're 100 by 100. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then maybe Susan, you can answer this. Susan, in the site plan are these sites taken as open space when you're calculating ground cover and open space? MS. ISTENES: I'm not quite sure I understand your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other words, in calculating the open space ofa PUD, if this site was on it, buildings are on it, driveways are on it, would they be calculated as every other building in terms of open space and ground coverage? MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think staffs got direction this needs to be modified a bit. You're going to come back again with it. Is that suitable? Page 13 August 13,2008 Okay, with that we'll move -- is there any public speakers on this one? MS. ISTENES: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If anybody in the public wishes to speak, we're pretty informal because there's not a lot of you in here today, so just kind of raise your hand and let us know and we'll recognize you. Although there are speaker slips available either way. Catherine, the next one is 5.05.l2, Pages 3 through 10; is that correct? MS. F ABACHER: That is correct, sir. And it will still be Phil. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll start with -- Phil, I suppose your presentation is going to be as complete and comprehensive as it was in this last one. MR. GRAMATGES: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Pages -- well, let's just take the whole document. We'll go in order. Questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we are going from using the term raw water wells to public utility ancillary system. I'm not sure, but I think we're paying a consultant to rework our Land Development Code in order to make it actually be English so that people can understand. I don't know why we're using words like public utility ancillary system. You ought to define it then somewhere, and it's going to say raw water wells. So I'm not sure why we're making that change. MR. GRAMA TGES: If! may, actually the idea behind using ancillary systems is that raw water wells was too restrictive. We don't request or -- we don't request easements only for raw water wells. We have to realize that we have lift stations for sanitary sewer use. We also need other equipment such as pump stations, as repumping stations. We need antennas to be able to communicate through our Page 14 August 13,2008 SKAT A (phonetic) system with this pump station and this well station. In other words, the term raw water well was too restrictive, when in reality we have a lot of appurtenance ancillary systems, if I may, that fall under the same category. And the idea behind this change is to streamline that process. Because at this point in time is an unnecessarily lengthy process involved with a lot of documentation that is -- in our view falls under the same category of the raw water wells. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Not on that. As we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Page 5, near the top on 6, talking about that, particularly -- I guess that's the second sentence there, ancillary systems that are physically located on a water and wastewater treatment property. And the emphasis I'm placing is on are not required to be individually fenced and landscaped. Can you give us an idea of why that was necessary in here? The assumption could be that it's enclosed overall with a fence. But is that true? MR. ORAMA TOES: No, it's not. The idea is that these are integral parts of a particular plant. Let's take for example raw water wells, which was already approved in the LDC. The raw water wells are physically connected to a water plant, because they supply that water plant. So whenever you need a well that is connected to that plant, instead of going through the entire SDP process, which is lengthy, which requires a lot of contribution from CDES and is costly for the rate payers, we use it as an SDPI. In other words, it's an insubstantial change. Because in essence this is a piece of equipment that is necessary in order for that plant to work. So in other words, what it's doing is considering those equipments, even though they may be located away Page 15 August 13, 2008 from the plant, to be indeed part of that plant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The question of safety was the basis for my question to you. Is there any indication of safety, matters there? Is there a concern for children, animals, what have you? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, these wells need to be protected. They need to be fenced and they need to be protected from vandalism, and certainly in an extreme case from terrorist attack. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm confused then, because it says, are not required to be individually fenced and landscaped. And when I asked you if it was enclosed overall with a fence you said no, not necessarily. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. When you said that, I understood that to mean that they would be enclosed within the same fence system that the plant has. No, they would be enclosed in a fence. They would have to be protected in some manner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But this is an attempt to avoid having to put a fence on them. That's what I'm trying to understand. You specifically in this particular sentence are looking to avoid the expense of a fence, which I can appreciate. My concern is rooted in safety, and so I'm trying to understand. And what you've related to me seemed reasonable, but I'm not sure now. MR. GRAMATGES: Actually what this particular paragraph-- and I assume you're talking about the one that says ancillary systems that are physically located on a water or wastewater treatment property are not required to be -- those are ancillary systems that would be enclosed within the fence of that plant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so that -- MR. GRAMATGES: So we don't have to have a fence within a fence. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize. Perhaps I didn't say it properly. Page 16 August 13,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think a way to compare them to what we're used to hearing is sayan accessory use to a utility plant, basically. And accessory uses to buildings aren't separated, and I think that's where he's trying to go. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm thinking it should be enclosed within a greater fence, rather than having a potential problem. Okay, just want to be clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Catherine, you were-- MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. If you want, I could kind of give you a little background of what the whole thing's about, but if you don't need that, that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, we want to get through tonight. And if we don't ask the question, let's not volunteer to confuse us. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other -- Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Getting back to this public utility ancillary system paragraph. You refer to a quasi public entity. Can you give me an illustration of what is a quasi public entity? MR. GRAMA TGES: Generally it is a utility. There are some utilities, for example, Immokalee, that it is a -- I would consider to be quasi -- I suppose I could ask the county attorney to explain that a little bit better, because it's more of a legal term. But it means that any utility, whether it is necessarily a public utility or private utility, would be included. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And it might be both, you mean a little private and a little public combined; is that what you mean by quasi public? Page 17 August 13,2008 MR. GRAMA TGES: No, I think it means that it is a private utility that provides public services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that be one controlled by the PSC? MR. GRAMATGES: It would be certainly controlled, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a public services commission that sets rates -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And that would be the quasi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- handles utilities, and that may be part of the way that's required. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on this section? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil, on Page 6, architectural standards, one of the things you're trying to get rid of, the last one, is the requirement that you can't run a wall greater than 50 feet. Is that something you can't -- why can't you meet that? And if your sites are like lOO feet, I'm not too thrilled with the fact we'd have 100-foot walls and things. It's on Page 6 at the bottom, right at the bottom. MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah. However, though, the language that you refer to is language that is already in the regulation. It's not one that we're changing. I suppose you're referring to this phrase that says, shall not have any wall planes exceeding 35 feet in length? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, actually I was down below looking at it. So what you're saying is that down at the bottom those references to the architectural standards are purely just scrivener corrections, or are you adding anything there? MR. GRAMATGES: No, the only language that we're adding is the language that is underlined. And the language that we are Page 18 August 13,2008 eliminating is the language that is crossed out. The rest of it is already there in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think where you're going, Brad, he's seeking another exemption from a different section of the code. Instead of 5.05.08.C.3, he's now got 5.05.08.D.1. And then in the other one he's referencing a subsection b. And I hadn't -- did you check those out at all? