Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/11/2006 S (LDC Amendments) January 11, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL LDC MEETING Naples, Florida, January 11, 2006 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 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas Fred Coyle Donna Fiala Tom Henning Jim Coletta (Absent) ALSO PRESENT: Joe Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Susan Murray, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Catherine Fabacher, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ Board of County Commissioners/Land Development Code AGENDA January 11,2006 5:05 p.m. Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2 Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE Page 1 January 11, 2006 TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 3. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. Page 2 January 11, 2006 January 11,2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This will be the 2005 Cycle 2 Land Development Code amendments for January 11th. And we're meeting here at 5:05, and we're right on time. If we'd all rise for the repeat of the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: This evening we have one board commissioner that is -- had a death in his family. His father-in-law passed away. So Commissioner Coletta will not be with us today. But he's with us in our thoughts and in our spirit. So with that, maybe we can get started here with the -- MS. FABACHER: Okay. All right, good evening, Commissioners -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry. MS. FABACHER: That's okay. -- Ladies and gentlemen. My name's Catherine Fabacher, and I'm the Principal Planner with the Land Development Code. So I'll kind of be guiding us through this process tonight. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one question before. Do we have to say that we voted yesterday not to -- MS. FABACHER: No, we will-- MR. SCHMITT: We will cover that, ma'am, so we can make it a part of the record. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And are you responsible for putting this packet together? MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a very good job. The color coding really makes it a lot easier for us. MS. FABACHER: Thank you so much, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I appreciate the additional effort to make it more convenient. Good job. Thank you. Page 2 January 11,2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good job, yes. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. I want to kind of start by explaining that the Board of County Commission is required to hold two public hearings on these proposed amendments to the 2005 Cycle 2 of the Land Development Code amendment process. What we'd planned to do at tonight's meeting is to hear for the first time the items in your packet that you received, with the exception, of course, of the affordable housing amendments, which unfortunately we've been asked to defer to the February 8th meeting. So we will hear these amendments in the packet tonight and they will get their second hearing on February 8th. So we can't actually vote on it till February 8th. And then what we need to do now is you all need to make your motion and vote now to hold a third meeting on February 28th during your regular meeting to hear for -- the items that you'll hear for the first time on February 8th, you will need to hear for the second time on February 28th. And that's what I believe the county attorney's advised me that you need to do. And let me read into the record those amendments. We'll have the two affordable housing amendments that have been deferred now to the 8th will be read. Will be deferred to the 8th, and the second meeting on the 28th. You also have the Bayshore Drive and the Gateway Triangle overlays, which we will talk about for the first time on the 8th and then hear the 28th. And then there's one more amendment about staggered setbacks in the Estates that didn't quite get into the packet that we will hear for the first time. So I think it's -- if you guys want to make the motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make the motion that we -- that we -- MS. FABACHER: Hold a third meeting. Page 3 January 11, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- continue -- or hold a -- MS. FABACHER: Third meeting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- third meeting on February 28th -- MS. FABACHER: To continue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to cover the three subjects that you just mentioned: Affordable housing, staggered setbacks in the Estates, and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA. MS. FABACHER: Overlays. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Overlay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, does that mean those items are not going to be heard today? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I need a second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, we have a second. MS. FABACHER: And they're continuing them from tonight to February 28th. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: February 8th. MS. FABACHER: Sorry, February 8th. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Part of my motion is continuing them till February 8th and then holding a second meeting on February 28th. That's what Commissioner Coyle was trying to get was to get it In proper -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Format. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- format. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coyle. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Page 4 January 11, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. Okay, now, I think Margie needs to talk about the advertising. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. I have reviewed the advertising for tonight's hearing and find it to be legally sufficient. MS. FABACHER: All right. Thank you, Margie. Okay, this is kind of how we plan to proceed, if it's all right with you. In your packets the first thing we have is a summary sheet of all the amendments. It reflects the actions and recommendations of the advisory boards who heard these before you. The -- also, the summary sheet will indicate the page number of the packet where the amendment can be found. And finally, the summary sheet also indicates the fact that some amendments have been withdrawn from the cycle. Staff is here tonight to help brief the commission and to address any questions or comments you might have. What we'd like to do is go through, if it's okay with you, the amendments in the summary sheet order with a brief explanation of the proposed amendments. Then if you have any questions or comments, the staffs available to address them. We did have some public speakers tonight, but unfortunately they came for the affordable housing. So are there any other public speakers right now for any of the other topics? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we can get that out of the way in case Page 5 January 11, 2006 there are some items that need to be explained. If not -- MS. FABACHER: We can begin? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MS. FABACHER: All right, excellent. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: All right. And I'll just keep reading and when you want to stop me, please do. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: All right, I'm on Page I of our -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, that's enough. MS. FABACHER: And they said you guys were going to be a tough audience. The first amendment we're talking about is on Page I of the summary sheet, and Page 1 of the packet, and its amendment to Section 1.04.04, reduction of the required site design requirements. And I'm going to ask Susan Murray to kind of give you a brief background to this amendment. MS. MURRAY: Good evening. Susan Murray; I'm the Zoning Director. Unfortunately this is one amendment that I don't think can be a little brief, because it is fairly complicated. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Maybe we ought to have somebody from the transportation area give a brief explanation of what this is about so that -- MS. MURRAY: Well, actually, yeah, I'm going to do that with the assistance of Nick Casalanguida. So I'm going to go ahead and start out, and then Nick will be up here to fill in, and then we'll both be here to answer questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fantastic, thank you. MS. MURRAY: You read my mind, because that was my intro. Nick, with assistance from the county attorney's office and others in the transportation department, have taken the initiative to propose Page 6 January 11, 2006 this code language that is intended to expand the scope of existing regulations for properties and development which are rendered nonconforming through actions associated with the acquisition of property for public use through dedication, condemnation and the like. The reason the amendment was proposed is when the county acquires portions of a lot or parcel for public use, use which usually occurs for right-of-way, the owner argues that the county must pay additional money for the cost of bringing that property into compliance with the Land Development Code. And I'm going to try to provide an example for that later. The text in your amendment package is a little difficult to follow, and the issues associated with property acquisition tend to be very complex. They require you to try and vision almost an infinite number of fact possibilities pertaining to what I will categorize as three areas of regulations: Those regulations associated with the land, specifically size and area requirements; those regulations associated with structures, specifically yards, setbacks, architectural requirements; and third, those other site-related regulations associated with development, such as landscape, stormwater management and architectural provisions. I'm going to attempt to summarize what this proposed amendment does. It is complex. And I would like to reserve the right to come back next meeting with some revised text that is intended to organize and simplify what is written here. At this point it's not my intention to substantially change the proposed amendment, unless of course you all direct us to do so. For purposes of illustration, I'm going to focus this explanation, using as an example property which otherwise meets legal requirements for development and! or structures and other developments thereon that are legal and conform to current development standards. And that will be my example. So we have an existing piece of property that otherwise conforms Page 7 January 11, 2006 to all existing standards, and then I'm going to give you an example of how this amendment would affect that property and what it would do CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's when it becomes nonconforming, correct? MS. MURRAY: That's correct, right, yeah. Usually as a result of acquisition. The proposed amendment also discusses those existing legal nonconforming situations that are made more nonconforming by acquisition. But again, in my example, I just would like to stick with using something that's conforming, but just to let you know that it also addresses nonconforming situations, much in the very same way, so there really isn't a whole lot of difference. The theory behind those proposed rules is generally the same for conforming as well as other existing rules in the code. Because we do have a lot of rules already that deal with nonconforming situations, and these are consistent with those. I'm going to use right-of-way acquisition as an example which would cause these regulations to be applied. For illustrative purposes, let's assume you have an existing piece of property which meets dimensional standards and area standards for the zoning district in which it is located. For example, if the minimum site area was five acres for the zoning district, then the property is set to conform to the area requirements of the district, if it's five acres in SIze or more. The provisions of this proposed amendment allow for a lot to be reduced in its degree of compliance, including its size, dimension or area below the minimum requirement set forth in this code, meaning in this case below five acres, only when the reason it is reduced is a portion thereof is acquired for public use in any manner. In summary, this rule says all lots or parcels are going to meet the minimum area and dimensional standards of the zoning district, unless Page 8 January 11, 2006 a portion of them is acquired through condemnation or the like for a public purpose. So in the example I provided you of one acre of the five-acre tract was acquired for a public purpose, that would be a legitimate way to reduce the size of the property below the minimum set -- or standard in the code, until the time you go to re-create the lot by either replatting or combining it with other properties. At that time the lot must be brought up to current standards. So what this basically says is it's okay to reduce the lot below the standards if it's as a result of an acquisition. And then once the property goes to be either recombined or recreated with other lots, it then must meet the current Land Development Code standards. The provision also deals with lots that are already developed. Paragraph A, which is on Page 2, it goes