The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 05/17/2010 S (LDC Amendments) May 17,2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LDC AMENDMENT CYCLE Naples, Florida, May 17,2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Frank Halas Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Susan Istenes, LDC Manager Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA May 17,2010 9:00 AM Fred W. Coyle, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 4 Frank Halas, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 2 Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5 Donna Fiala, BCC Commissioner, District I Tom Henning, BCC Commissioner, District 3 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS l' HI': TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. COLLIER COUlNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007- 24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMlTlm TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IF YOU ARr<: A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMJ TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE A V AILABLr<: IN THr<: COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1 :00 P.M. 1 [:\09 Amend the LDC\2009-Cycle IISchedules and Summaries\BCC Agenda (05171 O).doc I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Land Development Code (LDC) Amendments ~tlon DescrlDtion I Author Publication Sum. Pal!c ""',,' ".'" '., .,"'" '.,., .,.:,:,;P.ri!iilitil* 2.03.04 A.I.a Industrial Zoning Districts (PL2009-338) I A. Pires Bce 0505-Book I H 43 1.08.02, ~_..E==,=~i"~TY~ ~I~:=,~'~~~; 2.05.01 i~j;,til1uufi,~g, 3.04,0 I. 3.04.02 Protection of Endangered-Threatened-or Listed S. Lenbergcr Bce OS05-Book J 0 91 3.04.03,3.04.04 Species-Lisled Plants LORs 3.05.07 A-B Nativc vegetation Definition Single-Family S. Lenberger DCe 0505 -Book I P 109 Preserve Setback Clarification 3.05.07 H.l.b Preserve Dil11e~ional Criteria S. Lenben:zer BCC OSOS-Book I 0 117 3.05.07 H.I.u Conservation Mechanisms S. Lenber~er !lec ()50S-Book I 0 121 3.05.07 H.1.e Preservation Standards. created prcserves S. Lenberl!er BCC OSOS-Flook 1 R 125 3.05.07 H.I.g Preservation Standards s. Lcnbcrger Bee 0505-Book I S 141 Preserve Managemcnt Plans 3.05.07 H.l.h.i Preservalion Starnards S. Lenberger BCC OS05-l3ook I S 147 .... Recreational Uses in Preserves 3.05.0711.1.h.ij Preservation Starnards S. Lenberger llec 0505-Book 1 T 159 - Stonnwatcr Uses in Preservcs J 0.02.02 A Submittal Requiremcnts s. Lenberger Bee OS05-Book 1 HH 277 - Environmcl1tallmoact Statements (EIS) 10.02.06 [ Change the rcquiremcnt for annual vehiele on S. Lenbcrger Bee 0505-BO(Jk I HH 297 the beach (VOBl permits to a one-time oennit .":"'. '.... . .'... .... . .<':0 .'.' "Polliilitiji'Cp,nfrbl "" ..'. ,...:-".:<::;., ..... .....,. . ": ~ 'I:: 3.06.06 C RellU/ated Well le/ds - GG R.Smith Bee 0505-B{){}k J T 165 3.06.06 E Reflu/aled Wefl ield~ - FGUAGGC R. Smith Bec 0505-Book 1 T 167 3.06.06 F Re.llu/ated Well ie/ds - Ortlnpe Tree R. Smith Bce 0505-Book 1 T 169 3.06.06 H Reflu/ated Well ie/ds - AM R. Smith HC'C 0505-Book 1 T 171 3.06.06 H Rellu/ated Welltields - Ave Maria R.Smith BCC 0505-[lOllk 1 T 173 ~\n~~~4~m!IH(fgi~W~!iP:~lmi~~~mmilil~j!i*n~i. ,.. . ...... ... .' ;'~a' ..... .,,". . . !'. ;~~~ij~i!~3~i!tmmWmli!ri1u~m;~J@inj!~H;! " ] 0.02.07 C I Submillal Requirements for COAs PllllersonlCasalanAAi d' BCe 0505-Book 1 II 305 ;m111m!l~ml!~1~ffiiffltlih~~~~~i~l~f~1r.~;gl;~i~HW::lm~~~I:~HH~i~i~1tr;liHWji~1~~!Gimr~m;m::!L ';' t ~ ~1~W~I~f:~.~;!fltl;~~i~~nmifilw~tt~!j!rl~lr~.j!!i~mm~~mg~m~fgi~jmHl~;H~i~i~~iH~; :;;::~!f:~ 1.08.02 Definitions-Subdi ~.ision-Minor HouJdsworth Bee OS05-Book I B 5 1.08.02 Definitions lots, corncr-intcrior-thrOURh S. Chrzanowski 13CC 050S-Book I C 7 4.05.02 M Tvpical Off-Street Parkinll Design - Exhihit A S. Chrlanowski BCC 0505-Book 1 Z 187 4.05.04 Parkin\! Space Roouirements S. Istencs for Kelly Bce 0505-Book 1 Z 191 4.06.01 Generally S. Chrzanowski B(,(,OS05-Book 1 AA 195 6.0o.lIj Clear Site Distance S. Istenes ............: ,.... >>.. .: ..';: .. .>;. .;":COmnrefiwive,Plltiiniilil: , .,:..;'.T--.-..... .....;, . . ........ ..... 2.03.07 0.4 Earlv Entrv TOR ProlZram Extension M. Mosca Bee OS05~Book 1 I 45 5.04.04 Model Homes and Sales Centers D. Weeks Bce 0505-D()ok 1 1313 213 1.08.0 I, 1.08.02 School Board Concurrency M. Mosca, 8('(' ll50S-11ook J KK 335 4.08.07, 6.02.09 A. Taylor 10.02.04. I lO.02.ll7, 10.04.09. i 10.02. 12, I JO.02.1J. 10.04.00 ilnttijm~i~ilYMUnnfu"Y~MI; .... I g" ,_. T . :~r.'" it. (fl.'. .. m" CIJ,jl . 'iljia:gil3llifHil!61ijgg~~5iliOOQg~i ;~;g~nii!!#~lmm!~;!illi! 2.03.08 A.4 Aquaculture BCe Directed Bee 0505-Book J L 63 (orohibition within RFMU Scndilllz) J. Wril/ht 2.01.00 Generallv (oarkirU!Tuse of recreational vehicles)/ Bce 0505-Book 1 E 9 2 1:109 Amend the LDe\2009-Cycle 1 ISchedules and SummarieslBC'C Agenda (05171 0). doc 8.03.00. Delction of Advisory Boards Bee OS05-Book 1 FF 249 8.03.0 1.8.03.02 8.03.03. 8.03.04 8.03.05. 8.03.06 8.03.07. 8.03.08 8.04.00.8.04.01 8.04.02, 8.04.0J 8.04.04, 8.04.0S 8.04.06, 8.05.00 8.05.0 J. 8.05.02 8.05.0J.8.05.04 8.05.0S, 8.06.00 8.06.01.8.06.02 8.06.03. 8.06.04 8.06.0S, 8.06.06 8.06.07. 8.06.08 8.06.09, 8.06.10 8.07.00, 8.07.0 I 8.07.02. 8.07.03 -~:~':':~';~i!~;':~:'._"'"' '. ... .:- . i .; iliiii!~i!!!ijnili1ili1ii. ;Kif~lsUn!;~1Iiflijjm~:hm1I~~1~iiJmWi[li~m~~~g: ~~~hms;;~i!*mnim'.~~..!ii!! .' . 1.08.02 Definitions - "Dwellinl!- MultiDle.family" S. Istenes for Fabacher Bce 0505-Book J A I 2.03.01 B.l.b Estates-Accessory Uses-.4H Hogs Bee DIrected Bee 0505-Book I F 23 5.04.05 S. Istenes for Kelly 2.03.03 F Travel- Trailer Rcc Vehicle Campground Bee Directed Bee r)S05-Dook 1 H 35 (ITR VCl -- Park models from 480 to 500 sq.ll. S. Istcncs for Kelly 2.03.07 1.6 Bayshorc Mixed Use Overlay District (BMUDl S. Istenes Bec 050S-Book I J 59 2.03.07 J Goodland Overlay Zoninl! District (GZO) S. Istenes Bce OSOS-Dook 1 J 61 2.04.00,2.04.0 I Scrivener's errors, multiple (strike-outs from S. Istcnes for Fabacher Bee 050S-0<Klk 1 M 71 2.04.02.2.04.03 table dc-conversion were not entered in 4.02.02. & ordinance version). 4.02.29 4.02.01 D.9 Dimcnsional Standards for Principal Uses in Bee Directed Bee 0505-Book I W 175 Base Zoninl! Districts-Pool PumDs S. I stcnes 4.02.35 B.2 GTMUD, til!urcs 1-3-4-5 S. Istenes for Fabachcr B( 'C OS05.Book I X 179 4.06.05 D.4 General Landscaping Requirements S. Istcncs for McNall Ree 050S-Dook I AA 199 - Plant Material Standards 5.03.02 Fences and Walls S. Istencs nee 0505-Book I BB 201 5.04.0 I, 5.04.0S Re-write of Temporary Usc Pcrnlit section S. Istcncs for Kclly nce 0505-Book I CC 215 5.04.06, 5.04.07 S.04.0H. 10.02.0 G.and Appendix G 5.05.05 Automobile Service Stations - Returning S. Istcncs !:lce 0505-Book I EE 243 portions of code lost during re-codification: DSAC found that side and rear sethaeks for properties abuuing non-residential to be extrcl11 and had desire to change thcm. requesting that such S8s be brought back next cycle to cvaluatl 10.02.13 Planned Unit De\lelonment (PUD) Procedures S. Istenes for Devanas Bee OS05-Book I II 329 10.03.05 Notice Requirements for Public Hearings Defor S. lstenes Dee OS05-Book J JJ 331 the BCe. ecpe, BlA. EAC, etc... 10.03.05 B & F Notice Rcauiremenls for Public Hearin~s S. Islencs Dce 0505-Book I KK 333 _ ~. IN: Ii ltHm~Sl\~!'m~~iidmif~~iU!~:~m~~ ?;qj!f:jnmH~ii)ffi~UYt~i~!fi;:if~~flJ~ ..~. i.h!~!M~~!ff!r.~~~j~!m~*i! ji~1~Ui;i!~1~~~~th~lIHmllit;Ni!~ ig ~mffi1}~~tW !~m~mrtim 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THr<: COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383. 3 1:109 Amend the LDCI2009-Cyclc IISchedule. and SummarieslBCe Agcnda (OS171 O).doc NEXT MEETING DATES Bee LDe MEETING 2 MAY 29 at 5:QS,Ufl. Canceled BeC LDC MEETING 3 - JUNE 2, 20]0 at 9:00 a.m. s. Lenber er BCC LDC MEETING 4 - JUNE ]0,2010 at 9:00 a.m. 4 [:109 Amend the LDCI2009-Cycle I\S"hedules and SummaricslBCC Agenda (OSI710).doc Publication Bee llSIlS Baal. [ -4Q Bee IlSIlS Bijllk I 00 ;H9 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: The Board of County Commission meeting is now in session. Would you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Okay. Susan, are you going to be doing this? MS. ISTENES: Certainly. Good morning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. How are you? MS. ISTENES: Happy Monday. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But first I need to make sure that the changes or the sequence that you have provided and the -- the sequence of the amendments is correct, and do you have some additional changes? MS. ISTENES: I do have some changes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. ISTENES: And as we go along, I may be reading minor corrections into the record, but I'll do that when we get to that amendment. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. ISTENES: We're checking the ordinance as we're presenting it to you, so we've discovered some things after print. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. ISTENES: If you -- if you're okay with this, I have a little brief intro. And just for the benefit of the members of the audience, there are speaker slips located on the table in the hallway. If you wish to speak on any of the amendments, please pick up a speaker slip and fill it out, and you can hand it to me. This is the first of three scheduled Land Development Code amendment hearings, the second of which is scheduled for June 2, 2010 at nine a.m. in these chambers. And at the end of to day's meeting, staff would need you to continue this hearing to that date and time, Mr. Chairman. Page 2 May 17,2010 And I'd like to announce the following changes: We need to delay the following three amendments to the June 2nd meeting, two of which are already indicated in your agenda, but the first one here on Page 305, subsection 10.02.07 C, submittal requirements for COAs, we need to continue that, or hear that on the June 2nd meeting for the first time, instead of today. And the second and third items are the Immokalee overlay deviation process and the MPP shoreline calculations, and those two were already indicated in your agenda. Those are both returning to the CCPC on May 20th. So if we were to hear them today, you would not have the benefit of the CCPC comments, as they haven't completed reviewing them. MR. BELLOWS: Do you want to remind them of the meeting on 20th? MS. IS TENES: The other change we have is there will be no night meeting on May 20th. That has been canceled. So our next meeting is June 2nd at nine a.m. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good. Thank you very much. MS. ISTENES: Page 2 of your agenda shows the proposed order of the amendments for today's hearing. This meeting is scheduled to go to five p.m. today. Commissioners, obviously if there's a need to end earlier, we would just respectfully ask that maybe you tell us now for the benefit of the audience, because there is -- are quite a few people watching on TV that are going to come down later, both staff and, perhaps, members of the public, too. So do you anticipate going 'til five today, Commissioner, or is there a reason -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Absolutely not. MS. ISTENES: Okay. No, okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't anticipate going beyond 12 noon, so we need to move -- MS. ISTENES: Certainly. Page 3 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- fairly quickly. MS. ISTENES: Okay, certainly. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we will take as much time as we need to get this done, seriously. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I just don't want to take the whole day just because you have it scheduled for the whole day. MS. ISTENES: Certainly. I anticipated that, and I know members, hopefully -- of staff are hopefully watching that, and they will follow along, so thank you. Your books are organized as they have been historically. The first set of lettered pages, A through LL, comprise the summary sheets, and they are listed in ascending LDC section number order, and they're recommendations of your various committees and subcommittees, the DSAC and the CCPC. Their recommendations are contained within that summary sheet. So I would direct you to the summary sheet for their recommendations as you're going through the amendments. I believe that in this cycle of amendments the CCPC's recommendations were all incorporated into the amendments you have before you, so there is no discrepancy between staffs opinion and CCCP's opinion for this cycle. I would encourage you, however, to review their comments nevertheless, and certainly feel free to ask us questions. Mr. Chairman, each staff member is prepared with a brief presentation or an overview of their authored amendments, and I would ask if that is the way in which you would like to proceed, or would you like staff to say something more or less or do something different? CHAIRMAN COYLE: A brief overview is fine. If -- when we get to those revisions that are -- that do not change the intent of the existing Land Development Code, I would appreciate it if you would Page 4 May 17,2010 tell us that, and if it's just rearrangement of paragraphs or clarification of an existing policy, we can get through that very quickly without a lot of discussion, okay? MS. ISTENES: Okay. I've got highlighted pages I can put on the visualizer, and essentially that really is all it is, so -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. MS. ISTENES: Okay. With that, that's all I have. If you'd like to start -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's start. SUBSECTION 2.03.04 A.l.a (PL2009-338), INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: -- with the first. Okay. That would be subsection 2.03.04 A.1.a, the industrial zoning district. This is a private petition. Tony Pires is presenting. And that is on Page 43 of your LDC handout. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Now, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifwe could -- if you could tell me where we find the page numbers. MS. ISTENES: At the bottom center. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. MS. ISTENES: And there is a brief description on Page 43 for the reason and what is being changed, and Mr. Pires will give a brief overview as well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: And Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: We don't have a court reporter as of yet. Page 5 May 17,2010 We're taking hand minutes at this point in time. When the court reporter gets here, we'll have the court reporter -- this is on tape anyway . We'll have them do the entire transcript, so there will be an entire transcript ultimately. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Were they notified to be here today? MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is that they're on their way. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Traffic, no doubt. Mr. Pires? MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, members of the County Commission, good morning. My name is Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward, Pires, and Lombardo representing the petitioners in this case, the owner and the occupant and users of the facilities at 5510 Shirley Street. And today we've had favorable recommendations, unanimous recommendations from DSAC initially, and then the initial proposed language was revised after presentation before the Planning Commission in February, and then in the March Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this particular petition as you see drafted today. Hopefully you've had an opportunity -- I sent an email on Friday with a copy of some additional materials that were provided to the Planning Commission as well as the transcript from the Collier County Planning Commission meeting. We believe that this would resolve the issue that's currently been ongoing with regard to some uses involving -- at 5510 Shirley Street and other uses, and we would ask for your favorable consideration and adoption. I don't know if you want me to go into any more detail or history or any more questions. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We've heard this one before. Page 6 May 17,2010 MR. PIRES: That's right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you like individual motions on these? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. What we're going to do at the chairman's, you know, desire, is take individual motions, and when we're done, we're going to have the entire ordinance in front of you; we'll just make a motion for the entire ordinance. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. And Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just feel that this should be moving forward, and I'm certainly in favor, and I'll make that motion to approve, because there are other -- as it says in the body of this, there are other facilities already doing this same thing, and I believe that this should just be permitted just like everyone else is doing, so I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve private petition PL2009-3388, and second by Commissioner Henning. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Nick, if you could step forward. The only thing that bothers me on this is if we have a continuation of this area being infiltrated so that we don't address future concerns, because this is the -- one of the only few industrial parks that we have that are centrally located and in the urban area. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've had that discussion, Commissioner. For the record, Nick Casalanguida with the growth management division. There was a time stamp on this amendment, says by a certain date, so we will address -- anything that changes in the future would have to come into compliance. So understand the discussions we've had regarding the legal uses or people coming in and trying to change Page 7 May 17,2010 things after the fact. The application does have a time certain of a certain date in existence, so we would keep an eye on that going forward, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly. I also want to thank staff for working so well with us on this as we went back and forth on a number of items. Thank you. SUBSECTION 1.08.02 AND 2.05.01: PRIVATE PETITION (PL2009-467); DEFINITIONS - DENSITY STANDARDS AND HOUSING TYPES - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: Okay, Mr. Chairman. The next is a private amendment as well. It's subsection 1.08.02 and 2.05.01. It is on Page 83 of your packet, and Rich Y ovanovich will present. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. I also have Bob Duane with Hole Montes with me, if you have any questions of Bob. This is a very limited application amendment to the LDC. It's a Page 8 May 17,2010 clarification that a time share is not a land use; it is a form of ownership of property. The purpose of this application and the only place that it applies is for residential tourist zoned property in Port of the Islands. We represent Sun Stream that owns some RT property, and they want to build a hotel at Port of the Islands. They want it to be owned as a time share. Your code currently allows hotels that meet the maximum unit size at 26 units per acre; however, if you own it as a time share, you're only allowed to have 16 units per acre. So what this ordinance does is allow time shares that meet the size limitation for hotels and meet the operational requirements for a hotel have the same density as a hotel that is owned by a single owner or is owned in the condominium form of ownership, which is consistent with how Florida Statutes operates. We had hours and hours of discussions about this amendment in front of the Planning Commission. At the end of the day, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the limited application of having this apply only to Port of the Islands. Apparently there's some concerns up in the Vanderbilt Beach area, and this ordinance has nothing to do with the Vanderbilt Beach area. So we are requesting that the Board of County Commissioners approve these text amendments to allow time shares at a density of 26 units per acre in Port of the Islands. If you have any further questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, a question, Mr. Y ovanovich, if you would, please. I did get some emails related to this subject, and they were pretty general about not allowing what they call the hotel to take place in there. And the thing I was concerned about was the public process that you got, to where you are here today. Was there meetings held at Port of the Isles for the residents to be able to discuss this? Page 9 May 17,2010 MR. YOV ANOVICH: A hotel's an already allowed use at Port of the Islands, so -- we're not asking for a new use, so we didn't think it was necessary to meet with them since a hotel's an already allowed use on the R T property. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So let me repeat back what you said, at least what I think you said, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. So right now you could build a hotel without any problem and you could have guests coming and going -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- but you couldn't build a time share that has identified owners that would come and go? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. I could build -- I could build a condo hotel, I can build a hotel that has one owner only, I just can't have a hotel that is -- where I sell weeks instead of individual days. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. And my other question is, even though you said this is -- this ordinance will only be dealing directly with Port of the Isles and nothing else, it still leaves me a little bit concerned the fact that, would this -- if somebody could use this as a springboard to be able to move this up and down the coast of Collier County, would that be a possibility? In other words, the exception was made for Port of the Isles, now maybe it can be for Vanderbilt Beach? And possibly, would this ownership also be more cumbersome for us when we come to the point that we want to have different hotels or condos or whatever? It is sign off on -- as far as when beach renourishment comes as far as their -- the right of public use to the property? MR. YOV ANOVICH: This will be no more different than a condominium form of ownership. You'll still just deal with one association in dealing with -- with beach renourishment projects. This -- what your Planning Commission said is, we understand this location makes sense to do this. They didn't want to hold up this LDC amendment for the very same concerns you're raising about other parts Page 10 May 17,2010 of Collier County. They did ask that your staff look at, overall, Collier County and the form of time share ownership. But on this particular project, that's why it's a limited application so there can't be a global application throughout Collier County. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So there's no more intense land use that's still -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's exactly the same thing? It's just a different form of ownership. And historically people think a time share is actually a land use. It's not. It's a form of ownership of property, but it has been historically treated as a land use, so that's why it becomes so confusing for this particular amendment. But it will not be any more intense than a regular hotel. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: This isn't a springboard to address that issue that's going on up there in Vanderbilt Beach area now, is this? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're sure? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't represent that client and never have represented that client, and it came out right from the getgo that all I'm interested in is resolving an issue in Port of the Islands. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Today. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm glad you clarified that there, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted you to talk to me one more time about, even if they are built to the room size of hotel and motel rooms, why did it stipulate? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, they have to because the concern was -- and this really was an issue that came up on Vanderbilt Beach. Page 11 May 17,2010 You had somebody build units that were larger than the maximum size that are allowed for hotels and motels, which I believe are 3- to 500 square feet. They built something much larger, called it a hotel to get around, I believe, some density requirements up there. The reason we've said we require -- we don't say even if -- that we required to limit our size to the 3- to 500 square feet for a hotel, so we're not trying to build condominiums, a multifamily project at a higher density . We're limiting the size to the 3- to 500 square feet. So we're not getting around the density limitations for the larger units. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And the last question is, although you say you're limiting it just to Port of the Islands and to this one project, it really doesn't say that in here, or that I can see. I might have missed it. Not that I -- you know -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And staff can correct me, but what you look at is, there's a couple of different places where that's addressed. One is in the footnotes, footnote number three, which -- it's my Page 4, but you have different page numbers because I couldn't print your whole packet off. But it's -- footnote number three clearly says, a hotel or a motel in the Port of the Islands may offer time share. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. Commissioner Fiala, we went through this with the -- with the Planning Commission on multiple occasions. There was concern. They wanted to make sure that this did not apply to the Vanderbilt Beach area, and that's why this language is here, and it only applies to Port of the Islands, so that's why that reference is in the footnote. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So even though it's in the footnote and not in the body requiring it or something -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that still pertains to it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. The table -- as you will notice, the Page 12 May 17,2010 table all directs you to footnotes on how you apply the table. So I think Susan could confirm that staffs comfortable that we've addressed that limitation appropriately in the footnotes. MS. ISTENES: Yes. Staff is comfortable with that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. Because sometimes, you know, things are shaded to really refer to other things, and we don't see it until after the fact, and then we find out that it blows up in our face. So I just wanted to make sure that this doesn't happen. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think it could. The level of scrutiny -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right. If Susan tells me that it's okay, then I believe it's okay. All righty. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is Port of the Islands a PUD? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is it, straight zoning? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's a bunch of different straight-zoned parcels. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's in the -- for this change? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Ifwe could -- ifit were a PUD, I would have just come in and amended the PUD, but it's a bunch of straight-zoned parcels. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Susan, is there a quick and easy way to just include in the text of the LDC that this is applicable only to Port of the Islands? MS. ISTENES: I -- you-all -- I'm sorry. I'm looking at Jeff and Heidi. We had put that in in one version, and I think we had traded that out for another -- meaning the same thing, but another -- another reference. Does that -- do you remember that, Heidi? Is that something we could get back to? Page 13 May 17,2010 MS. ASHTON: From our perspective, the footnote number three where it refers to the Port of the Isles does restrict it to solely the Port of the Islands. You could certainly put that sentence in if you would prefer. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think at least two of us would prefer. Probably three of us. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. MR. KLATZKOW: We'll put that in. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, there are technically two hotels in Port of the Isles. There's one on the south side that is fully operating; there is one on the north side of 41 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that is -- has been there a very, very long time and has been recently renovated. Does this apply to both of those hotels? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It actually applies to neither of these two hotels. They own some additional property, and they will be building some newer units. CHAIRMAN COYLE: The same owner owns both hotels? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know. I don't think so. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I didn't think so. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. So who is going to be building additional units? Which hotel? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Our client -- it will be on the south side of 41. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's some vacant RT zoned property on the south side of 41, and there'll be new hotel units built on that property . CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But this -- this change would not apply to the hotel on the north side of 41 ? Page 14 May 17,2010 MR. YOV ANOVICH: If it's zoned RT -- and I -- it's zoned RT, yes, they could convert the form of ownership to time share, but they're already probably built at the 26 units per acre. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just like the other on the south side. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: So this is only for new construction; I mean, the anticipated use is only for new construction? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. That was the purpose of coming in here. If the existing owners want to convert to time share, I guess they could. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have a motion, Commissioners? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion to approve by Commissioner Henning -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: The petition passes unanimously. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Page 15 May 17,2010 SUBSECTION 3.04.01, 3.04.02, 3.04.03, AND 3.04.04, PROTECTION OF ENDANGERED, THREATENED OR LISTED SPECIES AND LISTED PLANTS LDRS - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: Okay. We're now on to the environmental amendments. The first one is on Page 91, subsection 3.04.01, 3.04.02, 3.04.03, and 3.04 -- 3.04.04, protection of endangered, threatened, or listed species and listed plants. Stephen Lenberger is your presenter. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Stephen. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen Lenberger from the Engineering/Environmental Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Services Department. There are several environmental amendments scheduled right here, and the first one being listed plants. Now, all of these amendments are here because of changes to the Growth Management Plan on the 2004 EAR. And all but one, the last one, would not be. The first one, listed plants, the GMP requirement required staff to take a look at listed plants to see if any were worthy of protection and to see if they should be included in the code. When we went through the process with the Environmental Advisory Council and the Planning Commission, there was a little bit of concern about the amendment itself or -- not the amendment, but the code, in relation to being outdated particularly with regards to gopher tortoises and bald eagle. And the Planning Commission and EAC, as well as stakeholders, wanted us to take a look at the entire section of the code. So what we did is we evaluated listed plants. We have included them in the amendment. There's a detailed analysis in the amendment itself. And we've also updated the listed species section to bring it in compliance with the new management plans produced by the State of Page 16 May 17,2010 Florida. If you have any questions, I'll be more than glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have any speakers? MS. ISTENES: We do have Judith Hushon, who is registered for all the environmental amendments. If you want to waive on this one -- MS. HUSHON: Waive. MS. ISTENES: Waive? She'll waive. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you support it? MS. HUSHON: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Just for the record, Judy Hushon said that she would support this particular amendment, for the recording that we will translate into verbiage later. Okay. We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And a second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And a second by Commissioner Fiala. And Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- page -- it's going to be 91, should be -- yeah, 92 and 93, you're giving some cost estimates. Those are -- those are not actually going to be part of the amendments. It's just the synopsis. MR. LENBERGER: Right, just information. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just information. Okay, great. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. My concern -- and I'd like you to talk just a little bit about it, if you would, please -- MR. LENBERGER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- is the fact that we're going to become so difficult as far as identifying all the different plants and animals to the point where people that have purchased some lots some time ago for retirement or to build on will get to the point they won't Page 1 7 May 17,2010 be able to build on it or they'll have to mitigate it to the point that it will be absolutely unbelievable as far as the cost goes. I see a cost in there of 3- to $5,000 per gopher tortoise to be able to relocate it. Is this realistic? When you had your stakeholder meetings that I know you held, did you have a number of property owners present that were entering into this as far as the discussion went? MR. LENBERGER: During stakeholder meetings, we did have some private citizens attend. It was mostly environmental consultants trying to work through the issues. As far as the listed species regulations, they won't apply to individual lot owners. There's only one section, that's compliance with sea turtle lighting compliance on the beach, is really the only thing that applies to a single-family homeowner, so they don't apply to them. As far as the regulations in themselves, the state Gopher Tortoise Management Plan actually backed off and made a simpler process for only a few tortoises to do that, to make it easy for a single-family homeowner to take care of that issue and not to go through a cumbersome process. As far as the listed plants, we took a look at the plants and looked at those that weren't already protected pretty much, and state and federal lands on the eastern reaches of the county, pretty much just looked at the coastal species. We also looked at the ones that were pretty easy to relocate, and we made criteria which made it pretty easy to do that. So there's nothing that's going to stop building. It's pretty easy to comply with the regulations. And again, the listed species -- I mean, the listed plant regulations we have won't apply to single-family. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, how would this work? In other words, a person files for a building permit and it goes to environmental, they send out a specialist that will identify these plants and mark them? Or do they have to -- is it up to the applicant Page 18 May 17, 2010 for the permit to hire a specialist to come in? MR. LENBERGER: Well, as far as the gopher tortoises, it will be up to the applicant. The county's not going to review for the gopher tortoises. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's go with the plants. I'm sorry. MR. LENBERGER: Oh. The plants, it won't apply to single- family. So a single-family homeowner comes in for a building permit, it doesn't apply. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So this would apply for large PUDs or -- MR. LENBERGER: Subdivisions, site development plans. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, those that are already in place, are they grandfathered in, or would it apply to them, too, for any new building that's going to take place? MR. LENBERGER: It will apply to new construction. The listed plants are going to be in areas that are not developed, so it would be new construction. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MR. LENBERGER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a question on Page 107. MR. LENBERGER: 107? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Paragraph 3.04.03. You say that on the one, two -- third line down, relocation of epithetic species of plants listed as rare or less rare shall only be required for plants located within 8 feet of the ground. Now, you are clearly talking about not within 8 feet of the ground of the preserve, but 8 feet above the ground of the impacted surface? Is that what you're really saying? MR. LENBERGER: We put that in there because there was concern that if there was an epithetic plant real high, they didn't want to have to get a cherry picker or whatever to get the plant. So we tried Page 19 May 17,2010 to make it just the height of 8 feet of the ground surface. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. LENGERGER: Just a reasonable effort to move the plant. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, we go on down a couple more lines. When available, only two plants per species per acre of plants listed as less rare are required to be relocated. What you're really saying is that you don't have to relocate every protected species on the land to be impacted, but you must take a certain number of plants and relocate them? Is that a fair interpretation of that -- MR. LENGERGER: Oh, for the less rare plants. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MR. LENBERGER: It's to establish the seed source. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. Okay, okay. Very well. All right. Commissioner Fiala, you have another question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is an epithetic plant? MR. LENBERGER: An epithetic plant is a plant which grows on another plant, and --like a bromeliad in a tree, an orchid in a tree. It just fastens to the plant. It's not parasitic; it just grows on the plant. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was by Commissioner -- who, Coletta or -- I know it was seconded by Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think I made the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas made the motion, Commissioner Fiala seconded. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.t Page 20 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. SUBSECTION 3.05.07 A THROUGH B, NATIVE VEGETATION DEFINITION, SINGLE-FAMILY, PRESERVE SETBACK CLARIFICATION - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: Okay. The next item is on Page 109, and it's subsection 3.05.07 A through B, native vegetation definition, single- family, preserve setback clarification. MR. LENGERGER: This amendment here is in relation to the GMP requirement for the definition of native vegetation. There were a number of issues which we worked through stakeholders, particularly how native -- retention of native vegetation applies to areas where the understory has been cleared and you created lawn or pasture. So we clarified that. And actually it was the stakeholders that brought forward the idea of requiring preservation of listed trees as opposed to calling it a native habitat or native vegetative community. So we've created two categories, native trees and native vegetative communities. That's how Lee County addresses this requirement. It's to make it less onerous on a developer. We've also included some exceptions for clarification, and we also included criteria for when restoration would be required and a provision for getting an after-the- fact agricultural clearing permit. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, question related to fire protection. As you know, we've been -- it's been recommended by the Page 21 May 17,2010 state fire marshal or local fire departments, all the people that are in the know, that it's very important that you clear at least 30 feet around a home, minimum of 30 feet. Does this address that so people can do it now without having to worry about the repercussions of our codes and ordinances? MR. LENBERGER: We have it addressed in a couple of places. One is the Preserve Management Plan section, which we'll go through in a little bit here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: And also in the native vegetation definition, we've included a provision to allow fire breaks. It's a count towards the native vegetation requirement for just that, to be able to create these fire breaks for protection of fire, particularly on the perimeter. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. If it's not in this particular ordinance we're dealing with, then let's go ahead, and when it comes to that, would you get some detail on it for me? MR. LENBERGER: Oh, I will. I will do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would appreciate it, because it's very important to the people out in Golden Gate Estates in the agricultural lands. MR. LENGERGER: I will do that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 22 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: The petition passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 3.05.07 H.l.B, PRESERVE DIMENSIONAL CRITERIA - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: Okay. The next amendment is on Page 117, subsection 3.05.07 H.1.b, preserve dimensional criteria. MR. LENGERGER: The preserve dimensional criteria amendment is another EAR-based GMP requirement. This went through a lot of issues with stakeholders. It was finally decided just to include language to discourage linear picture -- picture-shaped frame preserves around the edge, and that's all that was added to the amendment. Staff originally proposed a shaped surface -- a shape factor ratio, which the stakeholders didn't agree with. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve, second by Commissioner Halas. Commissioner Henning with a question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just -- actually a question on what we -- was just done, or the definition of 1.08.02. Is that a general definition citation? MR. LENBERGER: On the previous amendment? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, in our Land Development Code -- trying to go by memory -- the definition is under this one code, 1.08.02 -- 1.08.02. MR. LENBERGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is? That gives all definitions Page 23 May 17,2010 for everything? MR. LENBERGER: There are all kinds of different types of vegetation, native, prohibited exotic, invasive exotic. And what we did with this amendment is to bring it in line with the other definitions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, in the summary book, looking -- trying to look at what our advisory board said. Here's one, 1.08.02, definition of minor subdivision. So my question is, is all the definitions under that numbered code? MR. LENGERGER: Yeah. All the definitions are in chapter one of the LDC. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chapter one? MR. LENBERGER: Chapter one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In specific? See, I'm trying to find -- I'm trying to go with the recommendations of our advisory boards, and you're not -- I'm sorry for not being clear, because I'm not getting a clear answer. What section is the definitions under? MR. LENBERGER: They're all -- MS. ISTENES: 1.08.00 is the section where -- all the definitions that apply to the Land Development Code, unless a particular section has its own set of definitions, but -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Are you looking for one in particular? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I was looking at the -- trying to find the one that we just approved. If you can give us a synopsis of the recommendations of our advisory board or what page I could find the recommendations, I would appreciate it. MR. LENGERGER: I will do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. LENGERGER: For the native vegetation definition, the advisory boards are letter P, Page P. COMMISSIONER HENNING: P, thank you. Okay. Page 24 May 17,2010 I'm okay. MR. LENGERGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do I hear a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we made the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I've got to write these down. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I made the motion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Made by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: The petition passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 3.05.07 H.l.d, CONSERVATION MECHANISMS- APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next amendment is on Page 121, subsection 3.05.07 H.1.d, conservation mechanisms. And the summary sheet recommendations on that is Q, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. LENGERGER: The conservation mechanisms in the LDC amendment is another GMP-related evaluation. Basically staff was to take a look at -- well, the GMP was changed from conservation easements to conservation mechanisms to give flexibility on how staff could review and what requirement they could have for recording Page 25 May 17,2010 some sort of legal instrument to protect preserve areas. During the meeting with the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission expressed a desire to have some sort of recorded easement. So staff did an evaluation with the County Attorney's Office, and it was decided as far as the requirements as far as processing the conservation easement and as far as the amount of protection, that it would be best just to keep the conservation easement in place. So what we did is we worked through with -- the language with the County Attorney's Office to clarify, and it's also to include some exceptions for state and federal parks, and for oil and gas exploration. We added that as well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you tell me the difference between easement and mechanism? MR. LENGERGER: The mechanism would just be to allow a variety of ways. We -- in the analysis we did analysis on restricted covenants versus a conservation easement. So the mechanism is just to explore other ways of recording an instrument. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's a broader -- MR. LENGERGER: A broader, encompassing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. Page 26 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 3.05.07 H.l.e, PRESERVATION STANDARDS, CREATED PRESERVES-APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next one is on Page 125, subsection 3.05.07 H.l.e, preservation standards, created preserves. Page Q of your summary sheet. MR. LENBERGER: This is a couple of EAR-based amendment changes. One was creation of restoration of native vegetation. The GMP required staff to look at situations where this would apply. There is already some language in the code, and there was language in the previous GMP policy to allow for off-site -- I mean on-site creation of native vegetation. Staff also realized that the section was outdated, and we took a comprehensive look at the restoration criteria with the environmental consultants. They were very helpful. The other GMP requirement was to consider an off-site native vegetation retention alternative to allow for particularly sites where you have small preserve or a lot of intense land uses to be able to have the preservation requirement off site, whether that be a donation of land or a donation of fees to Conservation Collier to buy lands in the county for preservation where it would be more compatible and better protected as opposed to the small site with intense land uses. So we did an extensive evaluation. Be glad to answer any questions in regards to the amendment. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. Page 27 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 3.05.07 H.1.g, PRESERVATION STANDARDS, PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PLANS - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next amendment is on Page 141, subsection 3.05.07 H.l.g, preservation standards, Preserve Management Plans, summary sheet S. MR. LENBERGER: The Preserve Management Plan is, again, an EAR-based amendment that -- we took a look at Preserve Management Plans. But typically the GMP required us to evaluate them to see how Preserve Management Plans could maintain species diversity. This is what Commissioner Coletta was talking about, the fire maintenance. During the stakeholder meetings we've had good participation with Michael Weston and Victor Hill from the Caloosahatchee Fire District. They were very helpful. They came in several stakeholder meetings. And we tried to work out a Preserve Management Plan which would encompass fire or fire prevention, taking into consideration the adjacent property as well as what's on site. So we took a pretty comprehensive look at this, and we wanted to build in a lot of safety. Page 28 May 17,2010 A lot of preserves -- a lot of the habitats in Collier County are fire dependent. They naturally go through a cyclical burning. Usually pine tlatwoods every five to seven years under natural conditions, and what that does is it maintains species diversity particularly in the understory plants. If -- in the absence of fire, and we have this issue now, particularly out in the Golden Gate Estates -- Commissioner Coletta is very aware of it -- you have the accumulation of fuels, and when you have that, the understory starts to grow up and you have the potential for wildfire if you do get fire, whether that be man induced or a lightning strike. So there is a lot of concern there. So we've tried to address that issue to encompass the ability of property owners to be able to conduct fire or some sort of mechanical manipulation of the understory vegetation to protect homeowners and to maintain species diversity in a preserve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just heard what you said. Let me put it back to you and you tell me if it sounds right. Once this passes its final draft form and it's out there and it's the law of the land, the public will have the right to be able to go on their own property and clear it within 30 feet around their house without having to worry about any kind of repercussions? MR. LENBERGER: Well, there are a couple things here. One-- well, first, this won't apply to single-family homeowners. It only applies to preserve, and preserves are not required on single-family lots or parcels, so it's not going to affect them. Getting away from the amendment here, code currently allows a homeowner to clear an acre of their property with construction of a new home, and particularly out in the Estates, for your -- basically your homesite. You can clear more for accessory uses and also for fire Page 29 May 17,2010 prevention, so that's how it would be addressed on, say, a Golden Gate Estates parcel. This is for preserves which would be located either on a Site Development Plan or multifamily parcel, for example, or a subdivision. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This would be similar to what we went through on Vanderbilt Country Club? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, correct. And basically it's to allow them to do this, to have them coordinate with a fire safety plan with the Division of Forestry. They were very helpful in this, and I see this as a positive. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It is. MR. LENBERGER: I just spoke with Victor Hill trying to get some general guidelines to implement this, and they are working now for a fire safety plan for the whole Golden Gate Estates area, and they want to incorporate this into that as well. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we have to address anything further as far as homes in Golden Gate Estates go or in the agricultural lands about the clearing around the house, or what we have together now, does that cover it where people can go and do what they need to do? And I know this isn't related to this particular issue. MR. LENBERGER: Not for this particular amendment. But I have been speaking with Victor Hill, and he is working with one of our staff members, Chris D'Arco, on looking at that whole issue of safety out in the Estates as well as in the agricultural land. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If it would be at all possible, would you take the time to see if you can make an appointment with my aide along with Victor Hill? I'd like to talk to you about this subject. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. We will do that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be fair to say this Page 30 May 17,2010 would be applicable to PUDs that require preserves in subdivisions that require preserves, and it would not be applicable to either one that doesn't require preserves? MR. LENBERGER: Only where preserves are required. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Only -- yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Because Golden Gate -- there are a lot of subdivisions out there, Poinciana is one of them, but there's no preserve requirement. MR. LENBERGER: Then it would not apply. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not sure I understood the answer to that question. MR. LENBERGER: Sure. CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are many existing PUDs that were required to establish preserves. Is this going to be retroactive to all current PUDs that are in existence that were required to establish preserves? MR. LENBERGER: Only if they want to address issues that they can't address with their current Preserve Management Plan. Back in the, let's just say the '90s, for example, Preserve Management Plans are very limited, and they may only have the requirement to remove exotic vegetation, nuisance vegetation, but you could have a pine flatwoods in an older subdivision where you're getting this accumulation of material where you have a potential safety concern, particularly with respect to fire. So they could come in through a very simple process to develop a Preserve Management Plan in accordance with this criteria to allow them to do that. Also, within the -- in the amendment here, we also lessen the restrictions for clearing permits with regards to fire control. We don't want to be an impediment to this. We want to encourage management of preserves, so we -- if you have a Preserve Management Plan that Page 31 May 17,2010 says can you reduce fuel loads, create firebreaks, if they're in accordance with this plan, you don't have to get a separate clearing permit from the county to implement it. We want to encourage this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm still not clear on this. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. Sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is permissive. People can decide they just will not abide by this particular Land Development Code; is that correct? MR. LENBERGER: For existing? CHAIRMAN COYLE: This one. MR. LENBERGER: Well, any new project that comes in has to develop a Preserve Management Plan for their preserve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: Maintain species diversity. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: For existing preserves and existing products, no, they do not have to develop a Preserve Management Plan. They can elect to if they wish to, but they don't have to. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if they elect to, this tells them what they must do. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Where is that specified in the LDC that this does not -- this is not retroactive? MR. LENBERGER: I don't know if we have a vesting clause in here. We could add one if you wish. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think that's important. When you start applying LDCs retroactively, there are all sorts of unintended consequences here. MR. LENBERGER: We could add a vesting clause. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if that's acceptable to the rest of the commissioners. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's a great idea. Page 32 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay. All right. Any further questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning makes a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously, with the addition of a vesting clause. MR. LENBERGER: We will add that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Good. SUBSECTION 3.05.07 H.1.h.i, PRESERVATION STANDARDS, RECREATIONAL USES IN PRESERVES - APPROVED W/CHANGES ENTERED INTO MANAGEMENT PLAN MS. ISTENES: The next amendment is on Page 147, subsection 3.05.07 H.1.h.i, preservation standards, recreational uses and preserves, summary sheet Page S. MR. LENBERGER: The next amendment, as well as the one after it -- this is passive recreational uses and preserves. And there's also -- the one after this is stormwater uses and preserves. Page 33 May 17,2010 A lot of interest with stakeholders on these amendments. Basically to try to identify uses that are allowed in preserves. I gave pretty much an evaluation of what's out there in my narrative. And basically, talking with stakeholders, I tried to address all their concerns. And the uses I have are here. I'd be glad to discuss any of them with you. If you want to know more about it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Yes, I do have a real interest in this. Recreational use and preserves is a wonderful idea if it can be done in a way that it will not harm the original intent of the preserve. But let me playa what-if for you. This also would be applied to the county when we have certain lands that we have set aside in preserves, such as the landfill. We have a large preserve around the landfill that's in place. One of the things I wanted to look into in the past, and I broached the subject a couple times but was told that it wasn't possible because it's got a preserve status, was the right for young people to be able to deer hunt in there. There's a tremendous amount of game that lives within that preserve. A lot of people enter that area illegally and harvest the game with bows and arrows, and I wanted to see about a youth hunt a couple times a year but was told that because it was a preserve, people weren't allowed in there. Does this change that? Don't worry about Mr. DeLony getting mad at you. MR. LENBERGER: That's okay. It's not addressed in this amendment. The uses in preserve, we pretty much -- well, they're all addressed towards structures. They're not addressed so much for uses. I personally would look at hunting as a management tool, but it could also be a recreational activity as well, I understand that. We could add that here if you wish. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to see this just as an Page 34 May 17,2010 option, not saying that we would do it, because I mean, it hasn't been run through the public sector yet. But I would like to see that added as an option for us to be able to consider in the future. MR. LENBERGER: We could add that if you'd like. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? We have one speaker. MS. ISTENES: Actually we have two on this if Judith is going to speak. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want the speakers first? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Whatever you prefer. If you'd like to ask your question first. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, sure. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Judith Hushon. MS. HUSHON: He can do his questions. That's fine. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's see. You say impervious pathways shall be limited to no more than one percent of the area preserved, pathways over -- you're only allow impervious pathways, right, surfaces; is that correct? MR. LENBERGER: There was a number of issues with stakeholders. They wanted to actually encourage the use of pervious materials, but it was felt that some impervious should be allowed. And we looked at one particular preserve in Autumn Woods, which has a bike path. It's a concrete bike path. It occupies about, rough calculations, 2.1 percent of the preserve area. And stakeholders kind of look at that, and they wanted to encourage pervious pathways, but they didn't want to limit it to that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: So the way they wanted to do that is just to say you can use impervious for up to one acre, and then after that, you have to use either boardwalk, pervious material. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the basic human recreatione Page 35 May 17,2010 is passive recreation. Would that be a correct statement? MR. LENBERGER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- Michael Greenwood or Green, Michael Green, Michael Greenwood -- used to be with -- might be with transportation. I understand that he found a material, actually is going to save the county a substantial amount of money for the Immokalee pathway. Instead of building a bridge, this will be at grade and it allows the water to flow in the Mirasol flow way. I would like to see the Environmental Department talk to Michael Greenwood about that. Maybe that would solve the issue between impervious and pervious for this amendment. MR. LENBERGER: I don't -- I don't know if it would be different than we have here. My guess is that he's speaking about a pervious material. So I think it's in line with what we're saying here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: And what we're trying to do is encourage it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I understand why you're encouraging it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could we agree that you will at least talk with the gentleman suggested by Commissioner Henning and verify that? MR. LENBERGER: We can do that, yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Judith? MS. HUSHON: By the way, on pervious -- Judith Hushon, EAC. On pervious pathways, I asked the Conservancy to send you-all the report that they generated on pervious materials. I founded it edifying, and I think you would enjoy looking at it too in your positions. You don't have to read every word, but it really gives you a feeling for where pervious pathways are, that the state of the art has really advanced, and I think you'd enjoy that. I was -- I wanted to speak on the hunting in preserves. We need to really work on developing that language. I don't -- that language Page 36 May 17,2010 can't just go in here, because so many of our preserves are in neighborhoods. The bulk of them are in PUDs and things like that where we certainly don't -- we have to be really careful with the language where that could be allowed. And so I would say, that's something to put on for the future, but I don't think that's here today. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you, Judith. Commissioner Coletta was next. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I wasn't. It was Commissioner -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, that was one of my concerns that, you know, I think that we need to have hunting, but you have to be concerned in regards to where you're going to have even hunting that is -- basically takes place so that you don't affect the neighborhoods with either arrows or with lead shot or whatever else may be used to -- for hunting. So I have to agree with Ms. Hushons (sic) that we have to be careful in regard to preserves and where we designate hunting. But I really believe that large preserves need to be addressed as far as making sure that we address the issue of where people can go out and exercise their ability to hunt under a controlled environment. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I think Commissioner Halas just summed it up very well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Obviously you can't say that all preserves are going to be open to hunting. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would never happen. I can just see the one down there at Santa Barbara, what is it, two and a half acres, I believe it is. Page 37 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'd have them up in Vanderbilt Beach hunting. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That may not -- which, of course, you know, common sense tells you that wouldn't apply. But what I'm saying is, is that something that would be able to be put in there where it would say, where applicable, where it could cover everything where we could address on a case by case, like -- same way we do Conservation Collier. We totally recognize hunting, fishing, a whole bunch of activities as a permitted use in Conservation Collier lands subject to what the availability of -- the size of the land is and where it's located. And the same thing could be applied almost word for word in the preserve area that's in the Conservation Collier language. And I ask that you look at that and see with -- that insertion would work so it could be given consideration later. The landfill itself consists of like about 350-some acres. We're talking about a very wilderness situation that would be confined just to whatever would work. In this case it would probably just be bow and arrows, which are even used in the urban areas in a number of places within the country to be able to control deer populations. It's just something to be able to look at another avenue when the time does come. We could word it in a way that it could be -- a final decision to be made. I'm not too sure how Conservation Collier's set up, but if we use the same kind of language, I'm sure we could protect the best interest of all the residents of Collier County. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. MR. LENBERGER: I have a suggestion. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I did too. Go ahead. Maybe yours is better than mine. MR. LENBERGER: Well, first we could -- there's two amendments. I think that would -- hunting is more appropriate, I think, to put in the management plan section. But as far as direct uses, Page 38 May 17,2010 on the amendment on line 12 on Page 156, it says, conservation related activities. I would suggest we put conservation and recreational activities, for one, here as a use, and then perhaps on the Preserve Management Plan section, for now, include the general language like we have for the definition of recreational uses on Page 144, paragraph 4 where it talks about wildlife habitat management, we could include language in there, if you wish, regarding hunting. Looking through -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hunting where appropriate. MR. LENBERGER: Yes, where appropriate, yeah, similar to the definition that was recently passed. MR. KLA TZKOW: You can do hunting as a permissive -- you can do hunting as a passive use where expressly permitted by the Board of County Commissioners, and that would take in the management plan and everything else. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would get us there. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, but I think staff is correct, that should go in the management plan, not here, because if you put it in this particular section, you're going to give someone who reads that an indication that, perhaps, hunting is already permitted, so I'm going to get my bow and go out there and start shooting something. The better way, as you have suggested, is to put it in the management plan, which would state that in preserves, hunting can be authorized when necessary for appropriate management. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or recreation. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or -- well, yeah, hunting or -- well, I'm just talking about, the hunting itself could be specifically a management tool, and we would have the authority to apply it to whatever area we thought it was required in order to effectively manage that area, okay. I think -- I think your idea is probably a good one. If you use a language the county attorney has suggested, I think it would make it Page 39 May 17,2010 very, very clear. But if we put that language about hunting in this particular LDC amendment, I think it's going to cause some confusion, but -- it's better to have it in one place under management, which is what it is. It's a management tool. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If that gets us where we need to be, I'm fine with it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it does. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. MS. ISTENES: You still have one speaker. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Rich Yovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I went to the wrong podium out of habit. Real briefly on behalf of the Pelican Bay Foundation, on this item as well as your next item, the language that basically grandfathers existing structures and structures that have already received a permit is important language to the foundation, as well as, I'm sure, the county because both have improvements in preserve areas. So I just -- we're in favor of the language that's currently written in this amendment as well as the one you're going to hear next, so I'll save you some time and not speak on the next one. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you feel that we don't have an appropriate grandfathering statement in this? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We did. We did put it in. As we went through the process, we did come up with appropriate grandfathering language in this amendment, as well as the one you're going to be hearing immediately after this amendment. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Page 40 May 17,2010 Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. And I presume that motion means -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Also includes -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- includes the changes with respect to -- MR. LENBERGER: To preserve the management plan. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- putting in the management plan -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- when we get there. Okay? We understand. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 3.05.07 H.1.h.ii, PRESERVATION STANDARDS, STORMW ATER USES IN PRESERVES - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next amendment is on Page 159, subsection 3.05.07 H.l.h.ii, preservation standards, stormwater uses and preserve, summary Page T. MR. LENBERGER: The following amendment is related to the Page 41 May 17,2010 GMP requirement, as I previously mentioned. There was a lot of interest in this particular amendment, and it finally worked out with the stakeholders drafting the amendment, and particularly with help from environmental and engineering. And the language before you is the amendment as proposed by the stakeholders. There was some minor changes made during the public hearing process. Stakeholders were present that drafted this amendment. They were all in agreement with it. So the amendment here is basically a consensus of the stakeholders. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions by the board members? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 10.02.02 A, SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT STATEMENTS - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next amendment is on Page 277, subsection 10.02.02 A, submittal requirements, environmental impact statements, summary table Page HH. Page 42 May 17,2010 MR. LENBERGER: The amendment to evaluate the environmental impact statement section is related to a GMP change, the 2004 EAR amendments. Basically staff took a hard look at the EIS requirement and realized that we had extra process, or we believe, extra process that really could be eliminated to help streamline the permitting process. Basically we receive all this environmental data as required by the code and GMP to review products for consistency with the code and the Growth Management Plan, but we had this separate package process called environmental impact statement along with a separate approval process for the EIS which staff had to -- well, it -- quite a bit of time on staffs -- in reviewing products and also delaying products through the permitting process. This has helped to get all the environmental data we need. You submit what's basically applicable to a product, and you don't have to package it in an EIS document for a separate approval process. In doing this, this would affect sections of the code particularly with regard to the Environmental Advisory Council scope of products which they review. That was moved to the Code of Laws and Ordinances, I guess, about a year ago by the board. And we would have to amend the Code of Laws and Ordinances to address elimination of an EIS if you approve this amendment. So if you do approve the amendment, we request that we be able to move forward and advertise and bring back changes to the EAC section of the code as -- the Code of Laws and Ordinances. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner Halas -- or Fiala to approve, second by Commissioner Halas. I have a question. MR. LENBERGER: Sure. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have a statement here about CCME Page 43 May 17,2010 policy 2.3.6, which states, except for single-family homes and any projects impacting -- or any projects impacting five acres or more, wetlands must provide a pre and post development water quality analysis to demonstrate no increase in nutrient biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, lead, zinc, and copper loading in the past development scenario. Now, we -- are you removing that requirement, or are you changing it in any way? MR. LENBERGER: We had our technical staff take a look at that. The analysis is before you. And since these nutrients and -- are already taken care of when you remove the nitrogen and phosphorus, staff is going to propose as part of the 2011 EAR-based amendments to remove that portion -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: -- from the GMP. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, is there any requirement anywhere in the LDC that requires someone to measure and compare the levels of these potential pollutants? And specifically what I'm getting at is this, have you measured these things on one basis in the past? Weare approaching the point in time where we are likely to get new standards and new methods of measuring potential pollutants. How do you make comparisons between those two different methods of measuring? Is that a problem in your mind or not? MR. LENBERGER: I'm not really the technical expert on this. I do have Ray Smith here from Pollution Control who might be better able to answer that question. But as far the analysis we -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's saying no. MR. LENBERGER: I'm saying -- MR. SMITH: For the record, Ray Smith, Pollution Control Department. Just -- I'm just not familiar with the LDC to even make comments on it. My comments may be misleading based on what EPA's considering approving regarding numeric nutrient rule and also Page 44 May 17,2010 what FDEP is proposing regarding reclassification rules. So I really can't comment on this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But my bottom line question is if there is anything here that requires that somebody compare past circumstances with some future circumstances that are going to be changed, is that realistic, is it possible, or are you telling me that if the new standards are implemented, we will have to change this -- this LDC section? Judy, can you help us? MS. HUSHON: A little bit. Judy. Hushon. I just wanted to say that if you are, in fact, measuring nutrients or chlorophyll or something in the water that you're trying to measure, the measurement will not change. The standard against which you measure could change. But before -- you know, I measured last year and I have to measure this year. What I measure could be actually the same thing; whether I was still in compliance this year might be different. Does that make sense to you? CHAIRMAN COYLE: It does, but I was just wondering if -- MS. HUSHON: But you're still measuring-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ifwe will be measuring exactly the same thing next year as we did in the past, and did we measure it in the same way? MS. HUSHON: Well, in terms of general water quality that-- those numerics haven't changed. In terms -- and to the extent that anybody did measure chlorophyll and nitrogen levels, those types of measurements don't change. But what -- it depends on what was required of you, and if, at the end, the level which you must achieve is different, you may not be in compliance where you were in compliance historically. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have a motion and a second. Page 45 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by -- it was by Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Halas. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 10.02.06 I, CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT FOR ANNUAL VEHICLE ON THE BEACH PERMITS TO ONE-TIME PERMIT - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next amendment is on Page 297, subsection 10.02.06 I, change the requirement for annual vehicle on the beach permits to a one-time permit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Tell me briefly why. MR. LENBERGER: We had inquiries about our annual vehicle on the beach permits. They would all end the end of April to coincide with the beginning of the sea turtle nesting season. And we took a look at this and saying (sic), well, why is staff writing a new permit every year? It seemed like a waste of time. So we decided to propose a vehicle registration. It's the same operators. Aside from construction activities, beach nourishment, basically the routine, environmental maintenance, beach raking, these Page 46 May 17,2010 people are all the same people doing the same thing year after year. We don't have to give them the same permit every year. Simplify the process. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Very well. We have a motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously. MS. ISTENES: Okay. That completes the environmental amendments. SUBSECTION 3.06.06 C (GG REGULATED WELLFIELDS), 3.06.06 E (FGUAGGC), 3.06.06 F (ORANGE TREE), AND 3.06.06 H (AVE MARIA)- APPROVED MS. ISTENES: We're now moving on to the pollution control section. And these actually could be taken all at once, unless the County Attorney's Office would like you to make individual motions for the record. But Ray's prepared to present them all at once, and he does have a correction as well. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Attorney agrees. MR. SMITH: All right. Good morning. For the record, my name is Ray Smith, director of the Pollution Control and Prevention Department. I have just a brief -- about two-minute statement regarding all the proposed amendments, and it should take me no longer than that. Page 47 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: What page? MS. ISTENES: Oh, I'm sorry. They start on Page 165 and go through Page 173, and it's subsections 3.06.06 and then 3.06.06 C, E, F, and H. MR. SMITH: And I'll bring them through that in my presentation. In compliance with Collier County's Growth Management Plan, I'm here today to recommend an amendment to the Collier County Land Development Code, section 3.06, ground water protection. Within your LDC amendment summary sheet on Pages T through V, you will see that the proposed amendments that I am presenting before you today have been unanimously approved by the EAC, DSAC, and CCPC. These proposed wellfield protection zones have already been adopted within the Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Element maps titled wellhead protection areas. Pages 165 to 166 of the LDC amendment 2009 cycle one package provides for an updated Collier County Utilities' Golden Gate wellfield, illustration 3.06.06 C. This wellfield has been remodeled because three new wells have been added to the wellfield along with the change in pump rate. Page 167, 168 of your package provides for an update of the Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate City wellfield, illustration 3.06.06 E. This wellfield has been remodeled because of a change in pump rate and two wells -- in two wells. Let me see. Page 167 through 170 of your package provides for an update of the Orangetree wellfield, illustration 3.06.06 F. This wellfield has been remodeled because two new wells have been added to the wellfield. In addition, I want to point out that the title on Page 170 needs to be placed at the top of the illustration reading, Orangetree wellfield. Pages 171 and 1 72 provides for a new wellfield. The Ave Maria Page 48 May 17,2010 Utility Company wellfield under illustration 3.06.06 H that contains six wells. As you'll note within the wellfield illustrations, there are specific ST designations that represent wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zones for WI, the one-year travel time zone, W2, the two-year travel time zone, W3, five-year travel time zone, and W 4, a 20-year travel time zone. On Page 174, letter H shows a minor language addition made to section 3.06.06 that adds the Ave Maria Utility Company wellfield to the listing of regulated wellfields. Staff has checked within the proposed special treatment overlay zones and determined that there are no known land uses that would be prohibited within these protection zones. There may be a small number of businesses that would require a certificate to operate. As an example, these businesses would generate hazardous wastes or have large volumes of hazardous materials on site. Just for the record, there's about 42 out there last count. And at that particular point I welcome your questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the amendments. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) Page 49 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously for all five petitions. MS. ISTENES: The next amendment has been postponed to 6/02, as we talked about at the beginning of the meeting. That is 10.02.07 C. SUBSECTION 1.08.02, DEFINITION: MINOR SUBDIVISION- APPROVED MS. ISTENES: So that brings us to Page 5, subsection 1.08.02, definition, subdivision, minor, and that's summary Page B. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Stan Chrzanowski with the Engineering Review Department. This section is housekeeping. I know you hear that a lot, but there's a definition, and there's no real place to apply it, so we're taking out the definition, minor subdivision. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion is approved unanimously. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One note. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Page 50 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I like your tie, Stan. Very good taste. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you, sir. The grandchildren got ahold of it. SUBSECTION 1.08.02, DEFINITIONS: LOTS, CORNER, INTERIOR AND THROUGH - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next amendment is Page 7,1.08.02, definitions, lots, corner, interior, and through. Page C on your summary sheet. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Stan Chrzanowski again. This is to give a diagram so that when people are trying to figure what is a corner lot and interior lot, through lot, they have something to go by. I can explain anything you need to know. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Question by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You -- are we still measuring the corner lot by the smallest configuration? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Can I defer to Susan on that one? MS. ISTENES: We are -- if you'll see at the top of the page, we are still retaining the same definition for measuring a corner lot, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. ISTENES: We had discussed that at length and had several proposals before the Planning Commission, and they opted to stick with the current definition. Our proposals didn't address certain situations that they thought were important, and I think we both Page 51 May 17,2010 agreed that we would consider it perhaps next cycle and do a little bit more research, but -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 4.05.02 M, TYPICAL OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next amendment is on Page 187, subsection 4.05.02 M, typical off-street parking design, Exhibit A, summary Page Z. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And Stan Chrzanowski, again, with Engineering Review Department. The first exhibit you see on the back of -- it's on Page 188. Somehow that exhibit made it into the Land Development Code, and it was a mistake. It was when we were having trouble with MUNI code with exhibits. The next one, the one that appears on Page 189, is what it should have looked like the first time. We had added parallel parking, because we do have people that like parallel parking. The reason a parallel parking space is 23 feet long is so you can maneuver in and out, but we do have an alternate where you can put two eighteens with a five-foot (sic) between to give people room to maneuver in and out. Page 52 May 17, 2010 We also added the detail that shows that from the face of the wheel stop to the face of the curb has to be two feet. And -- oh, I'm sorry. That was -- that was in there already. That -- that about is the only difference between the two. It's just a better diagram. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 4.05.04, PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS- APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next amendment is on Page 191, subsection 4.05.04, parking space requirements. Z on your summary sheet. This is a scrivener's error during the recodification of the LDC. Section 2.3.13 was inadvertently admitted -- omitted, I'm sorry, and said section is an integral part of the code. You'll see that on Page 192 under letter F. That text is being added back in. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. Page 53 May 17,2010 All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 4.06.01 AND 6.06.05, CLEAR SIGHT DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next is on Page 195, subsection 4.06.01 and 6.06.05. This has to do with the clear sight distance requirements. The amendment is proposed to bring two inconsistencies and one graphic change and another text change in compliance with the purpose and intent of the code. Safe sight triangles are measured as being 30 feet from the point of intersection, not 25 feet, and there was two different areas of the code. One said 30 and one said 25, so this is to correct that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the diagram on 196 is being replaced by the one on 197, correct? MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. Page 54 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 2.03.07 D.4, EARLY ENTRY TDR PROGRAM EXTENSION - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next amendment is on Page 45, subsection 2.03.07 D, for early entry TDR program extension. Michelle Mosca will present, and it is on summary Page I. MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Michelle Mosca with the Comprehensive Planning staff. This amendment provides for an alignment of dates in the Land Development Code and Future Land Use Element for the expiration of the early entry bonus credit. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) Page 55 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 5.04.04, MODEL HOMES AND SALES CENTERS - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next is on Page 213, subsection 5.04.04, model homes and sales centers. Michelle? MS. MOSCA: The next amendment provides for the expiration or the lifting of the expiration provision for the model homes in the Estates designation and codifies the mobile home review process in the agricultural rural district. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 1.08.01, 1.08.02, 4.08.07, 6.02.09, 10.02.04, 10.02.07, 10.04.09, 10.02.12, 10.02.13, 10.04.00, SCHOOL BOARD CONCURRENCY - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next is on Page 335. A variety of Page 56 May 17,2010 subsections here. Has -- and I'll just defer to your agenda sheet for them rather than reading them. It has to do with the school board concurrency, and it's summary Page KK, and Michelle will present. MS. MOSCA: The school concurrency amendment provides for Land Development Code regulations to implement the countywide school concurrency program adopted by this board in October of 2008. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. And at this point we'll take a ten-minute break to give our court recorder (sic) a chance to rest. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, we're now back in session. We're going to pick up now, I presume, with the County Attorney's Office LDC. MS. ISTENES: Correct. That would start on Page 63. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. SUBSECTION 2.03.08 A.4, AQUACULTURE - APPROVED Page 57 May 17,2010 W/MODIFICATION MS. ISTENES: Subsection 2.03.08 A4, aquaculture. It's summary sheet L. And Jeff Wright, from the County Attorney's Office, will present. MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. MR. WRIGHT: Jeff Wright, assistant county attorney. This is the aquaculture pits in sending lands regulation that we came up with that was originally brought to the attention of the board by a member of the environmental community who was concerned about environmental degradation from aquaculture pits in sending lands. So this regulation, the only changes that are in the packet are on Pages 64 and 66. And as you'll see, we are basically prohibiting fill removal from these -- from these sites. If you look at Page 64 -- well, first of all, big picture, in sending lands, you have a right to agricultural uses, so we're not interfering with agriculture and aquaculture, but we are prohibiting fill removal. So that's the thrust of this regulation. But if you look at the regulation itself on Page 64, the key language is, due to the environmentally sensitive nature of sending lands, fill removal from the site is prohibited. Now, if -- you may recall from the Fawzy -- I think there were a conditional use. They were able to removal fill from their aquaculture site and sending lands with a conditional use approval. This would make that not possible anymore. Fill removal would be prohibited. Now, in the draft that you see before you, there's a final clause that reads, unless such removal is authorized under state or federal law. That's the Planning Commission's approved version. Subsequent to the Planning Commission's approval, we met with Nancy Payton, who was the originator of this idea, and she suggested Page 58 May 17,2010 that we strike that last clause beginning with the word, unless, and all the way to the end. So -- and we have no objection to striking that. And with that, if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you have it written to include it. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. And the timing of the packets going out-- and we wanted to give the board the option. In fact, I could put it up on the overhead. I have that language in pink highlighted, but we wanted to capture both Planning Commission's approval and our subsequent discussion with Nancy Payton, in which she suggested striking that. We have no objection to striking it. We just -- she's the originator of this idea. We didn't want to miss her final say. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Can you tell me why she wanted to strike that? MR. WRIGHT: Well, it's one of those -- it's kind of a tricky issue, because if you're allowed to do agriculture, then the state Right to Farm Act kicks in, and Right to Farm Act clearly says, you -- it includes aquaculture. So it's -- so if we're saying -- originally the idea for the Planning Commission was, you can't remove fill unless you can point to some higher authority, federal or state law. Now, subsequent to that, Nancy said, well, you know, they'll always be able to make that argument if they have that right. If they have a state or federal right, they'll make it anyways. So this -- the intent there in striking that was to put the burden on the applicant or the developer to demonstrate whatever rights they might have under state or federal law. If they can't, then they can't remove fill. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. And thank you very much for that explanation. MR. WRIGHT: You're welcome. Page 59 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER FIALA: By the way, I totally agree with this, and I'd like to make a motion to approve eliminating that sentence, unless such removal is authorized under state or federal law . COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve with the modification as stated, and a second by Commissioner Halas. And Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, a couple of things. One, I do -- I do have a problem. I mean, there is a higher authority than this Collier County Commission, that is the state and federal. And many times in the past when we were talking about environmental issues such as the eagle and whatever other items that are out there that the federal -- federal agencies have already had protection over, referred back to them, recognizing them as a higher authority. Now, we could supersede them by -- and you correct me if I'm wrong on this, Mr. Klatzkow -- but we can supersede by more strict regulations. That's not a problem. But to try to say -- to ignore the laws -- in other words, if the law of the land of the state or the federal is -- in other words, if the state were concerned about the right to farm -- and by the way, I think this is an excellent direction to go as far as trying to get a grip on, the true reasons for people to excavate for fish farms isn't for the fish so much as it is for the fill, and this -- that removes that element from it. But I guess the question would also be, what do you do with the fill? But we'll get to that in a minute. I'm very, very concerned about the language and removing it, not saying that we're not going to be -- if it is authorized under federal and state law, we're going to ignore that. I mean, we put ourselves in a very precarious position. Would this do anything to us as far as Bert Harris goes if we eliminated this one part? MR. KLATZKOW: No. Page 60 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what would it do as far as the state and federal laws go if there was something in there that exempts them? I understand what Ms. Payton was saying is that if it does supersede us, they'll just override us anyways. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, yeah, but the idea is this. All right. You've excavated for your fish pond. Now you've got the fill. Your fish business is not going to be there forever, but the environmentally sensitive nature of the land will be. By keeping the fill on the premises, when you stop your operation, you've got the ability to fill it back in again and make the land whole. If you just allowed them to cart it off, you're looking at holes in the ground that you're never going to be able to fill in. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I don't argue with any of that. Going back to the federal and the state. I mean, when they -- their laws supersede ours, correct? MR. KLATZKOW: Their laws supersede ours, but I don't -- the problem with that clause, which was, I believe, put in by a developer, was that it eviscerated the rest of it -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't understand. MR. KLATZKOW: -- because the -- it got rid of the rest of it, because if it allowed to -- because the state, the federal, is always going to allow you to take it off. It's the county saying that you can't take it off. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, if someone is serious about doing it, they just bypass us, go to the court systems, refer to the state and federal, drag us into the case, and we're going to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money for an outcome that's already going to be predetermined if the state and the federal laws say you can take it off? MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. What they're saying is, can you take -- is taking it off authorized by state or federal law? The answer is yes. We've got mines all over the county where we're taking stuff Page 61 May 17,2010 off. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: But what we're saying, in this particular context, leave the fill there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I got no problem with it. That part -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think we're in violation of any state or federal law. I don't -- I think we're good here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then if we're not in violation, if we left that in there, what harm can it do? You said a developer -- MR. KLATZKOW: They'll never fill it in again. You'll have holes out there that -- unless you want to then haul fill back in there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're losing me, Mr. Klatzkow. Is there already provisions within the state and federal law that allow people to take this off that supersede county laws? Is there that provision already that exists out there? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. You can take the fill off the ground. There's nothing in the federal or state law that says you can't take fill out of this thing. What we're saying is -- which is why you have mines all the over the county, all right. What we're saying is that if you're going to be -- in this context, you leave the fill there. And I don't believe there's anything in the state or federal law that we're violating by doing that. Just because you're authorized to do something doesn't mean that we can (sic) say, well, okay, we don't want you to in this context. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this is going to come back to us one more time, right? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'll go ahead and go for it, but between now and the time it comes back for adoption, I need somebody to sit down with me and spend about 15,20 minutes working out every little detail and show me how this is going to Page 62 May 17,2010 progress down the line as far as lawsuits go and whatever else may take place. The intent of this is absolutely perfect. It should have been here years ago. I don't know why it took us so long to get there. I'm just worried about the legal application of it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: How does this amendment keep the land more environmentally sensitive? MR. WRIGHT: Keep it more environmentally sensitive? I'm sorry, Commissioner. I didn't hear your question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask it a different way. How does stockpiling dirt make the land more environmental (sic) sensitive? MR. WRIGHT: The idea is that it insures that a pit -- if you haul the dirt off site, you never see it again and the pit remains forever. If you keep the dirt on site, then you can theoretically fill the hole back in and cause less of a permanent scar. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let's say that I wasn't doing a fish farm. Let's say I was doing row crops. Should we not require them to keep the trees on the land? Wouldn't it be the same thing? MR. WRIGHT: That's possible, Commissioner. This is narrowly focused on aquaculture specifically, so I realize the point that you're making. There's been a lot of similar points made at the advisory boards, and this is what we came up with. I really can't speak to other COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, actually what I heard was, it came from a private citizen or a not-for-profit organization that chooses to use this route instead of doing their own amendment. What summary page was the -- MS. ISTENES: L. COMMISSIONER HENNING: L, as in Larry. And what was Page 63 May 17,2010 those recommendations? Okay. Here's one that DSAC recommended, is to do some kind of performance bond. Wouldn't that be a better tool than -- because leaving dirt on a piece of property does not meet the intent of the district. I would say just the opposite. If you're removing the dirt, the land that you -- say you -- this amendment goes through, you're going to have to keep that dirt on the land. Well, that land probably has vegetation. Where are you going to keep it? I would say this is -- that it really doesn't meet the intent of it. And a more appropriate thing is to have some kind of surety bond. If that is the real concern, having a surety bond on there and get that stuff out there. I mean, when you stockpile it, you're changing the sheet flow. You're destroying more vegetation. It just doesn't make sense. MR. WRIGHT: And I have no problem with the bond. It's just, I think the concern was that we wanted this to be a straightforward prohibition. And when you start having a bond requirement, it creates a little bit more as far as administration goes, and it's not as straightforward. So -- but I'm open to any discussions for bonds. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, those bonds -- MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, we can do a bond. I understand your point. The problem is the proponent for the amendment did not appear before the Planning Commission and she's not here now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And she should have paid for it also. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, this board -- it was board directed at her request. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see, okay. I appreciate that. Then I'll take that back. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. So you know, it's kind of hard for me to argue somebody else's position. But I fully understand what you're saying, and that would also achieve that same result. Page 64 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've long had a problem with this particular type of -- with the aquaculture. If it's aquaculture and the state allows it, then that's fine. There -- but many times I've suspected it's more than aquaculture that they're really going after. If they wanted to do aquaculture, fine. Leave the dirt on the land. When they're finished, fill that hole back in so it again becomes the sending lands as we had it, and it would also keep them rather honest with doing just aquaculture. So my motion stands. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with everything that Commissioner Fiala said except maybe the last part, as far as the motion stands, because I still have some serious concerns about it. Commissioner Henning's right about the including of a bond. I mean, you take this dirt and you pile it up. Is there any directions they're going to be given? Can they just pile the dirt up into piles at the end of their property and maybe that's by a lowland wetland where the dirt will migrate down there, as the heavy rains of Florida will start to beat down on it over the years and fill it in? Is there any kind of assurances that what's going to be done is going to be done in a stable manner so, one, if they do dig the pit and they want to raise fish, great, then go ahead and do it. At the end of the operation, be it five years or 50 years, they can -- they can mitigate the damage they've done with the dirt that's in place. Will the dirt still be there in 40 or 50 years? There's some special ways to be able to preserve it? Would this bond be a sufficient quantity to be able to cover it? These are all things you need to bring back. Now, the question I'm going to ask you right now is that -- I want to keep this thing going forward. This is too important to lose now. It only needs three votes to get past us at this point in time, and I don't Page 65 May 17,2010 want anybody to get any idea I'm against the -- the requirement that they fill the hole back in afterwards. If we removed the language, unless such removal is authorized under the state or federal law, the time it comes back for adoption, if I still feel uncomfortable with it and want to discuss this longer and want to be able to exercise the option of asking for it to be put back -- and I may not after I do my discovery that I want to do -- can it be done at that time, or once this is struck out, does that mean that we can't add it back in? MR. KLATZKOW: I think Commissioner Henning's approach is the best approach, and I'm going to recast this amendment and get it back to the board. I think it's an important amendment, and I think Commissioner Henning made an excellent point. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You didn't answer my question, . SIr. MR. KLATZKOW: You're going to hear it again, sir. We're going to bring this back to you again. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When it comes back, if I still have questions about it, and possibly at that point in time I'm convinced that striking this out of there would do more harm than good, can it be added back in at that time or is it -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's all I need to know. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can vote for it, and I'll do my discovery . CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I would ask you to simply send it back to us so that we can reformat this thing and get it back to you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion on the table, unless the motion maker or the second wishes to withdraw. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question. Page 66 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What would a performance bond do? MR. KLATZKOW: It would be a sufficient quantity so that when they stopped operations, they could replug the hole as it were. This is commonly done with mines where, as a condition to opening up the mine you put up enough security so that when the time comes, you shut down the mine, you can bring it back into a more natural condition. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is -- you know, I've heard of people posting bonds and then going bankrupt, and for some reason they didn't have a big enough bond to do the job and somebody else had to pick up the slack. How can we protect ourselves from doing that? MR. KLA TZKOW: That's a hard one. I don't know what to tell you. We have the problem in the county now because we've had banks go up -- go under, and we're dealing with some very unusual times now. I mean, staff would need to figure out, what would be the cost to refill it, put a little extra on top of it, then require a performance bond from a third-party company who at this point in time would be a financially strong company . Would they be financially strong in 20 or 30 years, I couldn't answer that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, we have the motion on the table now, so I'll call the motion. All in favor of the motion to approve this with the removal of the phrase, unless such removal is authorized under state or federal law -- all in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? Page 67 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That motion passes 4-1 with Commissioner Henning dissenting, and it is coming back to us. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, would you like Commissioner Henning's language in there? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would the board like to consider some additional language -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- when it comes back to us? You'll have an alternative on the second hearing to either stay with this motion or to modify the motion if there is an acceptable solution by a posting of a bond. Okay. Everybody okay with that? Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Halas was first. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: The chairman brought up a very good point. And it seems to me that you would require somebody to put up a bond, and all of a sudden they say, hey, I'm bankrupt, and they sold off the material to use to fill the hole, I think to haul that back and put it back -- haul it from some distance to put it back in that hole, I've got some real concerns about that, because I don't think that will happen. And I think it's going to be left up to the county or someone else to fill that hole in, and I've got a problem with that. I think the material needs to be left on that property, and I think it can be -- this can be addressed in such a way that they have to store this in such as way as it's not going to interfere with the water table or with preserves and that there has to be some type of cover on this material so it's not out there. They could put a grass covering or something of that on it -- that way on it. And at such time as they decide that they're done with aquaculture, then that they're required to cover it up. And if they've gone bankrupt, well, then the material's still there for someone else to -- the county or someone else to address that issue. Page 68 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: One of the problems is, if we leave it up to them in the storage, just the storage of fill, they might very well be bankrupt, and the fill will be there, but the cost of redistributing it would be ours probably, so maybe a combination of bond and fill retention would be a -- maybe a potential solution. But Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Both Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coyle are right. The whole thing is, is that we all know this isn't profitable. You can't do fish farming and make money to be able to -- you can't compete with the third-world countries that are doing it. Where they make the money is when they remove the fill from the ground, and then whatever agriculture (sic) they got after that is just to fill in 'til that point in time that they give up on it and move on. So the idea being is, how do you discourage it? By putting everything together the way you got it now and you include the surety bond, money up front, you're probably never going to have anyone that's going to find it economically feasible to be able to go forward with aquaculture. It's just not going to happen. So that would take care of it. Now, whether the company goes bankrupt or not that's holding the surety bond, that's -- those are things in nature you can't control. It's just the way this climate's going to be. It's what's going to have to be paid up front that's going to make all the difference. The preserving of the fill in a way and a manner that will allow for preservation of it and not to become a detriment to the well-being of the rest of the lands around there, that's important too. When you put all these combinations together, I think you effectively have ended the problem as far as people going into aquaculture just to be able to get the fill. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. We're finished with that item. Thank you. Page 69 May 17,2010 SUBSECTION 2.01.00, PARKING/USE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next is on Page 9, subsection 2.01.00, and that is parking/use of recreational vehicles, and it's summary Page E. MS. ASHTON: And Commissioners, this item was board directed. I don't know if my microphone's working, but this was board directed on October 14, 2008, when you proceeded forward with an expedited permitting process to allow properties -- property owners to park recreational vehicles on their front yards for a 48-hour period within a seven-day period, and that was through the enforcement department to come up with an expedited process. At that time Mr. Schmitt advised you that he was removing this type of section from the Land Development Code and putting it in the Code of Laws as part of the administrative code, and he recommended to you at that time that this entire section come out. And you -- and you adopted his recommendation, and subsequently an ordinance was enacted, Ordinance 2008-64, that provided for that expedited permitting process, and it took out some of this section. So the decision for you today is whether or not you want to remove the entire section out of the Land Development Code, which was your prior direction, or whether you want to keep it in the Land Development Code. The CCPC recommended that the section remain in the Land Development Code and also to keep the ordinance, 08-64, the expedited permitting in the code as well. We've reviewed it. It's whatever the board desires. It can remain in both the code and the LDC; however, you'll have some duplication of regulation. The ordinance that I drafted that's attached, it's a 2010 ordinance, and it shows you how the ordinance would read if you elect to take it Page 70 May 17,2010 out of the Land Development Code, and it was drafted in some -- somewhat as a reference tool in that some of it is underlined which shows you -- and I'm reading from Page 17, and then 18. The underlined language shows you what was adopted in the 08-64, and the non-underlined language was the language that came out of the LDC. And then I've put some editorial language in brackets that would not show up if you did elect to go forward and have the 2010 ordinance advertised at a subsequent board hearing. There are a few provisions that don't apply to the Estates. But in essence, is the proposed ordinance does not change the language that's in your Land Development Code. It just consolidates the two. And the reason why you can't take out part of this section 2000-0100 and leave the rest is because the paragraph that would come out is on Page 10, it's paragraph B, and then you've got three exceptions to it. So it doesn't read if just take part of it out, because you'd take out the text and then have exceptions from text that doesn't exist. Do you have any questions? Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas has a question. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Basically this would pertain to the urban area and not to the rural area; is that correct? MS. ASHTON: Primarily it pertains to residential property. It does not apply -- many of the provisions to the Estates -- the first section that deals with unlicensed vehicle, that pertains to the Estates. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. ASHTON: But the remaining part does not. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm talking about recreational vehicles, yes. MS. ASHTON: Correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think this is something that's needed. Page 71 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second the motion. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I approve this. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Halas to approve, seconded by Commissioner Henning. MS. ASHTON: For clarification, are you approving moving it by ordinance and -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, by ordinance. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think this is the right way to go. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, let me just ask a question. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the CCPC motioned for denial, wanting to have this language remaining in the LDC, right? But what the vote -- the motion is now is it to not take that -- not take that recommendation but move it to the Code of Laws, right? MS. ASHTON: Correct, and that would occur in a separate public hearing that we'd advertise. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1 with Commissioner Fiala dissenting. SUBSECTION 8.03.00, 8.03.01, 8.03.02, 8.03.03, 8.03.04, 8.03.05, Page 72 May 17,2010 8.03.06, 8.03.07, 8.03.08, 8.04.00, 8.04.01, 8.04.02, 8.04.03, 8.04.04, 8.04.05, 8.04.06, 8.05.00, 8.05.01, 8.05.02, 8.05.03, 8.05.04, 8.05.05, 8.06.00, 8.06.01, 8.06.02, 8.06.03, 8.06.04, 8.06.05, 8.06.06, 8.06.07, 8.06.08, 8.06.09, 8.06.10, 8.07.00, 8.07.01, 8.07.02, 8.07.03, 8.07.04, AND 8.07.05~ DELETION OF ADVISORY BOARDS - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: The next is on Page 247 (sic), and it deals with Section 8.03.00. I will not read all those subsections. It also includes 8.04, 8.06, 8.05, and 8.07, per your agenda. This is deletion of advisory boards, and it's FF on your summary sheet. I do -- this is one of the ones where I do need to show you a correction. I need to use the visualizer to do that. MR. BELLOWS: I think you said '47. It's '49. MS. ISTENES: It's 249, Page 249. This applies to 8.03.00 through 8.07.00, but I've used 8.03.00 as an example here on the visualizer because it's the same situation for each section. And this is on Page 251. You'll see the pink highlighted. We had proposed to add the language you see underlined as what I would call kind of a filler or guidance to where this information was relocated to, but we discovered that MUNI code has already done that for us and -- through an editor's note, and you'll see each of the sections listed up here. And basically we would just like to keep what MUNI code has already done. I think it provides a better explanation. It doesn't affect the ordinance in any way. It's just housekeeping. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can take all these at one time, I presume? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And all we're doing is moving these Land Development Code provisions that apply to advisory boards to the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, right? MS. ISTENES: That's correct. That actually has already been Page 73 May 17,2010 done. This is just cleaning up the LDC to take care of that. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas. A question by Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Now, the CCPC suggested that they should remain within the LDC rather than be moved so that this one would be handled in a separate manner. What is the basis for that? Why did they feel that way? MS. ISTENES: My understanding was the CCPC felt that the LDC gets -- and any time you amend the LDC, gets more public scrutiny through the notice pro- -- because of the noticing requirements than the Code of Laws and Ordinances, so they felt it was somewhat shortchanging the public input process is -- I don't know if you -- MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding. MS. IS TENES: -- can add anything. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: You see all the public here? Now, I actually think that it provides greater opportunity for participation because these LDC hearings are very dry, not very interesting. The people who generally attend here are those who've sponsored an amendment of some kind. But if we were to make a suggestion that we change the Code of Ordinances to make a change in the Planning Commission, I think that would get a lot of attention, and people would want to know what we're doing. Not many people come to these LDC hearings. There's not much public participation. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's exactly where I was going to Page 74 May 17,2010 go with this, that -- I still think that if there is a concern, we always welcome the public to this -- any forum, whether it's a County Commission meeting or an LDC hearing where they can come here to vet whatever they feel is a concern to them. So I think that this -- myself, I think we're going in the right direction, and we're trying to encumber -- to have less encumbrance on the laws here. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I think we did, didn't we? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Motion by Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And seconded by Commissioner Halas. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay. Motion by Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Halas to approve staffs recommendations. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala's dissenting. SUBSECTION 1.08.02, DEFINITIONS FOR MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS - APPROVED MR. BELLOWS: The next set of amendments, following the category miscellaneous, and the first one is -- starts on Page 1 of your LDC packet, and it pertains to section 1.08.02, and it deals with Page 75 May 17,2010 definitions for multifamily dwellings. And Susan Istenes is doing this for Catherine Fabacher. MS. ISTENES: The reason for this amendment was the definition of multiple family as it formerly existed before we recodified the Land Development Code, in staffs opinion, was inadvertently removed. The difficultly there is, the definition as it existed branched out and touched other areas of the code, for example, R T and time shares, and removal of that caused a significant regulatory gap in staffs ability to be able to deal with those type of land uses. This might appear to be a little confusing, but what we had to do, if you look on the top of Page 2, was we -- because it no longer existed, we readopted it in its previous format into the code, then we struck it, then as we were going through the amendment process with the various boards -- mostly the Planning Commission had comments on this -- it was rewritten. It still contains the regulator -- the important regulatory language that we were missing, it's organized a little bit differently and reworded, and that is the proposal you see on Page 3 in the underlined text. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions by commissioners? Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 76 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 2.03.01 B.l.b, STATE'S ACCESSORY USES- APPROVED MR. BELLOWS: The next amendment is on Page 23 of your LDC packet. It pertains to section 2.03.01 B.1.b that deals with the state's accessory uses. This was a BCC-directed item, and it's the summary items on Page F. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 2.03.03 F, TRAVEL TRAILER RECREATIONAL VEHICLE CAMPGROUND IN PARK MODELS - APPROVED MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The next item is on Page 35 of your packet. It pertains to section 2.03.03 F, travel trailer recreational vehicle campground in park models, and that's increasing the square footage from 480 to 500 square feet. This is another BCC-directed Page 77 May 17,2010 item. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. I do have a -- just a general administrative question. You've made some good recommendations about putting stuff, or moving stuff from the LDC to the Code of Ordinances. Why would we have in the LDC a provision that allows two pigs to be raised by children in Golden Gate in the Land Development Code that has to be approved in Tallahassee? Why wouldn't that be in the Code of Ordinances? Why do we keep sending -- putting stuff in our LDC that makes it difficult for us to make decisions that serve the best interest of our community when it's not necessary, I don't think? Is there a good reason to do this? MS. ISTENES: Well, right now the way the Estates zoning district is structured, it describes all sorts of different type animals you can have and the regulations associated therewith. And I don't think that's unusual from an organizational standpoint; however, we did-- and this actually was -- from 1999 we discovered a memo that directed an LDC change. In the interim what we did was we just went ahead and issued Page 78 May 17,2010 temporary use permits. The code does give the director the authority to do that if it meets the intent of the temporary use section. So there is some flexibility there. And if I recall correctly, I thought we had brought that before the board describing what we were going to do at that time as well. I understand what you're saying. I don't know that it gets at the heart of your issue, but -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I mean, this is something to help 4 H kids primarily, and why it would be in the Land Development Code is beyond me. We should -- MS. ISTENES: I think only because it's similar to the other regulations that pertain to animal raising in the Estates. And it's just the Estates zoning district. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I understand. But remember, you know, maybe one day we'd have to have -- I mean, we'd like to have-- be able to raise three each or something. MS. ISTENES: I mean, if that's something the board wants us to take a look at as far as -- because you do regulate domestic animals like dogs and cats, et cetera, through your Code of Laws and Ordinances. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MR. BELLOWS: I think it also goes back -- excuse me, Commissioner. It also goes back to the base use of the Estates, which is a quasi-agricultural type of activity. So when the Estates was created, they wanted some agricultural type use but regulated to an extent, not completely allowed like you would have in the agricultural district. So this was kind of a hybrid district to allow some limited agricultural activities but not classified as agricultural. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, I don't want to spend a lot of time talking about that, but if the other commissioners agree that we should renew our interest in getting a lot of this stuff out of our Land Development Code and moving it into the Code of Ordinances, we Page 79 May 17,2010 could deal with the needs of our community a lot more quickly and specifically. I don't think the public understands what an LDC process really involves. It can take a year or more to get these LDC provisions approved and staffed through us and up to Tallahassee, approved by the state government and then back down here for our adoption hearings. And a lot of these things we should be able to do in the Code of Ordinances, and we could respond much more quickly to the needs of our community. And there's no reason for them to be in the LDC as far as I can see. MS. ISTENES: The only thing you might want to consider as well is if, when you start divesting into various documents, people may only be familiar, for example, with the LDC, and they don't know to look over here or look over there. So when you start splitting out regulations, that's just kind of an unintended consequence is people may miss something. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you. Where do we go now, 35? MS. ISTENES: Fifty-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got some comments. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay. All right. Who was first? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was last. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there a simpler way? I happen to agree with the points being made. Is there a simpler way to include this in our laws that allow it to be moved around easily? Could it be done just by an ordinance, for instance? MR. BELLOWS: In regards to temporary agricultural uses in the Estates, or just 4H-type activities? COMMISSIONER FIALA: 4H activities. Page 80 May 17,2010 MR. BELLOWS: Definitely, I think we can address 4H activities in a separate ordinance, or possibly Code of Laws and Ordinances. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We want to work with these young people. We want to encourage them to -- you know, in this wholesome type of activity and so forth, and we don't want them to go through a bunch of Land Development Code changes if they want to have a third pig or something like that. So if there's a simpler way, maybe, when this comes back to us, we could address that simpler way rather than approve this? MR. BELLOWS: Quite definitely we can look at that prior to coming back for the final vote. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: It seems like we've had similar things in the past for similar organizations, and I don't see a problem with that. And we can bring that separate issue back later on a separate agenda item. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, would you like to opine on this discussion to make sure that we're -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. This is why we need an administrative manual so we can handle things like pigs by resolution rather than having to go through the code work. And I know that staff is working on an administrative manual, and this is the exact type of thing that should be there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. In fact, this may -- I mean, the whole temporary use section is probably going to be relocated over there. But I think you bring up a good point, Commissioner, maybe if we can just segregate it to those type of activities rather than a land use, that might work better. Thank you. Okay, great. Page 81 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Susan, did the county manager direct you to create a code of law for the Land Development Code; was that one of your charges? MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Well, you mean administrative code? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Administrative code. MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have to agree with Commissioner Coyle. I mean, in fact, just this -- how big a park model you can have is something. It's just -- people are going to have to -- have to get used to referring back to documents. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. The administrative code will become a basic tool for everyone so they know to look at both the LDC and the administrative code for a complete range of those uses. That does seem to make sense. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Let's do it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And the park model thing is another good example, because the reason for this change is, it just so happens that they manufacture the park model, and the smallest size is 500 square feet. So, you know, it's a difficult problem to deal with, and we could have done that just through something that we could have made a decision on here, and that's not something really very controversial. But it does take up a lot of time, and it delays the final resolution. But nevertheless. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just briefly. I agree with you, sir. I hope that we direct staff to go in that direction. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very good. And we have a motion on the table, right? Commissioner Henning, and Commissioner Halas seconded. Page 82 May 17,2010 All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you. SUBSECTION 2.03.07 1.6, BA YSHORE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT - APPROVED MR. BELLOWS: The next amendment starts on Page 59 of your LDC packet. It pertains to 2.03.07 J, the Goodland Zoning Overlay District, and it's on your summary Page J. MS. ISTENES: I actually didn't propose this. I just seem to be the one carrying it through, so I'll try to answer questions if I can. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's Bayshore, right? MS. IS TENES: Bayshore, correct. They're increasing the maximum number of seats allowed within the permitted use classification of performing arts theater, specifically on table one, footnote eight. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Henning. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Page 83 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 2.03.07 J, GOODLAND ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT - APPROVED MR. BELLOWS: The next one is on Page 61 of your LDC packet. It deals with the Goodland Zoning Overlay District in section 2.03.07 J. MS. ISTENES: This is a scrivener's error just to change a street name that was incorrectly referenced in the code. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve this. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute. It says Goodland Overlay Zoning District (sic), and then you said scrivener's error, which is the next one down. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That street in Goodland. MS. ISTENES: The street name-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you want to cover both -- all these at once then? MS. ISTENES: Oh, no. I'm sorry. I see. This is -- there's two in a row. This is strictly the 2.03.07 J, the Goodland Overlay District. There was a scrivener's error in the street name, and that's the one you're on now. And then the next one will be separate. Page 84 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes. Okay. And we have a motion for approval. Commissioner Fiala, you wanted to say something? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to ask, did we -- did we miss number -- Page 49, or maybe I just didn't see it go by or something, or is that not here? COMMISSIONER HALAS: We-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't remember the Immokalee CRA. MS. ISTENES: That has actually been postponed 'til June 2nd. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's on the next page. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by . saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion carries unanimously. SUBSECTION 2.04.00, 2.04.01, 2.04.02, 2.04.03, 4.02.02, AND 4.02.29, SCRIVENER'S ERRORS DEALING WITH MULTIPLE STRIKEOUTS - APPROVED MR. BELLOWS: The next one starts on Page 71 of your packet. It pertains to several sections, starting with section 2.04.00 and ends with section 4.02.29. It's several scrivener's errors dealing with multiple strikeouts. It's noted on summary Item M. Page 85 May 17,2010 MS. ISTENES: This is another one, before I get started, where I just have to read a change into the record, and I apologize for the handwritten change here. But as a result --I'm on Page 72 under 2.04.00. If you follow down, 2.04.01 is struck, 2.04.02 is struck, and then that left 2.04.03, which says reserved. We just need to strike that. That's just an orphan that's there so -- it doesn't need to be. This change, it's a little bit difficult to follow only because a lot of text was moved around, but it -- what it really does is implements the changes -- when ordinance number 08-11 was adopted, there became duplication in the LDC, and so this is removing the duplication. And what we did in ordinance 08-11 was, permitted accessory conditional and prohibited uses were converted back from the table form which was developed under the recodification. As we started using the table format that is used, it became very onerous and difficult to read and difficult to give information to the public, so we converted that table back to a list form, and then the lists were also brought up to date by subsequent LDC amendment changes. So this just cleans all of that up and finalizes it finally. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have two motions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Made jointly by Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Halas, and seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 86 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. SUBSECTION 4.02.01 D.9, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL USES IN THE BASE ZONING DISTRICTS - APPROVED MR. BELLOWS: The next amendment is -- starts on Page 175 of your packet and pertains to section 4.02.01 D.9, dimensional standards for principal uses in the base zoning districts, and this was a BCC-directed item. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you say Page 75? MS. ISTENES: This is on Page 175. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 175. MS. ISTENES: And we actually had brought this before you in the last cycle last year, and your direction at that time was to take it back to DSAC and get their input, because I think there was some concern or some discussion over the possibility of not allowing these in the side yards by using different construction methodologies and -- or design, I should say -- not necessarily construction methodologies, and we did that. I don't know that we got the feedback you were looking for from them. But my recollection is there was no overall objection to doing this. This is a practice that is currently being performed by the staff when they approve permits, and so we're looking just to codify that practice in this amendment. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by Page 87 May 17,2010 Commissioner Halas, seconded by Commissioner Henning. All in favor, please signify by -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by saying -- I want to stop and ask a question. I want to stop and ask a question. Most of your comments, the comments that are listed here, indicate that the people who commented would prefer them not to be in the side yard setback; is that true or not? MS. ISTENES: I'm going to flip there, because it's been a little bit -- I -- my recollection is -- my recollection is that there weren't-- there just wasn't a lot of thumbs up or thumbs down given, meaning there was arguments provided on both sides. The subcommittee recommended 3 -0 to approve, and then the regular committee voted 9-0 to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. MS. ISTENES: That's all I can share with you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 4.02.35 B.2~ GTMUD - APPROVED MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The next amendment starts on Page 199 (sic). CHAIRMAN COYLE: 179. Page 88 May 17,2010 MS. ISTENES: Seventy-nine, yes. MR. BELLOWS: I thought we did that one already. MS. ISTENES: No. MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me, 179, that pertains to section 4.02.35 B.2. It deals with the GTMUD, and it starts on summary Page X. MS. IS TENES: This is another one I guess I'm carrying through for the CRA. They wanted to replace graphic illustrations X for figures one, three, four, and five to eliminate a reference to front build-to line. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I see what they're doing. Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion is approved unanimously. SUBSECTION 4.06.05 D.4, GENERAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS - APPROVED MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The next one starts on Page 199, deals Page 89 May 17,2010 with section 4.06.05 D.4, general landscape requirements. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Halas. All in favor, please signify -- whoops. Page 199. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Can we just get a -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Street, driveway, intersection except for visibility. I agree. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. MS. ISTENES: I think the error there was the reference to C in the section number, and then the Planning Commission suggested the, at street and driveway intersections in the rework of that sentence. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I'm okay. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by . saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 5.03.02~ FENCES AND WALLS - APPROVED MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The next amendment is on Page 201. It deals with section 5.03.02, fences and walls, and it's on your summary BB. Page 90 May 17,2010 MS. ISTENES: The -- before I get started, there were copies -- there were some dark highlighting that didn't reproduce very well in copies, and I have copies without that highlighting in here if you would like me to hand them out. I don't know that what it was highlighting was that critical. It was really just showing changes that the CCPC made, but I've got those here if you'd like. There are quite a number of changes here. The main reason this came -- or I would say the significant change would be -- and I'm reading on -- from Page 201 -- was it removed the ability to get an administrative height variance for residential fences per BCC direction. And if you recall, I had brought that suggestion up to you in one of your regular meetings, and you had given me the okay to go ahead with that, so that is what that amendment is doing. There -- the second changes, there were areas of the code which required the BZA to decide if barbed wire in conjunction with a chain-link fence was permissible in a residential district. The reference to chain-link fences was removed and replaced with fence, making this section applicable to all types of fences. Reference to the BZA was removed and replaced with the county manager or designee, making this an administrative decision rather than one that requires a public hearing. We honestly don't get very much of this, but it's in there. So basically it -- if somebody wanted to put barbed wire in conjunction with a fence in a residential area, they would have to have administrative permission to do so. And there may be reasons to do so. Most of them are health, safety. You're usually not finding it around individual single-family homes, but some of our utility structures and whatnot may need this. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. Page 91 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 5.04.01, 5.04.05, 5.04.06, 5.04.07, 5.04.08, 10.02.06 G, AND APPENDIX G; REWRITE OF THE TEMPORARY USE PERMIT SECTION - APPROVED MR. BELLOWS: The next amendment starts on Page 215. It's several sections, starting with section 5.04.01, and goes through 10.02.06 G, and Appendix G, and it's a rewrite of the temporary use section. MS. ISTENES: I have some changes here. Let me see if they're easy. If they're not, I may ask John to help me sort them out, because -- let me go ahead. I'm going to tell you what we're doing. This actually resulted from when we amended the sign code. And provisions for temporary signs have been removed from the sign code and relocated into section 5.04.06, temporary signs, and that's what this is doing. So this is actually kind of that last little bit of change for the sign code that -- you've seen this before, so this isn't something new. We had told you that we were going to be removing various provisions and putting them in the temporary uses and structures section, and that's what we did here. I do recall there was some discussion at the last board meeting with reference to -- Page 92 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I found that. MS. ISTENES: Oh, you did, good. Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep. MS. ISTENES: And that's where that went, election signs. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. ISTENES: And referendum signs. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Where did it go? MS. ISTENES: It went into this section-- CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you've retained the old provisions now? MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: But are they effective? They won't be effective until this is approved or adopted. MS. ISTENES: They're effective, yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: They are effective now, right now? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good. MS. ISTENES: John, did you figure out what we're changing here? I don't mean to put you on the spot. If you're not ready, we can move on to the next one. MR. KELLY: You have my notes. MS. ISTENES: I do. Sorry. I just couldn't figure it out from your notes. Oh, here it is. Okay. On Page 219 and 220, we need to underline subsection 5.04.05 A2 and A3, because that is relocated text. It just didn't get underlined and needs to be. It's just being relocated. So it's new text for that section, but it is already existing text. Page 224, line six, we need to strike the word reserved; Page 233, line 18, we need to change of to or; and on Page 236, line ten, we need to strike his. And I've got that -- if you want me to put it on the visualizer, I can. It's mostly cleanup. Page 93 May 17,2010 CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, could I ask you a question about the political signs issue? There's nothing in here that says when you can put them up. We used to have a provision that said you couldn't put them up until a specified number of days prior to the election, if I remember correctly. I don't see anything in this ordinance that says that. MS. IS TENES: Right. That was changed as a result of the sign ordinance. So what did not change -- and we talked about that when we did the sign ordinance, so I don't want you to think we're -- you haven't seen that before. What did not change were the dimensional requirements of the . sIgn. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. MS. ISTENES: But, yeah. It was found -- there was some concern over our contract attorney that calling out a specific date or time ahead of time may be -- I'm trying to use the right word he used, but maybe -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: Restriction of freedom of speech? MS. ISTENES: You've got it. CHAIRMAN COYLE: That sound likes a typical attorney position. MS. ISTENES: You're right. I was trying to be polite and come up with a different word, but I mean, yeah, that was the concern. So yes, that did change. And you know, in some of these things, you may want to see how it goes this year or next year and then look to maybe doing something different. And I say -- when I say, see how it goes, be observant around the community, look at the signs. If you starting getting complaints from your constituents about, you know, the length of time they're there or their location or size or what have you, you may want to look at it again because this is different than what we're used to. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Page 94 May 17,2010 All right. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I understand that, you know, freedom of speech and all that, but wouldn't a qualifying date -- nobody's really on the ballot or anything until they've qualified anyway. That would at least not have a proliferation of signs happening all over. You could at least declare that it should be once the qualification period has ended. MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, I'd have to defer to the attorney's office on that one. That was, you know, following through with the recommendation for a contract. They may have a different opinion. Although, I think in working with them they had shared that same opinion at the time, but I'll let them certainly speak for themselves. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure why I can't (sic) put on my lawn something like, I opposed the war, but I can't put on my lawn, I support Commissioner Fiala even if -- on a certain date, and I think that's what really gets to it as far as putting these things up. Taking them down after the election is a different matter because it's over. But that's the issue in a nutshell. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: The new language provides that you have to get a building permit for the temporary use. MS. ISTENES: I think you've always had to get one. I think what we changed here is, you just need to get one bulk permit. The previous language said per sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. ISTENES: And this is one bulk permit for all of your signs. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We always get a bulk permit for the signs. So basically what you're saying is, you don't need to have an engineered sign like they do -- you know, if you have a business sign, you have to have some kind of a building code. Has to meet the building code, has to meet wind code. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. I think -- and I'm not -- I don't have Page 95 May 17, 2010 distinct knowledge of the building code with respect to signs or structures, but I believe our size limitations probably cover that so they don't have to be engineered. I'm not saying there isn't a circumstance where they wouldn't have to be, and certainly this requirement to get a bulk permit possibly would at least allow the building department to look at what the proposal is. But I mean, most them are, you know, sheets of plywood with stakes in the ground, and I don't believe that requires engineering, because of their size and their -- okay. Oh, thank you, John. And here's something to add to that. If you go to Page 225 under E, line ten. You'll see the maximum sign area of 32 square feet and 8 feet in height, except when affixed to the surface of the building wall. And -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. And then below is -- you'll see where-- what was struck and then incorporated back up into E, if that makes sense. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Somebody ready to make a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's see. A quantity -- the quantity of a sign shall be limited to one sign per lot, parcel, bulk permit. And they still need to get permission from the property owner? MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning. Second by Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I did. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. That's what I thought. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're psychic. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying Page 96 May 17,2010 aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is approved unanimously. SUBSECTION 5.05.05, AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS- APPROVED MR. BELLOWS: Next change is on Page 243 of your packet. It pertains to section 5.05.05, automobile service stations, and it's on your summary EE. MS. ISTENES: This was an omission, an unintended omission during recodification. It returns the minimum yard setback requirements as provided for in the table of site design requirements applying to all structures, principal and accessory, and another omission was returning the exceptions provisions for existing automobile service stations that were nonconforming. And you'll see it's kind of the same format where we had something left out before. We readopted it and struck it and then readopted it into its current location. I apologize. I was just thinking of something while -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, seconded -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Halas. And Commissioner Fiala has a question. Page 97 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Actually I had wondered about the previous one, 239. We skipped that one? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. MS. ISTENES: That was a -- yes, that has been continued to June 2nd as well. That's the MPP shoreline. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. The next one starts on Page 329. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We didn't vote yet. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not yet. MR. BELLOWS: Sorry. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 10.02.13, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES-APPROVED COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now that brings us to 329. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 329. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. MS. ISTENES: Yes, Page 329. It's section 10.02.13, planned unit development procedures. This is a change to clarify who is responsible for submitting PUD monitoring reports and to correct text -- sunsetting text to indicate that an extension runs from the original sunset date versus the original approval date, which is not correct. Page 98 May 17,2010 Sunsetting runs from sunset date. The reason being, the County Attorney's Office has opined that responsible -- responsibility for annual monitoring reports is held by the owners, all of them, of the undeveloped or developing lands. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 10.03.05, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE BCC AND CCPC - APPROVED CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to 331. MR. BELLOWS: And that pertains to section 10.03.05, notice requirements for public hearings before the BCC and CCPC. MS. ISTENES: This is on Page 331. It's section 10.03.05. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve. MS. ISTENES: I do need to just read into the record, that pink highlighted was -- needs to be underlined. It is in other areas of the text, but that one was just missed. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Halas. Page 99 May 17,2010 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. SUBSECTION 10.03.05 BAND F, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS- APPROVED CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to 333. MR. BELLOWS: And that pertains to section 10.03.05 Band F, notice requirements. MS. ISTENES: This change simply returns language previously removed that provides for notification of property owners with regard to neighborhood information meetings. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign? Page 100 May 17,2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is passes unanimously. That brings us to the end -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask you one more question? CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you say 305 was continued? MR. BELLOWS: 305? CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Page number 305 or -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: 305 is continued to June the 2nd. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that brings us to the end of the hearing, unless you've got some new things to add -- MS. ISTENES: No. Unless Nick -- CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- doesn't it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just a question for you, Commissioners. That section regarding political signs, you asked the last board meeting for an update on it. I just want to see if this covers your Page 224 -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- any other questions or comments, or if that satisfies your questions from the last board meeting. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Okay, Susan. Anything else? MOTION TO CONTINUE TO JUNE 2~ 2010 - APPROVED MS. ISTENES: That's it. Your next meeting is June 2,2010, and you would need to continue. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we will adjourn until our meeting on June the 2nd, 2010, at nine a.m. Page 101 May 17,2010 MS. ASHTON: Correct. We're continuing these LDCs hearings to that date. CHAIRMAN COYLE: And continuing discussions at that time. Okay. All right. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Are we -- we're going to continue rather than adjourn, right? MS. ASHTON: Correct. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. And so we have a motion to continue and a second by Commissioner Henning. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. It passes unanimously, and we are continued. MS. ISTENES: Thank you. ***** Page 102 May 17,2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :53 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~w.~ FRED COYLE, Chairm ATTEST DWI0liTE.,BROCK, CLERK ~:~~d. '.'e;~~:;es ap;rovev>y tlle Board on (p { ~ 1- /20 10 as presented / or as corrected , TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INe., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 103