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, one's a standardized design and one is the running of the length of the wall. You know, I can't -- the computers won't come up so I can't reference to see if that's adding something or just a scrivener fix. Do you know, Catherine? MS. ISTENES: I can pull it up right now if you don't know, while you all are talking. MS. F ABACHER: I can't remember. John? Where's John? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're waiting for that to be done, are there other questions on this (sic) seven pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, if we go to Page 5 and we work our way down halfway through paragraph six where it's underlined, palms may be replaced or supplemented with small native trees to enhance screening. Small native trees. I don't know how that's defined in our code. Do we have a reference to a small native tree? Small can be -- and small groves. So I'm just wondering why we need the small in there. Could we just say native trees? MR. GRAMA TGES: I don't see why not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have a way of defining-- MR. GRAMA TGES: I don't see why not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And in A you changed the first word, native plant materials shall be used instead of must be used. But on the third line then we say chosen plant materials must be Page 19 August 13, 2008 consistent with the existing native vegetation. Just a scriveners issue, if you're going to change shall in the first one, why wouldn't you change it in the second one? MR. GRAMA TGES: I don't see why not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just reads better. On Page 7, top ofthe page, A, applicability, if you read to the third line, the third line says, system of physically interconnected infrastructure, including but not limited to. Then it goes on listing a bunch of things for two lines. And then -- and there's a comma that then says -- picks up shall be considered. Prior to the word "shall" and after the word "to", if you crossed all that out and replaced it with public utility ancillary systems, wouldn't that accomplish the goal in a simpler manner and be consistent with the definition you're trying to introduce? MR. GRAMATGES: We can effect that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just think it would be more consistent with the rest of the document, if you don't have a problem with that. MR. GRAMATGES: I don't see a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next line after the word shall, it says, collectively located on-site, as that term is to be applied in the GMP/CCME Policy 6.1.1. and 6.1.2. I've pulled those CCME sections and I have them with me. And I did a word search, and I can't find where this reference would be applicable. The only reference I find is on-site and off-site preserve areas shall be protected by a permanent conservation mechanism. And I'm not sure how that fits this definition. So I think your references to the CCME need to be revised, unless someone else has an answer to that question. MR. GRAMA TGES: We will take a look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 9, Item B.2.d., sixth line down, it starts with the word are, and then the word ancillary is struck and the word subordinate is put in. And I'm just wondering what this Page 20 August 13,2008 means in regards to distances from the main plant. MR. GRAMATGES: Mr. Chairman, if! may, sir, can you tell me again where you're looking at? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 9, B.2.d. MR. GRAMATGES: 2.d. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The sixth line. You struck the word ancillary and put subordinate. N ow that this has been highlighted by this change, it brought to question, if you're looking for insubstantial changes for public utility ancillary systems that are subordinate to the main plant, how far away can they be and still be subordinate? Or is the intention to be on the site that the main plant's on? MR. GRAMATGES: No, they could be as far away as they need to be. I mean, they could be very distant but physically connected to the plant. And I believe that the reason why we eliminated the word ancillary here is because it doesn't -- it's not good English to say it twice in the same word (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I just was curious as to how far now subordinate can be before it becomes an insubstantial change to an SDP on a site that could be a mile or two away. Is that -- I mean, like 95l with those pump houses that lead up from your main plants, those pump houses would be applied under an SIP to the original SOP for the main plant? MR. GRAMA TGES: That's correct, sir. In fact, we did apply it for those particular wells. And they are -- the most distant one is six and a half miles from the plant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought that was the application, I just wanted to understand it, because it seemed to be the one that stood out. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need to have this -- you had Page 21 August 13, 2008 some corrections needed, proper references to the CCME and some of the language corrections that are minor. But if you could have it come back with those corrections, I think that would solve it. Everybody comfortable with that? Susan, did you find your LOC reference? MS. ISTENES: Yes. 5.05.08.D.1, which is being added. And I'm not really sure; I'll read it to you. But D, category heading is design standards for specific building uses. And 1 says standardized design buildings must meet the provisions of this code. I'm not sure what you're trying to exempt yourself from there exactly. And then the second one, D.2.b, which was added, is screen walls. When a wall is proposed to screen a facility, it must be constructed of material similar and complimentary to the primary building material and architecture. Long expansive wall surface shall be broken into sections no longer than 50 feet, and designed to avoid monotony by use of architectural elements such as pillars. MR. GRAMATGES: We simply-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil, was the intent with the standardize is you want to make one design for all the facilities? I mean, that's kind of what that would be. MR. GRAMATGES: That's what we are trying to get at. We have a hodgepodge of different designs everywhere. If you look at the well that was built lO years ago verses one that's built now, they're very difficult. We'd like to standardize that. Unfortunately I need to go back on those sections, I didn't bring them with me, and -- to be able to give you a more complete answer. But in essence that's what we are trying to accomplish. We're trying to simplify, not complicate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you ought to go back and look at those sections, and when you come back with a rewrite, if you need to change them, that would be a good time to do it. Page 22 August 13,2008 MR. GRAMATGES: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions with these pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. MR. GRAMATGES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next one is Section 3.05.07. It starts on Page 121 and goes to Page 128. MR. KLA TZKOW: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, sir. MR. KLATZKOW: Some of these you've indicated you want to see back, others I don't know if you want to see back. I don't know if you want to see the next one come back to you. If you do not want to see it come back, you might want to make your motion to recommend individually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's why the first two we didn't make a motion, because we're -- it's going to come back. And we will -- if we get through one and the changes are minor enough it doesn't need to come back, we'll make a motion then to recommend. MR. KLATZKOW: So you want to see this next one back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last two we did, yes, have to come back. Yes, sir. The references in the code and the CCME both seem to be wrong. We need to get that -- MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, yes, ma'am. MS. O'FARRELL: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Susan O'Farrell from Collier County Code Enforcement. I'm an environmental specialist, and I'm here to ask for a change to the Land Development Code or an amendment in terms of our preserve management and exotic vegetation removal I believe you have in front of you. Page 23 August 13,2008 So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're following Phil's trend. That's a MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- good sign. MS. O'FARRELL: I want to go home, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the -- of Pages 121 through 128. Who would like to start? Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi. MS. O'FARRELL: Actually, I'm sorry, can I just amend what I just said? And I have two very insubstantial changes that we wanted to make. The wording in 3.05.07 .H.1.g.ii should also be repeated in the same wording in 3.05.07 -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you give us page numbers to correspond? MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry. Yeah, it's on 120. It's the preserve standards. And then we go into preserve management plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean 122? MS. O'FARRELL: I'm sorry, mine's on 120. The wording in the two separate sections of the code should be the same is what I'm trying to say. So in 3.05.07, preservation standards, and in 3.05.08, what is underlined should be exactly the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And Pages 122 and Pages 126 need to match. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Page 122, or whatever that number is you have there, under ii, toward the very bottom where it speaks to any person who directly supervises up to eight people. Page 24 August 13, 2008 Could you tell me, suppose they supervise nine or 10. I mean, why did we land on eight? I know typically seven is the span of control we ordinarily recognize, but I can see that it could be different. But why eight, and what happens if it were nine? MS. O'FARRELL: The Florida statute for this certification is for eight people. Up to eight people, the Florida statute for this certification. And if it were nine people, then they would have to have two people who supervise with that certification. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So not to split hairs, but suppose you had a crew and the crew was 11 people, three of whom, you know, did something else, or four of whom did something else. The point I'm getting at, that you have workers, they're all people there -- MS. O'FARRELL: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- but you're focusing on the workers, are you not, the ones who are directly involved in the -- MS. O'FARRELL: The ones who are actually applicating? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- task? Yeah. Well, that's what came to my mind, eight people leaves it -- I mean, it's understood presumably, but I'm not sure. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, I think it's written that supervises up to eight people in the application of pesticides. So if they had 11 people on their crew but only eight people or six people were applying the pesticides, then that one certificate would cover those people. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not trying to split hairs on it but-- , MS. O'FARRELL: I did want to mention, though, that my stakeholders that I have in the county staff feel that the word directly should actually be removed. Because I don't -- I believe that if, for instance, as you're saying, splitting hairs, if we have a foreman who's on the site and he's supervising eight people, I don't believe he should Page 25 August 13, 2008 be the one that has to have the certification, because I don't believe he would be necessarily doing the training. Or we don't believe that. It should be the project manager -- there should be, rather than directly supervising, which implies that they're on the site with the people, which would be prohibitive in cost for most of the companies, it should be supervises. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wouldn't quibble on that, but I would -- you've just opened up a very significant question. It seemed to me if the state had anything to do with it or anybody concerned with pesticides, herbicides applications, you would think that the person who's on site who has the best chance of providing good maintenance, good, effective coverage and avoiding mishap would be the person you'd want to have the knowledge, the intimate knowledge of. So you're disagreeing with that. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, I think that to explain how we're looking at it is that this certificate is required by the Florida state only for restricted use pesticides. And that's why they're saying that that person should be directly supervising. Whereas, we're asking for it for pesticides that are not on that restricted use list. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I understand you. But I'd aver that it's rare that project managers make accidents using materials, so -- MS. O'FARRELL: But it is the project managers who are responsible for training their employees. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got it. I understand you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Because -- and that was my question, the two sections don't match in terms of their language. Which one did you choose, or did you want to marry the two together and -- MS. O'FARRELL: It should be the first one that's in 3.05.07, Page 26 August 13, 2008 the one that's a little more complete. COMMISSIONER CARON: In that regard th~n you'll want to take out the second "any" -- MS. O'FARRELL: Catherine? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in that paragraph. MS. F ABACHER: My apology. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else from anyone? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, are we going to keep the word directly or are we going to -- MS. O'FARRELL: I would like to ask that it be removed on the part of my stakeholders and the other county staff that have looked at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any problem seeing it removed. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Neither do 1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what you're saying though is that if the chemicals are dangerous enough there's a state statute that requires the person who's responsible to be there when that application's occurring? MS. O'FARRELL: I think you misunderstood me. The state statute is for people who are applicating or applying restricted use pesticides. None of those restricted use pesticides are used in natural areas or in the aquatic wetlands or the LPSA, the littoral planting shelf areas. So what we're trying to do is control the use of small companies using Round-Up. I believe -- we believe they should be trained just as well as the people who are using the restricted use pesticides. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And by taking the word directly out, you're stating that you don't want the requirement that Page 27 August 13, 2008 the person who is the supervisor to be there during the application. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think you have any -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many problems -- first of all, why did you bring this before us? And how many problems have you had and what are the problems that you're experiencing that this was generated from? MS. O'FARRELL: I've had several preserves that have been destroyed by companies who didn't have the correct certification to spray pesticides. And I'm also finding that the companies who are maintaining those certificates voluntarily are being underbid and undercut by companies who come in with no certifications whatsoever. So that's why I'm trying to make it so that not only do we keep our preserves healthy and our aquatics and our littoral shelves healthy, but we also try and even out the playing field for all of the companies that everyone doing that kind of work in Collier County should have the same certificates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In those places where someone inadvertently wiped out the material, is it required to be replanted? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. And it's the property owner's responsibility, not the person who actually did the wiping out of the plant material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course assumingly the person that wiped out the plant material would have a contract with the property owner, and the property owner could then-- MS. O'FARRELL: But it would then-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- force compliance-- MS. O'FARRELL: -- be a civil matter at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah -- by the vendor. Page 28 August 13, 2008 MS. O'FARRELL: Whereas as a code enforcement investigator, if! have a preserve that's coming in to -- you know, they're coming back into compliance because of some mishap, I can say -- using this, I can say to them, yes, but you have to have a company with a certificate and they have to show it to me before they start work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion on this particular one? And we have some minor changes. One change is that the language will match in the first part that's in the second part the word "directly" will be removed. If that's sufficient for everybody on this panel, I need a recommendation for Section 3.05.07. Before we do, is there any public speakers on this issue? MS. ISTENES: No registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a recommendation for approval with your changes and the changes you had asked for with seven and eight. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Wolfley. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 29 August 13, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries-- MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --7-0. Thank you. Before we go on to the next section, I know Stan likes to be here in the evenings, I want to see how many people are here for your items before we spend -- because you've got quite a few pages. We need to address what the public's here for, if we can, first. We have really two general items coming up. One is submittal requirements and their time frames for submissions of SDP's, plats and improvement plans. That's one. And the second one is the estates setbacks. Anybody here for the submittal requirements for SDP plats and improvement plans? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're all here for the estates setbacks. Then we'll move into that one next. And before we go too far into that, I have for the record a series of e-mails and letters I've received from most of the -- in fact, all the civic groups that I know out there and civic leaders who are solidly against this particular petition, this amendment. I'll leave a copy of those with Cherie' for the record. I know you have gotten some by e-mail, Catherine. I think I've duplicated them in here. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a series of citizens out there who have voiced concerns, some may be here tonight. So with that, whoever wants to discuss this. MS. FABACHER: Well, I'm kind of prepared to give you a Page 30 August 13, 2008 Our direction we felt we followed from the board, we wanted to bring this forward and the board insisted we put it in the packet again, even though you all were against it last time. So my direction was to put it in the packet so we could go forward to the board to get further direction and report on what we have discovered, which is what you're saying. And I'm not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, thank you. And I appreciate you going to the civic groups, and we certainly -- we can have any discussion this board wants to have. I think it's the same situation we had last time. If there is individuals who feel they have a need to change their side setback, they always have the opportunity of a variance like everybody else in the county, instead of changing the rules for everyone. So I would hope that would be the avenue they decide to take instead of this one. Is there any questions on this matter before we go to public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll start with the registered speakers first, then we'll go to anybody else that wants to comment. MS. ISTENES: I don't have any. MS. F ABACHER: I have one, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have one first? MS. F ABACHER: I have one first. I have Pat Humphries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pat Humphries. And then sir, you'll be next. So all you have to do is come up and state your name for the record. And Representative Hudson will be after that and that gentleman there. MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries. I'm a resident of Collier County for 30 years, resident of the Estates for 16. It doesn't make sense to me to change the LDC so one person can change the setback on his property. This amendment would be Page 32 August 13, 2008 detrimental to the Estates, as it would compromise not only the existing home sites but the future home sites as well. There are still many vacant lots east of 951 in the Estates. Also, this change would neutralize the concept of the rural residential characteristics of the Estates by allowing some very large dwellings to overshadow their neighbors homes. In some cases the situation already exists with the setback that is now in place, and we don't need to make it worse. I feel that we should protect this unique Estates lifestyle and discourage special interests from destroying it by changing and/or altering the LDC. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Pat. Sir, come on up and please state your name. MR. FLANAGAN: My name is Jim Flanagan. I live at 280 22nd Avenue Northeast in Golden Gate Estates. I'm concerned about the way this was presented to the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. It was presented to the group at a meeting that I was at as an equity issue between percentage of lot buildable areas. To me that's not the definition of why we have setbacks. Setbacks I think should be further investigated in terms of fire safety for the Florida fire safe defensible area setbacks of 30 feet around your home. I think if the setbacks are going to go forward, that has to be an integral part of the study, to address what the setbacks should be. I also am against personally urbanizing Golden Gate Estates. Golden Gate Estates is a rural community. And so that 15-foot setbacks would certainly begin the instigation of urbanizing a rural community. I'm strongly against that. Those are my comments. I think this thing should be shut down and done forever. Again, I'm really concerned that somebody using what it should Page 33 August 13,2008 be, a variance process, has come to this board to change the LDC. And I think frankly that's an abuse of all these people's times and all the effort it takes to go through public meetings, to present it to the public, to put the arguments out there, to bring it to this forum and to have it go away because it doesn't make sense. I don't understand why this stuff isn't shut down and having some kind of sense before it goes forward. So I just want to make that comment. I value your time, I value your opinion as planning commissioners, and I think they're really wasting some of these issues on your time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. And Representative Hudson, we certainly welcome your presence here tonight. It's rare that we have elected officials attend our meetings, so this is a nice change, thank you. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Well, thank you. For the record, Matt Hudson, resident, Golden Gate Estates, 321 13th Street Southwest for 19 years. I find it almost mystifying that this would even be a topic of discussion, given the wildfires that we had this spring and the loss of three residences in our community from wildfire. This is -- forget the variance, forget the LDC. This is a matter oflife safety. And that's what it (sic) should be the prime focus. And to me government is about the health, safety and welfare of their citizenry . And doing something like this creates a tremendous harm to life, safety and welfare of the citizenry of Collier County and Golden Gate Estates. There's a working group currently going on in Golden Gate Estates through the various civic associations, through the various fire departments and through the Bureau of Emergency Management to organize and to publicize the fire-wise efforts. It is enormously important, given what just happened last year. And until we can get Page 34 August 13, 2008 the Everglades exchange to create that avenue for people to get out of the Estates, this is -- it's just -- again, it's mystifying that this would have even been brought up or even pondered as a good idea. So I certainly speak against the possibility of doing this. And if you recall, Chairman Strain, back when we were on the Golden Gate Restudy Committee, we discussed even the possibility of adding staggers for 75-foot lots and things like that to allow better access for our emergency vehicles in the case of wildfires. I mean, this is a situation where, you know, 90 percent of the people don't have an adequate water supply for fire safety. And yet somehow this came forward? This is quite frankly a tremendous waste of your time, and I hope it never comes before you again. And I thank you for your time. And I appreciate your service. Because as I sit here and listen to the minuteness of details that you are working through on behalf of the citizens, thank you. It's good stuff. Keep up the good work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly appreciate your time tonight. Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. SARNS: Hi. My name's Dean Sarns, and I live at 3211 58th Street Southwest. I moved down to Collier County in '79. And I appreciate all the work you do on these boards. It seems like the Estates zoning was created for relaxed living and having some livestock. And by reducing setbacks, you'll be placing larger restrictions on neighboring lots, as there's regulations of how far livestock must be from homes. And for fire safety, it's been said that you need 30 feet of clearance around your house. If you clear 30 feet and your house is within 15 feet, code enforcement will have a party with your neighbors' lots owner as they probably will not have a land clearing permit from things that you have done. Closer neighbors mean more code enforcement complaints for Page 35 August 13,2008 noise, for other things as neighbors try to use code enforcement to micromanage their neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Thank you for your time this evening, sir. Are there any other people that wish to speak on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions from the commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm more than happy to make a motion that we do not transmit this to the BCC; that we deny it. This did come before us before and we did do that one other time. If -- because the BCC has asked you to bring this back and you're going to have to bring something to them, I think you need to reread what you've written here. Because if this had gone forward, it says 10 percent oflot width per side, not to exceed 30 feet. Why would we care, given all the issues, if it were more than 30 feet? MS. F ABACHER: No, that's the minimum setback requirement. You can set back as far as you want. But I believe that's existing text. Because I think if you have a 330-foot wide lot, that means you only have to have a 30-foot setback. I believe that's existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the minimum, though. COMMISSIONER CARON: But that's the minimum. MS. F ABACHER: The minimum. COMMISSIONER CARON: This says you can't exceed that. And that's not what you mean. MS. FABACHER: Does it say can't? I'm sorry, it should say not to exceed. NTE. Page 36 August 13, 2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: It says not to exceed 30 feet. MS. F ABACHER: That means that the minimum requirement is not to exceed 30 feet. If you want to set back 60 feet from the line, you can. This is saying that the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not to be less than. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we always do less than. MS. FABACHER: Okay, we can change that. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You have it backwards. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because I think it is worded-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes a difference. It's moot. A second's been made. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- incorrectly. MS. FABACHER: All right. GHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oid you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I did make a motion-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I second it. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- prior to that statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys. COMMISSIONER CARON: But the only reason that I brought that up is that somehow Catherine's going to have to bring this forward to the BCC. And it should be correct, at least in terms of whatever they have to bring back. And it will go with our recommendation to deny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, just for clarification, the motion you made was not to transmit. I think you meant motion to deny. COMMISSIONER CARON: To deny. Yeah, I did correct that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion was made to recommend denial. There was a second by Mr. Wolfley. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying Page 37 August 13, 2008 aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -- anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Obviously not. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you all very much. Representative Hudson, thank you for attending and all the citizens as well. Appreciate it. By the way, the last item that we heard was 3.05.07, and we recommended approval. I'm assuming because it was consistent with the Growth Management Plan? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker said yes. The second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just wanted to make sure you intended it that way. Now, Stan, let's go on to Page 129. And they're all about the same, if I'm -- in regards to what you're trying to do is basically extend time frames. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Good evening. Stan Chrzanowski with Engineering Review. All three: One is for SDP's, one is for plat and one is for improvement plans. And rather than go with the precedence set tonight by others, as a quick background, long ago people noticed that we had plans that were approved that were lingering forever without being built. And Page 38 August 13, 2008 at a time when we had two or three or sometimes four development code amendment cycles going per year, it was decided that after two years a lot of cycles had passed and a lot of rules had changed and we'd better just make these people shut down and resubmit. So that rule was passed. And we've changed that a few times since then. And now with the economic situation the way it is, we have a lot of projects that are on hold and people coming in requesting extensions. And it's much easier -- on July 22nd we had an executive summary from the zoning department, our administrator, extending all the projects that are expiring now until this Land Development Code cycle gets approved. Hopefully this item gets approved and we can extend all the others for a year. And if that doesn't work, we may be back for another year. But that's what it's all about. I can go through all three items here, if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we ought to just take questions section at a time and we'll go from there. The first section, the pages is Page l29 to 132. And Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just had a question about the statement that you just made, Stan. Did you say that the BCC has given the county manager the ability already to extend for a year? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Joe Schmitt, the administrator. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, the administrator. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. The -- certain projects and the way it was worded, I guess the ones that weren't specifically mentioned that are due to expire before this gets approved are being extended, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Well, then I guess my question is for the County Attorney. Isn't that the appropriate way to handle what is, quote, an Page 39 August 13, 2008 emergency situation here, to -- rather than change the Land Development Code and have to come back then and rechange it at some other point when things are back to normal and we suddenly find all these projects are lingering again and we're back to where we started, isn't it a simpler, easier process to have the BCC extend for another year? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The other thing you have to keep in mind, if! may, before Jeff talks, is like I said, back in the old days we used to get three or four cycles a year and now we're averaging one cycle a year. The code doesn't change that much. And we can come back at any time and rechange the code. It's not that difficult. MR. KLATZKOW: My recommendation on this some time ago was go to the Board of County Commissioners for an emergency declaration on this issue so that these site development plans would be stayed until the economic crisis ended. Staff has elected to go this way, which is also an appropriate vehicle. It's a question of policy, which way you prefer to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to say, I think that's really a more appropriate way, rather than changing our Land Development Code. Because if we make this change and things go back to the way they were, it is more difficult to change back, because you'll have a line of people out the door saying you're taking away my rights. And so I think the more appropriate way to handle it is the simplest and the easiest. BCC's already done it once, they can do an emergency declaration, as Jeff told them they could do the last time. And we don't have to change the language in 97 sections of the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Stan, wasn't this shortened about eight years ago or so? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. It's been -- it was made and Page 40 August 13, 2008 then it was lengthened, then it was shortened, then it was -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right, exactly. And I think I spoke up against it when I was on the commission at that point, spoke against the shortening of it due to the extended time for permitting. When the action is hot around here a lot of developers just don't seem to be able to get the process done and get an SDP and so on. And I was against the thing when it was shortened years ago. I didn't think -- I think they should have left it alone at the time. So I am certainly in favor of this amendment of lengthening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Simply put, I have the same view that Commissioner Caron has. And I thought this was really onerous to go through this process, even though I know you think that -- sure, it can be done administratively. But I think it's easier to institute and easier for the right moment in time for the commissioners to then decide to go back to the way -- I would be in favor of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, I think this is before us, and I think we have to act on this, and I think it's a good idea to extend the builders and developers whatever time they need to get through this. And if need be, they can come back for another year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. I mean, I support this thing. It's starting to get to be where it takes three years to get a building permit, so I think we need the time. Stan, on Page 131, in the extension it says the amendment may be granted. That may there means that it's purely an administrative thing, there's no -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- conditions on that, correct? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. Page 41 August 13,2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? MS. ISTENES: May I make a comment? Just an FYI. This is a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. ISTENES: Thank you. This is actually a section that will eventually be in our administrative code. So I know -- I understand all the discussion, the concern about the length of time and the amount of time we've changed this. But hopefully in the future it will be a little bit easier, because it would eventually end up in the administrative code versus the LDC. Just an FY1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, in that regard then, I'll just -- you said any other questions, you'll want to look at Page 131 and change planning manager and engineering I presume to county manager or designee, as I think that was standardized, if it goes forward on this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I've got a couple issues. Why did staff make the decision that this was the way to go versus what I now hear the county attorney had suggested could be an alternative? And I'm assuming the BCC had a choice of both. Or maybe the question is do we know why they chose this route? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Staff didn't even think that we could do the executive summary. We started this route back in November. Because it's a Land Development Code requirement, we decided the proper way to do it was to change the Land Development Code. At some point I think they realized that we had projects that were dying on the vine before this would get through the cycle. So Page 42 August 13, 2008 they went the emergency route, and I think they might have asked Jeff, how can we do that. I wasn't a part of that. I don't know how that got done. But to staffs way of thinking, change -- the Land Development Code showed -- or called for a certain time span, and to change that, the easiest thing to do was to change the Land Development Code. MS. ISTENES: I could probably add to that, too. Joe worked this a little bit, and I'm sorry he's not here to maybe add to the conversation. But we did change some other things in here and cleaned up some language and clarified things. It is easier from the perspective of changing the LOC and being able to point to the LDC rather than kind of doing it on the floor, so to speak, in an emergency declaration. But, you know, either way will work. And I really don't have an objection. I'd much rather point to the LDC when an applicant is challenging things than an emergency declaration, which may not be as detailed or may not answer our questions or the applicant's questions sufficiently because of the wording. But just my experience in dealing with LDC's versus ordinances like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, if we could just skip then to Page 138, there's language being added in here that would allow any number of extensions. The last line it says, each request should provide written justification for the extension. Additional extensions will be granted at the discretion of the County Manager or his designee. I mean, I'm not sure why we're giving this unlimited authority to staff to do that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Because I don't think we know when the present economic downturn is going to end. It started in June of 2006, and it was assumed it would last a couple of years. And it's been a couple of years and past that now. Page 43 August 13,2008 And we have had projects that are constantly coming in for extensions, and -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's why again I think the declaration is the better, simpler and easier way to go, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Donna, one thing that could happen, I mean, this is not a bad tool for proper planning. People could provide projects they want to do long out into the future and hold that right longer. I mean, three years in construction can go by very fast. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Talk into the mic, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, would you pull the mic closer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point was that, you know, the three years to be able to plan for a subdivision, I don't see that as being particularly long. Somebody might want to do something way down the road, get their approvals far ahead and within three years start building it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Stan, let me go back to finish up some questions I had. On Page 131, paragraph B, the sixth line down says the SDP shall be applied for and may be granted. Wouldn't you mean an SDP may be applied for and may be granted? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if this -- whatever forum this goes forward in, that change should be there, regardless. Also, I want to ask you an overall question about this. We currently have requirements that if someone does a plat or an SDP Page 44 August 13,2008 and they go out and clear the property and they dig their excavation and they pile their dirt up, if they don't within a certain amount of time hydro-seed or vegetate or stabilize that dirt in those embankments in that property, we have certain things that kick in. Two questions, really. How does that happen with this extension? And does that -- does this extension, if it does change those items, do we have to look at other parts of the code that will be affected by this lengthier time? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The extension doesn't change those items. You still have to hydro-seed within a given amount of time, or otherwise stabilize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if you extend the SDP, then when would you then have the time period kick in in which you would have to stabilize or vegetate say a pile of fill that you've put on there for future housing tracks? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, if it's under construction, ifhe's started, I believe it's -- I'm not sure, but there is a given time span in there if you don't build you have to hydro-seed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Ooes that still apply? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So even though we're giving them more time to keep the SDP active, the time frame in which they have to build within that SDP remains the same before they would have to hydro-seed if they don't start the time frame to build. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the reason I'm dwelling on this is you're going to incur a cost. Hydro-seeding is a few thousand dollars, up to a few thousand dollars an acre. So if you have someone who's got a three-year SDP and they clear and don't intend -- the market doesn't let them build for two and a half years, do that SDP, they're still going to be required to come in with say six months or whatever the code says and hydro-seed the Page 45 August 13, 2008 whole place while they're waiting. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they'll be in less monetary position to be able to utilize that. I mean, you know, usually people who can't start their project because of sales don't have a lot of money to go forward. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Most of our projects have already hydro-seeded. And they don't use -- the type of mix you're talking about, a few thousand dollars, is generally a higher grade mix. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: They don't use a real high grade mix. I've heard numbers below 1,000, but I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I looked at those too, but they didn't give the coverage that the county required, from what I could read in the specs, but so be it. Okay. I mean, I just wanted to make sure that was in play. Let's finish up on 10.02.03. And I think there's a couple of ways we could look at this. I believe we all think that something needs to be done, but the method in which it needs to be accomplished is at question. In order not to see something not get approved, we might want to consider recommending approval but with a strong recommendation that in lieu of doing this, say look at a declaratory act with an indefinite period of time so the commission then could then react to that at a more timely manner in lieu of changing the SOP. But should they fail to do that, this should still go forward. Maybe that's a way to consider this. Stan, you pulled the mic, I don't know if you wanted to say something. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments from anybody here? Page 46 August 13, 2008 Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can I make that motion? As I said before, it's here before us, I think we should act and I think we should approve it and pass it on. If the board so desires to do something different, they can do whatever they want. But I think it's here before us and I'd like to make a motion for approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A motion's been made and seconded for approval. And this is for Section 10.02.03, and finding it consistent with the GMP. Is that -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the second agrees? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any discussion? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Was the motion made based on your suggestion, or just going forward approving this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was going to in discussion suggest that we tack on a clarification that if the BCC would consider an emergency declaratory statement, that would be the preferred way to go. But in lieu of that, this is an alternative. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You made that statement earlier -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Mr. Vigliotti didn't pick up on that. And you're right to point that out. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And I do agree upon it. And I actually did address it, because I said if they chose to do that, that's fine by them. But I think we need to approve this, and if they want to add that, they can do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It needs to be a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I would like to see-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It be in a motion? Page 47 August 13, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it be more specific, that we would like to see the BCC consider a declaratory motion to address this issue, but lacking that ability, then this is a solution that we would recommend approval. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree, but I would prefer yes, as you said. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I'll go along with it. But my concern is, what is the problem of extending the life of an SDP for one year? I mean, that's what this is essentially doing. What kind of harm is this causing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we see any harm in it. That's what we're all saying. There's a better way to do it, possibly, and that would be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean in good times, bad times, any time, what's the problem with three year, which is essentially what this is creating, SDP life. I mean, I don't see the need -- I think the three years is fine. If the people are having trouble and it finally takes them two and a half years to get it going, three years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, here's what I think's really going to happen. I don't think this is going to be over in another year. And I think the three years isn't really going to be the best. I think that they ought to look at this emergency declaration, if the County Attorney puts that forth as a viable solution. That way it could be indefinite until they change it and then everybody's covered. But I think if we keep changing the LDC, we may be back here with a similar change next year for the same reason, is what the economy may be telling us. But that's the only reason I put that caveat in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we can vote. If the caveat's fine, let's move on then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Page 48 August 13, 2008 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion as noted, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Stan, the next one? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, the next one is for plans and plats. It's the same -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same situation? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Same situation. We're extending the time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd make a motion to approve, just as before, with the same conditions and stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any -- have a second to that motion -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we can go into discussion? Mr. Wolfley seconded. Now discussion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is the one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 135 to Page-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To 138, correct? Page 49 August 13,2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What happened to 133? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, 133 to 134. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh. Okay, I was ahead of myself. Sorry about that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, isn't this-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, Stan, this isn't the one you're talking about. I need to -- Mr. Vigliotti, you need to pull your motion, if you don't mind. This is a different -- we're on Page 133. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, not the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the next one after this is the one Stan was referring to. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now I'm confused. I thought we just agreed to approve the one on Page 133. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we went Pages 129 through 132. We went to Section 10.02.03. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, no, that's correct, all right, that's the one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. Vigliotti, would you withdraw your motion at this point? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Schiffer, the second, would you withdraw it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I thought -- didn't we vote on 129 to 131 just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you'll withdraw your motion first, I'll clarify. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Withdrawn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We voted on Pages 129 through 132. That was strictly the SDP extension issue. On Page 133 we have a different issue. The one that Stan Page 50 August 13,2008 thought was coming up next I think is on Page 135. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is an extension of subdivision plats, like we just did on SDP's. But in between are Pages 131 and 134, which are preserve setbacks. So now we're really discussing Pages 133 and 134 preserve setbacks as a different application and a different criteria altogether. So now that we're on that, Stan, did you want to make any comments about 133 and 134? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody want to make any comments? Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stan, isn't this -- the concern of this is that once we went into the situation where you could skip the preliminary plat and go right to the subdivision, the plat, that we were not at that time showing the setbacks for preserves? Is that the problem? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right, the purpose of this was to get the developer's engineer or surveyor to show the setback, the preserve setback on the plat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One of the other things we used to show on the preliminary was the actual setbacks of the lots and stuff, especially if it was a fee simple lot. Is that being shown on the final now? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir. But there was a suggestion that we show all setbacks and easements on the plats, but it turned out it got too cluttered. The preserves setbacks has been a more contentious issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the issue of not doing a Page 51 August 13,2008 preliminary means you never really do submit a drawing showing setbacks noted, because when you go into the final plat you don't have to show buildable areas and stuff like that in the final plat. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. I mean, I think that's something you should drag forward. I understand what it does to the graphics, but -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We tried that one once last cycle. It didn't go anywhere. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah, I guess I have the same problem that I have in a lot of these things. We have a minimum code and the minimum code says that there should be a 25-foot setback, and now you're adding in a deviation to the process. MS. ISTENES: I think it's referring to a deviation in a PUD that's approved as a result of a rezoning. Is that your intent, Stan? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. MS. ISTENES: Maybe we ought to make that a little clearer. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think the wording needs to change, because -- MS. ISTENES: Agree. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I was going to say this is just a clarification to show the dimensions, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what the underlined sections of it are. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have any questions? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Page 52 August 13, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got questions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If I may, in-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- answer to Ms. Caron's -- a lot of times the PUD doesn't have a 25-foot setback, it has some other setback. So this was just added in in case the PUD was approved as a deviation by the Board of County Commissioners. Otherwise, we'd always have to show a 25- foot setback, and sometimes it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan, on that underlined section that you're referring to where the 25- foot setback is mentioned, I want to suggest a change that might be better because of the section of the code that this is in, versus development standards section where you normally would go to look for setbacks. On the fifth line down it starts with the word, subdivision plat and then it has a comma, shall have a minimum 25-foot setback or other setback that may be approved as a deviation by the Board of County Commissioners. And then in the second sentence after that we struck the word 25- foot and we said, the required preserve principal structure setback line and the accessory structure setback lines shall be clearly indicated and labeled on the final plat where applicable. And I took a look at the language you struck there and thought well, why wouldn't you do that in the prior sentence so that it would read, shall have a minimum setback, say as required by this code or other setback as may be approved as a deviation by the Board of County Commissioners. And that way you don't have development standards in the platting section of the code, you have -- people would find that and they would go to the other sections of the code that apply to this and they would then apply it appropriately. Page 53 August 13, 2008 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, I have no problem with that. MS. ISTENES: I've actually directed Catherine in the next cycle to put the preserve setback requirements in each of the zoning districts like every other development standard is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ISTENES: This I know will still likely remain, although albeit it may be reworded because it is essentially just asking to put a __ or requiring that the setback line be designated on the final plat. But the actual dimensional standard requirement will be coming forward to you in all the zoning districts in the future so people go to the right place to look for it instead of -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: So we could take the 25-foot out and put it the way the Chairman wants. MS. ISTENES: Right now it's not in there, but it will be. And if that isn't problematic -- I wasn't quite sure what he was asking, so I can't answer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm suggesting is let's not put developmental standards in the platting section, let's put them in development standards section, and let's make this section refer for the minimum standards to the LDC as a whole so that you'd have to go back and make sure that your standards are consistent with any parts of the LDC that apply, not just one that may have read that way and all of a sudden it has precedence over all the others. It makes it too hard to figure out. So that was the suggested cleanup I was recommending. But I __ you know, if anybody -- if that's consistent with the thoughts of this panel, then Stan, I think this one needs to come back with some rework of that language to make sure it's right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it won't take long coming back because it's a small change, but -- Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: Just a clarification. So you really just want Page 54 August 13,2008 us to say the minimum setback required, preserve setback required by the LDC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would clean it up. MS. F ABACHER: Just clarification, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then what the LDC states is what it is. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 10.02.04 -- well, actually, this is -- yeah, 10.02.04, Pages 133 and 134 will come back to us. And now we're on pages -- well, it looks like we're skipping 135 and 136. MS. FABACHER: No, no, no, I'm sorry. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I think I've made some typos on the agenda. I'm new at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're new at it? MS. F ABACHER: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're new, we've got a lot of trouble, because you've been here longer than most. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, but we just started an agenda for me, if you recall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. So Pages 133 to 134 is coming back. That is then mislabeled submittal requirements for plats. Now we're going on to 10.02.04, submittal requirements for plats, but they're going to be on Page 135 to 136. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're on Page 135 to 136, which is the redundant program that-- MS. FABACHER: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Stan introduced in the other one that Mr. Vigliotti was already trying to make the motion on. MS. F ABACHER: Correct. Page 55 August 13, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I love these LDC hearings. Okay, this is the same pattern as before. Is there any discussion on it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, did you still want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I -- I actually did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you've got to make it again. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to approve this for submittal to the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consistent with the GMP? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Of course, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is it pursuant to the same manner COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in which you made the previous motion on the SDP? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. With the BCC making -- yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, same language we recommended on the SDP motion is mirrored on this one. Mr. Vigliotti made a motion to approve, finding it consistent with the GMP. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a second. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. Page 56 August 13, 2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. And Stan, we're on our last one, Page 137 to 138. I believe this is again an additional construction period, redundant to the last couple that you brought forward. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no new discussion. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Isn't this the one that was a concern that Commissioner Caron raised regarding the one-year extensions being granted? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's get into that issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does she have a concern still? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, if you look at Page 138, the final sentence says, additional extensions, and it doesn't say how many, over what period of time, are at the discussion of the County Manager or his designee. So these things could go on for the lifetime of a lifetime, according this to language. I don't think that's what you meant, but according to the language -- I mean, maybe that's what it is you meant, Stan. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That is what we meant. We wanted the county manager to be able to look at the economic conditions and keep extending these projects, if need be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why didn't you do that in the first two? Why the different tact on this one? Page 57 August 13, 2008 MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What this tends to do is -- might preclude the commissioners from having an opportunity to make their own judgments in the matter. And for reasons best known to them they may very well want to have that opportunity. So I'm not sure that that's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, to be consistent with the other sections, if we were to recommend language that provided a consistent time frame as you have applied in the platting and SDP's, what would we have to change here to make that happen? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Time. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: This one is different than the first one, because this is the construction time for completion and subdivision improvements. And the first one was for site development plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, I think is it the consensus of this board that we're uncomfortable with the unlimited time frame that this one produces? Ooes anybody have a -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not happy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stan, in there it states that you have to provide written justification. I mean, is there any criteria in that? Is that the dog ate my homework, or-- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It will be up to the discretion of the county manager or his designee. But if the board were to approve an executive summary, just blanket extending all SDP's until further notice, it would last longer than this. This at least every year you have to come back to the manager. And the manager could say okay, things are better, you're Page 58 August 13, 2008 not getting an extension. I don't see the difference. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if! may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the other hand, if! recall, and I hope I can recall it correctly, one of the reasons that they wanted to reduce the amount of time for development was because there were so many speculators that were hanging on to property and not moving things. And so, you know, by this action if they were to agree to it at some time later as it's written, they may rue that on the basis that -- I mean, they could always change it, but the point being here, they have the opportunity to look at it again and say one fell swoop. I think you pointed out that it was June of 2006. I guess that's based on lagging indicators, okay? We conclude that's reasonable, that that's when we went into this process. At some point there's going to be another date ascribed to it, the ending period. And when that happens, they could be in that position. I think putting the onus on the County Manager puts him in a situation where he's got to make some judgments that may not be in tune with the commission. That's my view. I may be entirely wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, if you were to change that last piece to have it say, the developer may request a one-year extension for completion and acceptance of the required improvements. Each request should -- this request should provide written justification for the extension, and then drop the last sentence, you're more consistent with the other ones that you've already recommended. You're adding a year to it. Why don't we just do that and leave the discretion back to the board to extend it further? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't have a prob -- rereading it, I don't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. Page 59 August 13, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you think? Is everybody happy with that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think that's a good idea. Especially because Stan couldn't figure out why it was the other way anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the suggestion would be to change it to a one-year -- may request a one-year extension with a proven written justification. And that the last sentence, allowing extensions further at the discretion of the County Manager or his designee, would be dropped. If that's acceptable to this panel, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So motion is made to recommend approval of 10.02.05 with the suggested changes that we just made and finding it consistent with the GMP with those changes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I completely agree with the statement that I made through you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, you seconded it? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And also the proviso that the BCC has the opportunity to do the declaration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The same language as we previously discussed. Is that acceptable to the motion-maker and the second? . COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's fine. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody there? Any further comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saymg aye. Page 60 August 13, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. That seems to wrap us up for all the items we were to discuss tonight. Ms. Fabacher? MS. FABACHER: We have your packages for the August 28th meeting here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's great, because we now know they will not change again. And hopefully Nick over in transportation realizes they won't change again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, at what point will we be doing this, if any? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to get a new one of those. MS. ISTENES: What Catherine's handing out now is what will be discussed at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Stan, you realize I was just kidding, right? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. You realize that this is not exactly what I wrote, but it's been through so many people that-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not worried. He has the bottle with the fingerprints on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gentlemen, we're still on recordation. She's got to write everything we say, so we still have to say it one person at a time. Thank you. Page 61 August 13, 2008 Item #5 OLD BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, while you hand those out, I'll ask, is there any old business on the part of planning commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We won't be adjourning. Will someone make a motion to continue to August 28th. COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Caron, seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you all. Grab your books and we'll have a great time on the 28th. Page 62 August 13, 2008 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:38 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Strain, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 63 _.__._._~_."'.. ....----.... .-.._.._-_..~..,.~---