on to qualify that, and it allows that such requirements such as setbacks and lot coverage, which again would be reduced to below minimum standards as a result of an acquisition, that they may be reduced by the same dimension, area or amount involved in the acquisition, but shall not result in a front yard of less than 10 feet in depth. And that's consistent with rules that we already have in the code, so you might be familiar with that already. Again, the nonconforming lot or parcel may remain as is, unless or until the lot or yard is recreated, typically by a replat or a lot recombination, at which such time the lot and yards must comply with current regulations. The remainder of the proposed amendment goes on to address other code required development standards associated with developed parcels such as landscape, buffer, stormwater management and architectural design standards. And basically says the same thing: As a result of acquisition for public purpose, any reduction in development standards as a result of that acquisition may remain as legal nonconformities, unless or until the remaining lot or yard or Page 9 January 11, 2006 site-related nonconformities is subsequently recreated or redeveloped, at which such time the development must comply with the then existing requirements of the code. And this is probably one of the key areas of the code that's of benefit to the taxpayers in particular, because normally when somebody -- for example, through an acquisition a landscape buffer is reduced or there is some nonconforming -- legal nonconforming structures on the site and as a result of the acquisition the property owner has to come in and actually do another site development plan. So let's say the acquisition acquired part of their entry drive and part of their parking lot, for example. So obviously they're going to have to reconfigure their site in order for it to be usable again. That triggers the requirement for a site development plan, because they're changing their site. And the existing code requires that they bring the entire site up to conformance with current standards, which for older parcels obviously gets -- could be quite costly in terms of adding additional landscaping, meeting architectural requirements, walls separating commercial from residential, that sort of thing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So basically are you saying that when we purchase the right-of-way, that the -- what basically transpires is that they automatically get a variance so that there's (sic) nonconforming but they have a variance that they're in conformance; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: I wouldn't call it a variance. I would call it the ability to remain in a state of nonconformity until a future point in time when they take action to either redevelop or further develop or recombine or add on to their property, depending on the situation. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning has a question also. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the past when we acquired right-of-way, the people had a right to keep their property rights. Page 10 January 11, 2006 Because, you know, if you reduce it, you know -- give you an example. If they had a five-acre tract in Golden Gate Estates and they take an acre away and you have four acres, you can't split that to make it two conforming lots. And my understanding how it was is people would take a reduced price to keep their lot from becoming nonconforming. You see what I'm saying? MS. MURRAY: No, I'm not quite following you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's worth more if you can do more. Like if you can -- once that lot became a four-acre lot, they couldn't split it. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's worth less, in all reality. MS. MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If they retain that right to split that lot, the cost of the county to acquire that one acre was less. That's what was explained to me. Because they kept that right. MS. MURRAY: I'm not familiar with any situation where -- or any code provision that would allow them to retain that right. But I would certainly welcome anybody else jumping in, if they're aware of COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be a deed, through a deed on the property? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I can -- I'm not sure the situation that you're talking about with the inability to split the lot and getting less so they could retain that ability. If they lost that ability, it would seem to me it would be part of the damage award that would have to be paid in condemnation. So if we had a provision in our code that would allow them to remain legally nonconforming, then that would take away from the -- or the county wouldn't then have to pay them that additional amount in damages. The situation that I'm most familiar with is where, say, when U.S. Page 11 January 11, 2006 41 was widened and people lost some buffer areas or some areas that they needed for parking, or even for a minimum yard requirement, the textbook case law tells us that part of the damage award would be the cost of the person to come in and apply for a variance. But that as part of the condemnation, you couldn't guarantee the outcome of obtaining a vanance. So what this would do would be to relieve the property owner of the burden of having to come in and get the variance and also take that burden away from the Board of Zoning Appeals of having to consider the variance. Because this is something truly that's taken place beyond the control of the property owner. And also, our transportation department would then not have to include the cost of the variance and getting the consultant and all that COMMISSIONER HENNING: You answered my question. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- that in the damage award. So that would be a savings of money, too. This would save money for the county and the taxpayers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That answered your question? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It did? Well, maybe I had a different question, then. Because I thought I understood what Commissioner Henning wanted to do. But if you have a four-acre parcel and we take, let's say, a half an acre, it can no longer be subdivided. MS. MURRAY: If we're talking about -- I assume you're talking perhaps about an Estates zoned lot. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, an Estate lot. MS. MURRAY: If you had like a five-acre-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: A five-acre lot can be subdivided, Page 12 January 11, 2006 right? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ifwe take a half an acre of that lot, it can no longer be subdivided. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we pay damages because of the failure of the inability of the property owner to be able subdivide their property. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, now, let's suppose we don't want to pay damages. Why can't we just give them the right to subdivide a lot if it has been reduced below the five acres through no fault of their own, and fault by Collier County? There's no damage; they can still subdivide it. It's a four-and-a-half-acre lot now that they're subdividing. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or a four-acre lot. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, or a four-acre lot. Is there any adverse impact of something like that? MS. MURRAY: That may be inconsistent with the compo plan is the first thing that comes to mind. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That's a concern that -- we'd have to look and see if there'd be any compo plan problem with doing it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you can change the compo plan. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And you can change compo plans to say if a nonconformance occurs as a result of action taken by the county government, certain things can happen, right? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right. Yes, we can. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if you could do that, you Page 13 January 11, 2006 would solve -- you would reduce the cost of acquisition of right-of-way for the county. You wouldn't impact the property owner; they could still subdivide it. And you of course would have some certain threshold limits, so if you reduced it down to two acres, they couldn't subdivide it, perhaps. But if that -- Commissioner Henning, I don't know if that's where you were going with your question or not, but would that be appealing to people in the Estates who own estate size lots? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that people in general, when government comes to take some of their property, they want to be compensated. But at the end of the day, people don't want to find out years from then that they've lost their ability to exercise the rights that they had prior because of government action. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's plain and simple. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I think that's a great solution, because their property -- maybe we would compensate them by today's dollars, but then in two years that property could have doubled its value and now they've lost any right to subdivide it. I think that that's a great solution. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's something we ought to look into. Because it would save us money as the government -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And protects the landowner. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- and also protects the landowner. MS. MURRAY: It could also occur in other zoning districts. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it could, absolutely. That was just the easiest example I could think of. MS. MURRAY: I have one final piece just to go over, and the last piece says if as a result of the acquisition the approval of a development order or permit is required in order to implement the terms of the acquisition. And an example would be where a building is required to be Page 14 January 11, 2006 relocated or an access point required to be reconfigured and then hence permits would be required to do that, site plan, building permits, what have you, depending on the situation. Then the county manager or his designee is authorized to approve the development order, so long as the site-related nonconformities, architectural, landscape, storm water management, created as a result of the acquisition are not increased. So the acquisition took "X" amount. The site plan can be approved with that taking of "X" amount, no more -- no greater nonconformity. Meaning those nonconformities may be approved as they were created as a result of the acquisition, without the requirement to bring the whole site into compliance. I think I already explained that. And then Nick, I just wanted to ask real quick, I'm sorry to ask now, but I didn't catch you before. C, on Page 2, I have my notes that the planning commission had asked that be struck through. Am I -- is that correct, the bottom large C? MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning. They thought that it was redundant language, as the other sections kind of covered that. And I think Patrick, who wrote this, agreed at that meeting. Correct, Patrick? MS. MURRAY: That's what my notes say. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we want to line out Section C here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: At the bottom, C -- MS. MURRAY: The large C. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Large C. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Large C, yes. Do I have three nods -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep. Page 15 January 11, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- of the Commissioners? MS. MURRAY: I'm done. I think -- Nick, did you want to give any other background or information? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm upset Patrick's here. I wanted to take all the credit for it. Commissioners, I'd like to take all the credit for it. I beat the drum, he did all the work. And with Susan and the zoning staff, we put this together. And it was difficult for Patrick to write. I think he understands what we're going through in terms of building our roads and the costs associated with that, and I think you can appreciate that with what's happened recently. Our goal is to try and save some money for the taxpayers and move forward with our road projects, and I think this accomplishes that. And so I hope that you understand it and you support it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We thank you very much for all the hard work that everybody put into this. Okay. MS. FABACHER: All right, Commissioners, if we're ready to continue. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're ready. MS. FABACHER: All right, we'll go to page small Roman numeral 2, ii. And as we mentioned earlier, we are going to defer the affordable housing -- workforce housing amendments that are listed first on that sheet. The second one now would be moving into definitions, Section 1.08.02. And at the bottom of summary sheet ii and located on Page 7 of your packet is the amendment to the definition of floor area ratio, to put back something that was omitted during recodification, which was the ability to take -- to subtract any kind of interior parking in a building from the total square footage of the building when you're looking at the floor area ratio, which is the relation -- which we don't use much anymore, but that's the relationship to the building square Page 16 January 11, 2006 footage to the lot area. So this was something that during recodification was left out and asked to be brought back, and that's what we're doing, just taking the parking spaces inside the building out of the floor area calculation. Any questions? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay, good. We will turn the page and you'll notice on 3, or iii, that that has been withdrawn, those definitions. Then I'm turning to page iv, and the first one there, those definitions have been withdrawn from this Cycle 2. However, at the bottom of the page we have a definition that is still in the cycle and that is the returning the definition of sporting and recreational camps that was omitted again during -- and there are some proj ects coming up now where people wanted to use it and planners said what happened to that. So we're asking to put that in exactly as it was worded. And you can see the comments from all the advisories, they had no problem with that. Okay, I'm going to turn to page v. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions before we move on? MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: Okay, on page v, or small Roman numeral v on the top, and it's definitions again, and it's returning the definitions of four types of restaurants that were omitted during recodification once again. And the point of having this back is to aid in calculating the different parking ratios. They're different. They vary. And so when those were gone it was hard to argue for different parking, obviously. Different types of restaurants will have different types of parking requirements, so we're returning those definitions back again. Page 1 7 January 11, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there -- MS. F ABACHER: Any questions from that? CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- any questions from board members? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: All righty. And the same thing on the next item, which is the definitions of sign types, which was omitted during recodification. And then we were advised by the sign review staff that it's hard to -- when an applicant comes in and they want to argue on what a type sign means, we don't have anything on the books, so we wanted to put those definitions back in. And they are verbatim what they were in the old code. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So this is nothing new. MS. FABACHER: Nothing new. CHAIRMAN HALAS: This was stuff that was eliminated, and now we have to put it back in -- MS. FABACHER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- because of the going through the explanation process. MS. FABACHER: Because it was needed. It got omitted, but it's found by the staff working that it's still needed, so we're going to go back in with it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: It won't cause any confusion because of all the different sign codes and -- MS. FABACHER: Right, no. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so forth, it won't -- okay, thank you. MS. FABACHER: All right, I'm going to -- any other questions? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay, I'm going to turn the page to vi on the summary sheet. And this is going to be Page 24 in your packet. Page 18 January 11, 2006 And now this is a new amendment here, not something being put back. And this is to define Conservation Collier lands as an essential service so that we can allow them, under permitted use and conditional use -- they won't have to rezone each parcel to come in to provide public access. There's a minimal permitted portion which is just basically less than 20 parking spaces and one small sign, and I think it's a hiking trail, I believe, or a fully accessible trail. And under conditional uses, we give them more latitude to put in a bigger -- an interpretive center, a nature center, more parking than that, if they're going to make major changes. But the point was to save the taxpayers money. Because as you know, rezoning can be a lengthy process. And for all these little parcels that they've acquired for conservation but they want to provide public access to, then they are allowed a minimum public access under this new amendment to the essential services. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I've got one question. MS. FABACHER: Sure. CHAIRMAN HALAS: When I read through all of this, every paragraph basically followed up or ended by oil and gas exploration as defined and regulated in this code remains a permitted use on or beneath the Conservation Collier lands. Can you -- MS. F ABACHER: I can elaborate on that, but I may defer to Alex Sulecki, who's the director for Conservation Collier to go ahead and address that issue about the oil and gas provisions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I assume that that has something to do with mineral rights? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MS. FABACHER: That's it. MR. SCHMITT: This was negotiated as part of the -- even as the -- of the rural fringe amendments. And Alex, probably not much different than that. It was mostly Page 19 January 11, 2006 in agreements and negotiations for land use and retaining certain mineral rights. MS. SULECKI: Good evening. For the record, Alex Sulecki, Coordinator for the Conservation Collier program. When we started buying Conservation Collier lands, we looked at the oil, gas and mineral rights. And as you may know, most of them in Collier County are owned by the Collier family. And we contacted them and they told us that they would not be interested in selling those rights. So we said oh, what are we going to do? Are we going to not buy lands that we don't have oil, gas and mineral rights to? Because then we won't be buying a lot of lands. So we decided to go ahead and buy them and not worry about the oil, gas and mineral rights. But when we came in with this amendment, there was some concern on their part that we would be somehow cutting out some rights that were already agreed upon in the cited references in here. So we are not interested in doing that. There are some limitations when they develop in conservation lands. I believe they have to use already disturbed areas and they have to keep to minimal things. But really and truly, with the agreements that have been made, there wasn't much we could do about it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioners Henning has a question. MS. SULECKI: All right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's no fiscal -- what is it, fiscal impacts to this? MS. SULECKI: The fiscal impacts were actually positive. Because if we had to rezone the properties individually, we would end up spending a base fee of $6,000 plus $25 per acre. And we would need to rezone many of these. Because, for example, in Golden Gate Estates, which is one of our target protection areas, you can't under current zoning put in a Page 20 January 11, 2006 parking lot without the primary structure. So we wouldn't be able to develop any kind of access ability. In another zoning, industrial zoning, we have a preserve there, the rail head scrub preserve. You can't even have a preserve park like thing with public access. So we looked at having to rezone these individually. And staff came up with the idea that a better more productive way to do that would be to just allow these minimal uses by right without having to rezone. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, maybe this is not the time to talk about it, but if you start putting bathroom facilities in these places, it's going to create some other problems. We've seen that at the Naples Pier. It's going to take some oversights and, you know, who's going to be doing that? Is it going to be parks and rec? MS. SULECKI: Well, actually, it would all be done the same way we build things now under a site development plan. So it would totally go through review processes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I understand. But what I'm talking about is the actual physical operation of it. Once you do it, once you put a parking lot, once you put a bathroom in there, there is a cost for putting a bathroom in, there is a cost for putting a parking lot In. MS. SULECKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Cost of maintaining it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Cost of maintaining it, and is it going to attract a certain crowd where it's going to be an enforcement issue, those type of things. MS. SULECKI: Well, these are things that we had contemplated doing on Conservation Collier lands, and we are definitely looking at, as we go forward in the program, to provide access, some of those issues, particularly the security issues. But this particular amendment or Land Development Code amendment doesn't get us near that because we were going to Page 21 January 11, 2006 basically do that anyway for these parcels. This just allows us to go ahead in any zoning to come forward with these plans. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're going to do what anyways? MS. SULECKI: Provide public access -- MR. SCHMITT: In accordance with -- MS. SULECKI: -- with other parcels. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The access I can understand. Bathrooms, I'm not sure I agree with. MS. SULECKI: Okay, well, that would come before you for planning. It's not -- it would give us the ability to go forward with a plan that would be approved. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you ever thought about instead of using impervious surface, is use some kind of, you know, softer, something more creative towards what we're trying to do? MS. SULECKI: Oh, definitely. But for -- let's say for a parking lot, we would want -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sometimes it doesn't work. MS. SULECKI: Well, we would want impervious surfaces, but they still require the engineering and the permitting, just the same as an impervious surface. Because you have to do water management. MR. SCHMITT: I just need to point out, we are required to provide access to these lands, and this is what -- this facilitates that process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: By the referendum, purchased lands were to be -- they are to be made available. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, I understand that. MR. SCHMITT: Public access. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't remember seeing and have restrooms. MS. MURRAY: Not every parcel-- Page 22 January 11, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: No, they do not. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Coke machines? Make sure it's in the back. Don't put it in the front. MR. SCHMITT: That's up to you all. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want to see those Coke machines. MR. SCHMITT: You've got to bust the chops on the planning commission for that one. That was their recommendation. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) MS. SULECKI: Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Alex. Okay, I'm turning to page 7 or vii of the summary sheet. At the top of the page is Section 2.010.00, the parking and storage of vehicles. And this is just simply a housekeeping measure. If you would look on Page 30, you'll see that we just changed a 1 to an A, just to keep up with the indexing or outlining concept of the code. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Scrivener error, basically. MS. FABACHER: Exactly. Any questions on that? (N 0 response.) MS. F ABACHER: The next item of course was the Bayshore Drive overlay, which we are deferring until February 8th. Now I'm turning to small Roman numeral viii, Page 8, and the next amendment we're going to be talking about is the -- is Section 2.03.07, the Goodland zoning overlay. And I believe this was board directed some time ago, to take clam nurseries out of conditional use status for Goodland and put it as a permitted use. And the -- that is on Page 81. And the only thing that we -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Eighty-one is not included in my book. Page 23 January 11, 2006 That was missing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We go from 32 to 123. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. And 81 was missing when I went through there. And I was going to bring that to the attention -- MS. FABACHER: My apologies. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So that whole section is missing on the Goodland. And then I think we went into the Golden Gate at 123, and everything from there on was -- MS. FABACHER: Fine. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- there on -- was continued. MS. FABACHER: My apology. But essentially it's moving the text from one to the next. And we will have it in your next packet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you tell me about that anyway? MS. FABACHER: Oh, certainly. Well, you know, clam nursery is really where they have like a little raceway or flowway in the backyard and they just -- they put the little -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, you're going to make it a permitted use. MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what this is doing. MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Instead of a conditional use. MS. FABACHER: Exactly. MR. SCHMITT: Ma'am, that was based on a public petition -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- and you made it a permitted use. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioners, do you feel comfortable with what was brought before us -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- knowing that was eliminated from the Page 24 January 11, 2006 package? Unfortunately. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't see it. MS. F ABACHER: Well, I apologize. We'll have it in the February 8th packet when you'll be able to vote on it. It's just moving. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sorry, I was going to put-- MS. FABACHER: No, no, my apology. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- a call today on that when I read through this and found it missing, but I got waylaid on some other stuff. MS. FABACHER: All right. So the next item we're going to move to is the Gateway Triangle, and that's at the bottom of vii, and we're going to defer that till the next meeting of February 8th. I am on to the next page, which is Roman numeral 9, ix, and this is the Golden Gate Parkway downtown commercial overlay. And Michele Mosca is going to give us just a kind of brief overview, if you don't mind. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Michele Mosca with the Comprehensive Planning Department. I would briefly like to provide the genesis of this amendment and then go ahead and provide the overview of the zoning overlay. The version that you have in your packets today is the incorrect version. So again, I will provide an overview and we'll provide you with a corrected version at the February 8th meeting. In June of 200 1, the board appointed many individuals within the Golden Gate community to sit on the Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy committee, primarily for the purpose of studying the Golden Gate area and assisting staff with revisions to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. As a result of the restudy process, the committee recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that they wanted some sort of Page 25 January 11, 2006 downtown commercial district along the -- along Golden Gate Parkway to serve as an entry way into the community, as well as provide commercial opportunities for the residents of Golden Gate City and the Estates. In October of 2004, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, creating the subdistrict. Staff was then directed to work with the Golden Gate committee, as well as the Golden Gate community, to establish an implementing zoning overlay in the Land Development Code, which is before you today. The overlay generally includes those properties located along Golden Gate Parkway, beginning at Sunshine Boulevard, extending east to Collier Boulevard, north and south of the parkway approximately four blocks. Permitted uses are limited to neighborhood commercial, those uses that are generally found in the C-l through C-3 zoning districts. Prohibited uses include drive-thru and drive-up uses and new residential only structures. Development on these properties within the overlay is guided by specific design and development standards. The overall architectural theme proposed for this area is Mediterranean, which would include barrel-tiled roofs, stucco facades and wood accents. The overlay encourages multi-story buildings, with general retail and personal services on the first floor, all of the other uses permitted within the districts, except for restaurants and cocktail lounges on the second floor, and on the third floor would be limited to residential. Buildings along the Parkway may provide a front yard setback of anywhere from zero to 15 feet to provide for outdoor dining and other seating areas. Building heights are limited to 45 feet, and shall have a minimum height requirement of 34 feet. Page 26 January 11, 2006 Buildings are required to have a minimum building footprint of at least 3,000 square feet, but no more than 12,000 square feet. Signs are generally limited to wall signs for first-floor businesses, and external identification signs are allowed for businesses located on the second floor. Parking will be calculated at a rate of three spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area. And no parking will be allowed in the front yards along the parkway. Project requirements for landscaping include additional accent trees, decorative planting areas and district perimeter landscape buffering. Finally, the overlay requires right-of-way improvements along Golden Gate Parkway, including an eight-feet wide landscape strip, a 10- feet wide sidewalk and decorative lighting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I ask a question? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: In regards to your building heights, it says maximum building heights of 45 feet. Is that from the ground level to the very top of the appurtenance that may be on the buildings? MS. MOSCA: That would be -- in the Land Development Code, the actual-- which would include all appurtenances and embellishments. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fantastic, okay. The other question I had, it says in here cessation of residential uses existing non-owner occupied residential-- obviously that's rental units that are along there -- used located along Golden Gate Parkway shall cease to exist no later than seven years after the effective date of the adoption of the downtown center commercial subdistrict in Golden Gate area. So you're saying that after seven years that any rental properties that are along that Golden Gate Parkway will cease to be existed -- exist at that point in time; is that correct? Page 27 January 11, 2006 MS. MOSCA: For the most part, that's correct. However, if you have a -- for example, a duplex that is owner occupied, my understanding, and maybe I might need to defer to legal staff, that would allow to remain. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Continue. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I just -- there's a couple of items that I just was interested in as far as making sure that we put in there building heights from the ground to the very top. MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, I've actually completed my presentation. But if you have additional questions, I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry, I thought maybe I interrupted you. Are there any questions from commissioners? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I do have some questions. Or at least one. The permissible land uses that are outlined here, if a land use is not mentioned here, it is not permitted; is that correct? MS. MOSCA: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then that solves my problem. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your presentation. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Michele. Okay, we will continue down to the next item on sheet nine, which is again a scrivener's error, housekeeping. It appears that the -- when it was recodified, the single-family dwellings was listed as a permitted use in the golf course district, and that is not correct. So we're removing single-family residences as a permitted use in the golf Page 28 January 11, 2006 course district. And the other thing is we are, through a footnote, conditioning the -- conditions under which a single-family detached could be permitted in a residential multi-family zoning district with 12 units per acre. And that is all captured in a footnote on Page 15 -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Nine? MS. FABACHER: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions on this item? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. Okay, I'm going to turn the page and go to Page 10 of our summary sheet. And we have now Section 4.02.03, an amendment to address seawall height. This is new. And Mike Bosi, the author, is going to explain exactly how we're placing a limitation on seawall heights and why. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm glad to see this come forward finally. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Zoning and Land Development Review. Chairman Halas, board members. The motivation behind the proposed amendment -- well, let me step back. The present amendment's going to be addressed within the accessory setback table, or the table for accessory structure, which dictates what the dimensional standards for the structures would be, particularly on water front lots. Currently the way the rules exist is you've got -- a bench park elevation is your seawall. And you have a 10- foot setback as long as your pool deck, your screen cage or any of your accessory structures sits less than four feet above that seawall. If it's above four feet, that rear yard setback increases to 20 feet. So if -- the higher you go with your pool deck or above that seawall, it increases the dimensional standards. I actually -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I interject here, that this is basically Page 29 January 11, 2006 in areas of north Naples, and it doesn't apply to the Isle of Capri. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. You can put my button off then. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I figured that that was going to be a discussion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was going there. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe it's going to remain the same; am I right? MR. BOSI: Chairman Halas, that is correct. And in the footnote, which dictates the 10 and the 20- foot application, it specifically excepts the Isle of Capri from this measurement. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about Goodland? MR. BOSI: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Goodland also? MR. SCHMITT: It's not in there. We can write it in. Now, you understand, all we're doing here is trying to make sure there's uniformity. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do understand that. But, you know, just to make sure. Like Goodland, they have little postage size lots, you know. And I know they have their own overlay, but in case any -- sometimes lawyers get into these things and they can work other things out. So maybe it would be best mentioned Goodland not in there as well; that way just to protect them. MR. SCHMITT: Fine. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Golden Gate. MR. SCHMITT: Put that in there. It doesn't apply anyway. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They have canals out there. MR. SCHMITT: My concern is if we just eliminate those two and then we're primarily dealing with almost all of North Naples area, at least of the shoreline up in District 1 (sic). CHAIRMAN HALAS: Two. MR. SCHMITT: Two, thank you. Page 30 January 11, 2006 MS . MURRAY: And let me clarify, because the code says, as it presently reads, an exception is made for Isles of Capri, which may construct to a maximum of seven feet above the seawall with a maximum of four feet of stemwall exposure with a rear setback of 10 feet. So it doesn't mean they would never a setback requirement of 20 feet, they can just go up to seven feet before the 20- foot requirement kicks in. MR. SCHMITT: And that language has always been in the code. MS. MURRAY: It's been in for quite a while. MR. BOSI: The actual proposed text states that the benchmark elevation of the top of the sea -- or top of bank for determining the setback for rear yard accessory setback on a parcel shall be no greater than the average elevation of the top of the seawall or top of bank on the two immediate adjoining parcels. And we created a diagram basically to illustrate. And on this, the middle parcel would be the subject parcel. Your two adjoining parcels, both of them have a seawall elevation of four feet. Right now they could actually construct that seawall, artificially raise it to seven feet, and that would be the bench mark elevation. With the proposed amendment, the four feet will be the limitation as to where they can go. And just to give you a real-time example, the property to the -- would be to the right of the screen is obviously the seawall that has been artificially inflated to manipulate that rear yard. And hopefully this amendment will eliminate that option. Because we were coming forward with the variances saying well, we have to -- we should probably approve this variance or we're going to result in that which is a detraction that no one wanted to see as a result. So this proposed amendment's going to eliminate that possibility. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. That's awful. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Maybe something you might want to Page 31 January 11, 2006 consider later on as development takes place. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, because this is awful looking. MR. BOSI: And that's the conclusion of my presentation. If there are any questions, I'd be more than happy -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions from fellow commissioners? eN 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Mike. All right, Commissioners, we'll go on to the next amendment and that is a minor housekeeping clarification for Section 4.02.14. It's retitling the section from development in the area of critical state concerns special treatment district to the ST, special treatment and area of critical state concerns special treatment district. And the whole point is that people couldn't find the special treatment regulations, so -- which seemed to be kind of buried in there. So now hopefully they'll be able to find them. And the regulations were on Page 164, that -- is what is talked about, but it had no real mention in the title, so it was hard for them to find where the regulations were. Any questions on that? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? eN 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue on. MS. FABACHER: Okay, thank you. Okay, so we are going to go to the next, which is 4.03.02, and that's going to be on Page 165. And this is changing and clarifying the property that needs -- it's redefining subdivisions for the smaller-- which size subdivisions need to be replatted. MS. MURRAY: It's -- Susan Murray for the record. It's just adding a sentence clarifying the platting requirement. It's not really a regulatory change, it's just a clarification. I'd be happy to try to answer Page 32 January 11, 2006 any questions I can with that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think it's -- thank you. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. We'll move on to the next item, which is a bunch of sections, 4.03.03, 10.02.01, 10.02.02, 10.02.03 and 10.02.04. And what this is really about is that originally we had a preliminary site -- let's see. MS. MURRAY: I can explain it. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Susan. MS. MURRAY: The LDC was previously amended to eliminate the mandatory preliminary subdivision plat requirement and allow the option of submitting only a final subdivision plat. And the intent was to combine the PSP and final subdivision plat review, but the previous amendments failed to specify the policies, procedures and submittal requirements for accomplishing that. There were requirements in the PSP process that were important for staff to have as part of the submittal package so they could adequately review it against the code requirements. And when we eliminated the PSP process, those requirements kind of went with them. So we're trying to bring back some of the requirements so that we can adequately have the information or sufficiently have the information at the time of final subdivision plat in order to review it. The second part of this is we had -- for townhouses, the way the definitions are structured in the Land Development Code, there was a requirement to both plat the townhouse development, because they're based -- townhouses are structures that are attached but located on individually owned lots. And there was also a requirement for a site development plan. So we felt that it was short of double dipping, as you will, in order -- in other words, we could accomplish the review of a townhouse proj ect through the subdivision plat requirement, rather than requiring an SDP. Page 33 ,--_.~._. ..~~..".-,.-.__..__.,.-."..""--'-'---~ January 11, 2006 So we're removing the requirement for an SDP in the case of townhouse and just reviewing it through the subdivision plat requirement. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions? eN 0 response.) MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Susan. Okay, I'm going to turn the page to Page 12 of your summary sheet, xii, and it Section 4.05.03, specific parking requirement. This amendment is proposed to establish standards for designated parking areas at residential properties. Code enforcement's been having a problem with a lot of people parking on their lawns, and so the language that you see on Page 1 77 and forward really kind of tries to say exactly define what a designated parking area would be. You can't just say, you know, this part of my grass is where I'm parking, it has to be on a specially designed and treated system. So it addresses -- it's gone through DSAC and all the other committees to add the kind of systems that they want. You could still park on one of these grid systems that has grass growing, but it has to be stabilized to just -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could I ask a question? MS. FABACHER: Sure. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You're on Page 1 77. I had a question on Page 174, and it's under the heading of ii. And then it was sub C -- the paragraph where it says the total number of units, units per acre and units breakdown by square footage, and the number of bedrooms. How does this number of bedrooms play into the equation? MS. MURRAY: The number of bedrooms can affect parking if it's dealing with a multi-family. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The site plan providing the following information in table format. And then we get down to small c. Do you see that? It says the total number of units, units per acre and unit breakdown by square footage, okay, and it says the number of Page 34 January 11, 2006 bedrooms. If you -- MS. MURRAY: Let me circle that, and if you don't mind, maybe get back to next -- for sure I can tell you it affects the parking. But there was a requirement to have that in there for one of our reviews, and the parking is the only thing that comes immediately to mind, but I certainly will ask my staff to make sure I have that right -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, I appreciate that. MS. MURRAY: -- and give you some more. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because I just needed some clarification. MR. SCHMITT: I'm sure it was parking requirements. MS. FABACHER: Okay, then we'll go back to the parking -- or not parking on the front lawn designated residential parking places. Are there any questions on that? We have people here to explain. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we're clear on that. MS. FABACHER: Okay, thank you. Okay, now we -- the next one is on Page 12. It's Section 4.06.02, C-1 buffer requirements. And this is being put in to allow some flexibility in the type of landscaping buffers for residential planned unit developments that have lakes between developments. And we do have a member of staff here ready to make a presentation, a short presentation on this for you and answer any questions. And additionally, I did get a speaker request on this item, too. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would you give your presentation, and then I'll have the individual that would like to speak on this. Please go ahead. MR. SAWYER: Good evening, Commissioners. Mike Sawyer, Senior Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. Basically what I would like to do would be to give you a short summary of the amendments and the process that we went through arriving at the amendments before you tonight. Basically we started these three landscape amendments about a Page 35 January 11, 2006 year ago. I looked at my notes this last week and it was about a year ago. We assembled a review committee made up of industry leaders, as well as county staff. We had 15 members, basically made up of six different development firms and four different county departments. It basically would compose professionals from engineering, planners, landscape architects, as well as architects and environmentalists. The committee worked very hard, I feel, on getting the amendments before we actually started going into the review committees with the EAC, DSAC, and the planning commission. I think you'll find that the changes that were recommended in that process were fairly minor. And I think that really well reflects on the committee's hard work that they put into it. And I certainly appreciate the time that they all put into it. The first amendment, as Catherine said, addresses landscape buffers and residential developments. And it primarily relates to multi-family developments adjacent to single-family. It's actually a codification of current county staff policies regarding these types of buffers. The proposed change is strictly, like I said, between developments where we've got lakes between multi-family and single- family developments. And really, the issue or the question really comes down to why we require these buffers in the first places. The answer to that is that even in residential developments we've got differences in dissimilar land uses by definition, differences in density, certainly, as well as building mass. An example of this would be where we've got a multi-story, multi-family development that's on the other side of a lake from a single- family development, where we're got single-family lots with single-story homes. Due to these differences, we shouldn't have the existing Page 36 January 11, 2006 developments, for instance, a single-family development, overly impacted by these newer more dense and more massive developments. What we're really trying to do with the amendment is again to codify the existing staff policy, which pretty much dates back about 10 years, and really soften the appearances of these multi families adj acent to those lakes. But we also want to make sure that we protect those views into those lakes. Those lakes are amenities to the homeowners. We want them to take advantage of those. So the idea with the amendment again is to allow those buffers, where the code requires them, to occur with basically -- in clusters, with the required plantings in clusters, with a 60-foot spacing between those clusters, and also allow the hedge plantings to go from a five-foot height down to a two-and-a-half-foot height. So that we still get the buffering, we still get the plants, we still get the softening. The other recommendation that we've got with the amendment is to allow that buffer -- or the hedge planting to actually go away once we get to a 1,500- foot wide area, as far as the lake goes. You really have to look at the lakes themselves as only providing a spatial element when we're talking about buffers. They really don't provide any kind of vertical softening or screening. And that's -- by definition in the LDC, a buffer is made up of both of those, a space element as far as dimensional width, as well as a vertical element, which is, generally speaking, the plant materials. Again, we're just simply trying to codify an existing staff policy where we've been clustering these types of plantings. Weare maintaining, we feel, the intent of the LDC as far as intent and purpose. And it does allow those views to occur adjacent to these lakes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think Commissioner Henning has a question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's a compatibility issue. MR. SAWYER: Correct. Page 37 January 11, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're not going to see -- when we see a rezone of multi-family next to single-family, we're not going to see that it's compatible anymore then, right? MR. SAWYER: The way that the buffers in the LDC relate to those two uses is that there is an inherent density difference, as well as a massing issue. And I do have a presentation that I've got available I can show the Commissioners that we actually used at the CCPC to explain what these types of developments look like, where we've got single-family, multi-family, and you can actually see distances. We related it to distances with the photos. And where you actually start seeing what these actual buffers actually look like. When you're going around lakes and developments where you've got residential -- different types of residential, single-family, multi-family, most of these buffers are actually worked into the landscape in such a manner where you don't notice them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is what, the landscaping? MR. SAWYER: Correct. Most of the landscaping is up against the building in foundation plantings. And the trees are also -- MR. SCHMITT: Plus the type of landscaping, rather than linear. A linear landscaping, for all intent and purposes, block the view of the amenity. And that was the waterfront lot. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was my understanding when we get rezones, they're always compatible. You got residential and residential, they're compatible. You got commercial and residential, they're not compatible, so you want to hide the commercial. So they're not compatible anymore; multi-family and single- family is not compatible anymore, so they want to soften it with landscaping. MR. SAWYER: We've also had in the Land Development Code, if we go back to the buffer section where we're got our matrix where you've got multi-family adjacent to single-family, it's always required Page 38 January 11, 2006 a IS-foot wide type B buffer. And that's been in the code ever since the start of -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I never did understand that, because you're just separating communities. But it's there and I think it will stay there, so why fight the fight. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is your question answered, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Would the person that signed up be-- MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Commissioner. I'm sorry, I should have said that Mike is going to address three different -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry. MS. F ABACHER: -- issues. No, my fault. And I don't know if she wanted to speak -- to address all of them or just the one with the buffers. Because Mike is going to speak about the requirements for slopes and also synthetic turfs. MR. SAWYER: Right, we can answer questions, however you want to do it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ma'am, which one did you want to speak to? MS. PETRY: I'd like to hear all of it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: Commissioners, the second amendment, as Catherine stated, really is -- addresses steep slopes on projects, on developments. The goal with this particular amendment is to address steep slope conditions in developments. Currently the LDC does not provide standards where we've got steeper slopes. And right now the current trend that we're seeing is more compact sites and more dense development. And it's causing greater degrees of site conflict and slope conditions. What's happening is everything is starting to push out towards the edges, generally speaking. And what we're finding is that we're getting narrower edges. And the current code reads that whenever Page 39 January 11, 2006 you've got a berm or an elevation along your property line that is two feet or greater, you actually have to pull that area back five feet and create from your property line a five-foot flat area, and then start your slope. What we wanted to do with this amendment was to take that out of the code and better address slope conditions, and look at it basically starting from an engineering standpoint -- that's why we had a lot of engineers on our committee -- and come up with industry recognized slope categories and solutions that address those slope conditions with proper engineering techniques, as well as requiring landscaping to properly address aesthetic concerns. Part of the amendment has a matrix that has those slopes in a format that's recognized by the industry as far as amounts of slope, along with the appropriate types of engineering solutions and landscaping. We've got cross-sections and we've also got clarification notes as far as special conditions, special areas of concern that help us address the slopes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: This also addresses the erosion problems that we run into, too; is that correct? MR. SAWYER: Correct. And again, I've got some photos, if the Commissioners would like to take a look at those. I certainly have them available. There's a lot of different examples around the county where a lot of times we've got retaining walls that show up. Right now we really don't have anything that says what is appropriate as far as the type of look for retaining walls. And with denser developments, we have for allow those retaining walls to occur. But we need to have something in there that says how they actually look, if it's viewed from the public. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, do you have anything to Page 40 January 11, 2006 enforce that, though? I've noticed that sometimes although we demand a certain type of landscaping and we have certain requirements, and the developers will naturally only put in the minimum, you know, they'll put in exactly what they have to. But then a couple months later, even though the building hasn't even finished, a lot of these plants have already died and you go back a year later and they're already out of there. And most of that stuff is dead and it's awful looking. Is there anything that we can do about that in these amendments or -- MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, what this would revert back to is that any code required landscaping has to be maintained in perpetuity. That's the language that we've got in the code. And you're required to maintain it properly, as the landscape section points out. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we just have to report it to code enforcement, right? MR. SAWYER: That's the only -- currently that's what we've got available to us -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do that, by the way. MR. SAWYER: We appreciate that, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other questions from Commissioners? eN 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue, sir. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. The other amendment that we've got is actually related to synthetic turfs or fake turf. The goal on this is to avoid some of the lack of rules that some of our neighbors have come up against, namely Marco Island and Cape Coral. The committee also took the opportunity to kind of clean up this Page 41 January 11, 2006 area of the LDC. It -- to be honest, it didn't read real well previously, so we tried to make it a little bit simpler and easier to understand readability. Basically it allows synthetic turf to be used. It does put limits on it as far as the amount of area that you can do, as well as restricting where it can occur. Basically we're saying residential rear yards and a maximum of 30 percent of those rear yards. And the reason that we want to be careful of synthetic turfs is that these newer products aren't like what we normally thought of as artificial turf previously. These newer turf products are actually put down with a six-inch compacted gravel base, and then they are pinned into the surface so that all of the moisture that falls on that property goes off to the edges. And because you've got what amounts to a six-inch base, it's not permeable. What we wind up with is increased heat gains, the elimination of any kind of on-site water treatment, namely soil percolation, and a potential at least to increase our peak flow stormwater runoffs off of sites where these type of turfs might be used. Again, we are just -- there are cases where you do want to allow the use of synthetic turfs: Play areas and other types of recreation areas. I think we allow that to happen appropriately with this amendment. We really wanted to basically get ahead of the ball with this amendment so that we address it now rather than when we start getting citizen complaints. We have -- I can tell you this, have had several calls in our department over the last year or so where people have been asking about gee, can I put down synthetic turfs. So the issue is out there. It's probably not on the forefront as much as it was certainly with the Marco case, but it's something that is occurring in a lot of counties throughout the -- actually, throughout the country. Page 42 January 11, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning has a question, followed by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if I had a 30-acre tract, I could put in three acres of turf, not to exceed -- MR. SAWYER: According to this amendment, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Must have been a Commissioner Fiala issue. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it wasn't. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to see an example of what you're proposing on the landscaping between multi-family and single-family. But after we get done with this issue. MR. SAWYER: Okay, we certainly can do that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. One of the things that I read about in the paper, anyway, on Marco was that when they put in that artificial turf, it shed little pellets when it rained and then they were worried about that clogging up their stormwater management system, and drainage could be a problem. Is there anything that you might want to write in here to make sure that they don't use a product that would have little by-products floating around and hurting our drainage systems? MR. SAWYER: We're aware of that, Commissioner. The reason that they use those pellets is to make it look more like real turf, to be honest, and also to keep the blades upright. That's the purpose of them. And they do tend to, during heavier rains, wash out. I think that with the 30 percent limit in the rear yard we're at least partially addressing that, but we can certainly take a look at that for the next meeting. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then, let me say that if you're addressing that, could you somehow at the next meeting just assure me that -- you know, not that everybody's going to run to their handy Page 43 January 11, 2006 dandy carpet store and put artificial turf in there or anything, but that if they do do that, it's not going to hurt our water management system in any way. I just want some assurance there. MR. SAWYER: We'd be happy to add something there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All the questions answered? MR. SCHMITT: Just a clarification. Does Commissioner Henning wish to see those pictures now? We can show them on the screen. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, if we're done. MR. SCHMITT: Mike, if you want to just go through some of that. I think it would be beneficial, just so you could see some of the examples. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Then we'll call on our public speaker from the public. MR. SAWYER: I'll just curser through. Actually, this is actually a listing of the committee members we had on our committee, just so the board can see who we actually had on the committee. I'll go right to the actual examples that we've got. This particular site basically just reiterates how important those actual lake views are. This is the type of development that we actually want to be able to see. Again, it's pretty darn close to what we're actually talking about as far as a B buffer with the new criteria. This gives you a reasonably good idea of what landscape buffers along lakes actually look like, along with several different measurements. In the middle you've got a single-family development that is 2,000 feet away. On the right side, with the kind of coral pink roofs you've got a multi-family, two-story multi-family that's 1,400 feet away. And then on the opposite side you have a single-family residence that is 900 feet away. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is this a good example? MR. SAWYER: It's a good example where the landscaping that Page 44 January 11, 2006 you see up adjacent to the development on the right side actually incorporates, according to the provisions of the amendment, what amounts to a B buffer. The residents -- the single-family, as you see on the other side, they've got trees. Here you've got a couple of multi families, again. The rear one is 2,000 feet away. The one on the left is 750 feet away. And you also see a bit on the right side, a single-family residence. I can't honestly tell you what that measurement is. But again, you can tell if, you know, it were a single-family on this side and the multi-family is 750 feet away, again, that would amount to meeting the new criteria that we've got. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we're just talking about single -- or more than -- or multi-family, two stories and above. We're not talking about single-story multi-family, are we? MR. SAWYER: Wherever you've got multi-family adjacent to single- family, you are required to do the buffers. Most of the multi-family that we've got in the county is coming in as multi-story as well. Here we've got two examples of -- or one slide that again shows 750 feet away and 500 feet away. And again, these are meeting the standards that we've got in the provision. Here we've got 650 feet away. Obviously this one doesn't meet the criteria. And it looks pretty stark. And I'm not sure how many single- family residences would welcome this kind of -- or lack of landscaping, if this were to come in adjacent to them, even with the lake there. Here we've got 380 feet away. And this is actually the backyard of a single-family residence I took this at. This one's a little shy. I'll be real honest with you, this one's a little bit shy in the landscaping. It's close, but it would probably need to be beefed up a bit. That's the last. Page 45 January 11, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your presentation. Now we'll take the public speaker, please? MS. FABACHER: It's Petry or Petry? MS. PETRY: It's Petry. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Kristen Petry and my company is called Pergola, Inc. It's a full-service landscape company . We have landscape architectural services, in addition to having a construction division and a maintenance division. I was happy to help Mr. Sawyer in the capacity of member of his review committee, and with the reason that I was very pleased to be able to have the opportunity to provide input on the amendments that he's been talking to you about. Generally my comment is that I do support and I think our committee supports the recommendations that staff is making to you, as Mr. Sawyer presented. Specifically what I'd like to talk about a little bit is the requirement of a buffer between multi-family and single-family residential. I think that in my mind, in addition to a separation between two different zoning uses, these trees function as a sort of dressing in the landscape. There are elements that we need to have in order for our eyes to be able to perceive things in the best way. And I think what these trees help to do is define visual spaces, they help to break up the verticality of walls, and they help to provide a breakup of roof lines. I think in addition what these trees do is to help to provide the visual aesthetics that as Collier County residents we expect to see. I think these trees are elements that make our landscape better and that I would want to see as a resident and that I would expect to see as a part of good standard practice as a representative of the local landscape industry. I think an important point that Mr. Sawyer made is that this is a Page 46 January 11, 2006 codification of an existing requirement in the Collier County code. As a professional, practicing in this area for the last 12 years with, I would say, probably a third of our practice dealing in helping civil engineers and developers in the area with landscape SDP submittals, I am fairly familiar with the requirements of the code. And I think that the way that this amendment was presented by Mr. Sawyer is simply clearing up and making the code in this area read better. So I thank you for your consideration of these items, as presented by Mr. Sawyer, and I thank the county for its allowing me to participate in this process. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, ma'am. Continue on. Any other questions? MS. FABACHER: No further questions? (N 0 response.) MS. F ABACHER: We'll continue then. I'm moving to Page 14, Roman numeral xiv on the summary sheet. And the amendment we're looking at is Section 4.07.02 under the title of design requirements. And, let's see, essentially we've never defined an infill parcel in the LDC. So what that mainly does is talk about what an infill parcel does. And then we have provided some minimal size requirements for a PUD. So I have Mr. Weeks here to kind of explain it, if you -- if that was not sufficient, which I think it probably wasn't, but -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions? Do you want to hear the presentation by David Weeks? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I guess we can continue on. MS. FABACHER: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, David. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Best presentation all night. MS. FABACHER: Okay, I'm on Page 15 now of the summary Page 47 January 11, 2006 sheet. And we have two not seriously significant, two clarifications to help reading with the architectural design standards. The first one that we're reading that's located on Page 193 in your packet, it simply removes the term reflective from permitted metal facade panels. And the argument has been -- it's very confusing. Some clients say, well, this is not a reflective panel and some say well, this is a reflective. So obviously we just mean metal panels. Whether they -- degree to which they -- is subjective reflect. So what we did was remove the term reflective. Okay? Any questions on that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see any underlined, deleting -- well, you deleted it. So that's why I don't see it. MS. FABACHER: No, no, it's on Page 194. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 194. MS. FABACHER: C, small i. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, there it is. MS. F ABACHER: Corrugated or reflective. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it -- I'm sorry, could I ask a question? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the intent was to eliminate anything that might be reflective, why did we remove the word reflective? MS. F ABACHER: I'm going to have our architect, Mr. Scamehom explain to you further, hopefully. Keith? MR. SCAMEHORN: Yes. For the record, my name is Keith Scamehom, Urban Design Planner, Architect. What was your question now? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're removing the term reflective. MR. SCAMEHORN: Right. Page 48 January 11, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that mean it's okay if we have reflective metal? MR. SCAMEHORN: No. The metal panel restrictions still stands as it previously was, 10 percent. Now, it's just that we take out the one word, reflective. Just because it was confusing too many people. It was a word that was just thrown in, redundant as such. Because metal panels in a sense are reflective. And that's what we were trying to get away from. So it's a redundant word we're just taking away. Everything else stays the same. We have 10 percent allowance. MS. MURRAY: Keith, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what we were getting was arguments from people that wanted to exceed the limitation by calling something nonreflective. And the intent was just have a limitation on metal panels, period, whether they were reflective or not. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does this mean roof panels? MR. SCAMEHORN: No, wall panels. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, wall panels, okay. Commissioner Henning? You look befuddled. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I am. I just don't remember -- you know, there's a lot of things I don't remember -- but remember giving direction to make changes in this part of the architectural code. MS. MURRAY: This is -- again, I think it's where your staff is having difficulty with people trying to sidestep the intent of the code by honing in on a word and then claiming that their metal panels aren't reflective so they don't have to comply with the limitation. And so rather than argue with them about what's reflective and what isn't, you know, et cetera, et cetera, the intent was simply metal panels. And so we're taking out the word reflective so it would make it more clear. MR. SCAMEHORN: We try to keep the metal panels to the industrial zoned part of the county, not in -- Page 49 January 11, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Residential. MR. SCAMEHORN: -- residential or commercial. And-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It says roof here. And I really need to -- it says exterior color building -- it says roofhere. MS. MURRAY: If you go to C, it talks about exterior building materials. And it says, the following building finish materials are limited to no more than 33 percent of the facade, which is the front of the building, or the walls. MR. SCAMEHORN: The walls. MS. MURRAY: The walls, yeah. MR. SCAMEHORN: The facades are the walls. MS. MURRAY: And then it references back to metal panels and block -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: But this applies only, you said, to commercial buildings, not to single-family structures? MS. MURRAY: This applies where the architectural provisions apply, and the architectural provisions do not apply to single-family. MR. SCAMEHORN: Right. This is just for nonresidential structures. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And no neon lights, tubing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I had the same concern. Being that it said roof there, I would interpret it as meaning not only sidewalls or facade, but also the roof. Maybe you want to have some kind of wording in that it doesn't affect the roofing material. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Especially residential, more people are using metal, which may be considered reflective. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This doesn't apply to residential. MR. SCAMEHORN: This doesn't apply to the roof. The only thing that -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to clarify it a bit more. MR. SCAMEHORN: The only restrictions on the roof itself is Page 50 ,~-_..,. -~-_.._",._--'-"~' January 11, 2006 the primary and secondary colors, which we're not going to get into colors tonight. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I understand it, now that Susan explained it to me. MR. SCAMEHORN: Yes, she did a good job explaining it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: She does a good job. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are we clear? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Clear as mud. MS. FABACHER: No, no, Keith, don't go very far. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. MS. FABACHER: All right, we'll continue on. The next one is another architectural site design standard, and this simply mirrors and is consistent with what we've done with sidewalks recently in reducing them from six feet to five feet, which saves money for the developer. So we've just made the pathways around the perimeters of buildings fit the five feet. And that's all we're doing on that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala has a question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And this was with -- this was working with the pathways advisory and they also went along with that; is that correct? MR. SCAMEHORN: Originally the LDC had it five feet. When we revised this, we went to six feet because transportation was pushing for six feet at the time. We were trying to make -- we were trying to match transportation. Transportation never went six feet, so they kept the five feet, you know. So we see no point of going to six feet. We're going back to the way it was before we made the LDC -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And pathways advisory is working with this; is that correct? Russ, do you know? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pathways doesn't -- that's MPO. Page 51 January 11, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the only ones that advises on LDC is DSAC and the planning commission. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know, I was just wanting to see -- you know, I don't see any problem with this at all, I think it's fine. I don't see any reason to put six foot. I just wanted to know if you had worked through the pathways committee. MR. SCAMEHORN: No, it's trying to go back to the way it was before that worked with the five feet. Concrete-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't have any problem with that -- MR. SCAMEHORN: Concrete prices have gone up -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make sure all the bases had been touched. MR. SCAMEHORN: Right. Good question. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please continue on. MS. FABACHER: No more questions? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay, we're going to turn to the next summary sheet, which is my Roman numeral sixteen. Again, this is for Section 5.06.04, which is on Page 197, and it's sign standards for specific situations. And what it has done is basically two things: Clarified the requirement for a ground sign, which is kind of like the sign you see, you know, when you come into the shopping center, something, and it requires a planting area beneath it and certain specifications of the size of the planting area. That's the one change. And then the second change is they have put in a special sign for conservation Collier land so they would be in compliance as a permitted sign. It's very limited in nature in its definition, which, you know, you can see. It can only be 32 square feet on the sign face and a maximum of eight feet high. And it identifies the main preserve entrance. Page 52 January 11, 2006 So it still needs a permit. And it's allowed, if there is no principal structure on the property. This is once again to make that access and not make it so expensive for them to give public access to their -- all their many properties. Any question? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was from previous. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry. The question I have is I'm glad that -- it's on Page 200. And Section D where it was added, a temporary use permit will not be issued until the building permit for the principal structure is applied for, and I think that's a good one. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, I forgot to go over that part with you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, I think that's good, temporary use permit. Where a coming soon sign, sometimes you see in areas where coming soon can be two years. So I think it's a good portion. Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Good call, Commissioner. Anymore questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue on. MS. FABACHER: Okay, great. The next item is going to be Section 6.06.03, streetlights. It's going to be on Page 201 of your packet. And Russ Muller is here from engineering to explain exactly what is going on with this amendment. Or maybe Nick's going to do it, too. MR. MULLER: Good evening. Russ Muller, for the record. What this amendment seeks to do is clarify the industry standards for lighting requirements internal to a subdivision, and address development entry points for roadway lighting. We've put some numbers to the foot candles, actually, for the Page 53 January 11, 2006 lights at the entrances, because we're -- if you go around town, you'll notice that there's quite a few different kinds of lighting, and we wanted it to be the industry standard for roadway lighting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, you brought out something to the effect two-foot candles and a maximum of five- foot candles at the -- I think this is at intersections right-of-way lines, illumination level. Were you talking about foot paths? Or what was this referring to? Or was this just street lights in general of two- foot candles. At the surface of the roadway? MR. MULLER: Yes, sir, at the surface of the roadway. And that particular one is -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: That proceeds five-foot candles; is that correct? MR. MULLER: Right, that's the maximum. And that's for the entry points. And another location, down in C it talks about the sidewalks. Sometimes there's sidewalks that go from one development to another, and they're not adjacent to a roadway. We want those lighted. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The sidewalks themselves? MR. MULLER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions from commissioners? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just one. You're talking about existing sidewalks now, as well as sidewalks to be built in the future? MR. MULLER: No, this would just be for future. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. MULLER: Anything that would come in after this is adopted. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: No further questions. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Ross. Okay, we're going to turn the page to Page 17 and it's Section Page 54 January 11, 2006 9.04.02, which would be found on Page 204 in your packet. And we have added something to the types of variances that can be authorized to deal with the fact -- with Plantation Island subdivision units, which are basically completely covered with mangrove groves. And essentially by not allowing them to remove any of that vegetation, we are kind of doing a taking. So to prevent a taking and as a result -- would you like Margie to explain it? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, I believe that Margie had her hand up, so obviously -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: All I wanted to say is-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- she wanted to clarify something. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- this is to implement an agreement that the board entered into with the Department of Community Affairs on April 26th, 2005. And pursuant to state rules regarding the critical area, in this agreement we're allowed to apply our variance criteria to it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: My question that I have on this is the needed additional -- I need additional information in regards to mangrove destruction. Is it only going to be limited to three parcels in here? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's limited to what's shown on the map, which is on Page 206. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, that's the three parcels? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's three units in this unrecorded subdivision, and it's limited just to that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And it's only the -- the units here, then this could be anywhere from one parcel to six parcels; is that correct? And this is to fill in -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, but if you have parcels under combined ownership, say a person owns three contiguous lots, they're only loud to clear up to 2,500 square feet on the three lots. They can't do 2,500 on each one and do 7,500 total. Page 55 January 11, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, that answers my question. Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: Any other questions on this item? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we can continue on. MS. FABACHER: Okay, great. Okay, we're going to turn the page and go to Page 19. Oh, my goodness, Section 10.02.13, planned unit development procedures. Actually-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: What happened to 10.02.06? MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry, I went too far, didn't I? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Page 207. MS. FABACHER: There we go. Thank you. Because I didn't think it was -- anyway, this is to -- this has already happened in the growth management plan and the compo plan, so the LDC is to reflect the change in the growth management plan. And what it essentially says is if you request an agricultural clearing permit, you know, to turn something into a farm area, you need to wait 25 years before you can rezone it. It used to say 10 years, and the compo plan was changed to read 25 years before you could request a rezoning. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That may help us in concurrency issues in the upcoming -- at the state. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was that -- I thought that was for the rural land use, like the stewardship and mainly in the -- what do they call that, the fringe? Stewardship area in the fringe? If I remember right, that was the real issue is people were out there -- and especially the friends clearing their land, hoping to have a sending area. MS. F ABACHER: Well, I'm going to ask Barb Burgeson if she could address that issue. She's here with environmental services, and hopefully she can -- has a history with that longer than I do. Page 56 January 11, 2006 MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with Environmental Services. This is just to add to the LDC that language that was approved in the GMP as a result of the final order. And it is moving that from 10 years to 25 years. And that is county-wide, regardless of where that is in the county. That's any land that's zoned ago changes from 10 to 25 years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the fringe -- I mean, that's -- the Governor's ordered that with the fringe. And that was -- MS. BURGESON: It will come out with all the environmental issues county-wide. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. But it's quite strange, because if you look at statutes, if you look at land use, they encourage infill within the urban areas. And this would be a discouragement. MS. BURGESON: This is actually -- this really should have been in one of the previous cycles. This was actually a glitch amendment that did not get in when the Land Development Code amendments that immediately followed the GMP's that were approved in 2003 were approved. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I heard you the first time. You don't have to repeat yourself. It just doesn't make good land planning sense. You want to discourage sprawl. And urban area pieces that -- you want to try to encourage it, because the infrastructure's there. So this is direct opposite of that. I could see it in the fringe area, because sending areas out there that had cockaded woodpeckers and habitat out there, you want to discourage that. And that's where all the, you know, upland habitat is. So that's my feeling on this one. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Anybody else have-- MS. FABACHER: Well, if you have any direction for us to have planning look at that issue or -- I believe it's just in the agricultural Page 57 .~-~..,,' "-^'~"'--~ January 11, 2006 zoning designation; am I right, Susan? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's all the land in Collier County . MS. FABACHER: In the urban areas? We have ago in the urban areas? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I believe -- I would have to defer to planning staff, but I do believe we have some agricultural areas in the urban area. Since we adopted the compo plan in 1989, many of those have come in for PUD rezone, so I don't know how much area is actually left like that in the urban area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Immokalee is the urban area. They just expanded their boundaries and they captured a lot of farming area. I don't know how long that's been farm area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, you're right. Also off of Rattlesnake Hammock, back in there by Polly Avenue, Adkins, that's all ago MR. SCHMITT: But the compo plan identifies it as urban mixed use. So even though the zoning may be ag., it's still identified under the compo plan for urban mixed use development. But I understand exactly where Commissioner Henning's coming from in regards to what you're concerned about is primarily in the urban boundary or primarily west of951, in those areas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, see, that could change. MR. SCHMITT: And that could change. But I'm just trying to sit here and think, and I just heard what Barbara said in regards to the final order, but it was done exactly why you said, so nobody would go out there and actually clear and then try to claim it to be receiving land prior to the adoption of the final order. Maybe we can tie this into -- and somehow directly with the compo plan as well. Because there are areas certainly in Immokalee that are identified as urban and could be developed -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why can't they just -- Page 58 January 11, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: -- to have agricultural zoning. So maybe some way we could tie it. Say ago zoning properties, but -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Within the urban area. Doesn't apply to -- MR. SCHMITT: But not prohibited for further development under the growth management plan. Because there are -- certainly it's still within the urban area ago zoned properties, but the underlying premise that the growth management plan does allow for future development. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I can see a problem with that, unless this doesn't codify the urban area. MR. SCHMITT: We will look at that. And I think between my staff and the county attorney, we'll look at this language and make sure that's clear. Because I think you do address an issue that someone could question in regards to that, and I need to make it clear. So we'll look at that and bring it back in the next meeting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think there are two questions that need to be answered. One is, does the final settlement require that this application be as broad as it has been stated? And then that's just a factual determination. If it does say that and it's that broad, I don't know that we have much choice. The other consideration is that if we're really serious about trying to control growth in the urban area, one of the ways of doing it is not rezoning agricultural land. And we've already taken care of the issue of urban sprawl, because we have our rural stewardship area and the rural lands area that designates the only areas that can be used for development. So if we adhere to this particular criteria, it seems to me that it would actually help us control the rate of growth in Collier County; otherwise, it gets converted to developable land much quicker and then we're stuck with greater traffic densities on our highways and not Page 59 January 11, 2006 any real good ways to deal with it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I comment on that? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, sir, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Immokalee is an urban area, okay? So -- and I think there's potentials out there. Some people feel there is, anyways. And I'm not sure if we want to discourage growth out in and around Immokalee. I know where you're coming from, and, you know, I'm with you 100 percent. I mean, if we can't do -- with the long time that we spent on transportation issues, I'm with you 100 percent, I think there's other ways to do it. But once you make this law, it's law, and it takes four votes to change it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, if I could emphasize that with respect to Immokalee, at least, the land surrounding it is the rural land stewardship area. And there's governed by an entirely different agreement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but they expanded it just recently. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They expanded the urban area in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the rural land stewardship area still governs all of the land outside of the urban area of Immokalee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't disagree with that. But within the urban area of Immokalee there's plenty of ago land. And I just don't know how long that's been ago MS. BURGESON: I'd like to make a clarifying statement, if I may. Again, Barbara Burgeson, environmental services. This doesn't prohibit you from rezoning a piece of property. It just says that you are prohibited from rezoning it within 25 years if you are not willing to restore or recreate the appropriate amount of native vegetation that would have been required to be preserved on Page 60 January 11, 2006 that site. So, for instance, if you've got a piece of ago property, and you clear the entire parcel for agriculture, if you're not willing to restore what would have been the appropriate amount to be preserved for a residential or a rezoned piece of property, then you cannot rezone that for 25 years. But if you're willing -- and that clause is on Page 209 at the bottom of paragraph eight of our viii -- that such conversions in less than 25 years -- this just changes the time frame, it doesn't change the criteria -- that the converted land shall be restored with the native vegetation to the degree required by the code. So it does allow you to do those rezonings in less than 25 years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, they have the right now to do it under 10 years, so -- MS. BURGESON: Not by the GMP they don't, no. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me? MS. BURGESON: They do not. The GMP does not permit them to rezone that 10 years; 25 years is the requirement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if you further clarify it in the Land Development Code what the intent was, and that's what I'm saying, then I think we can get where we want. And by allowing it in the urban area, that's -- and, you know, somebody tell me I'm wrong, that's good, you're supposed to be doing that in the urban area is creating that instead of -- MR. SCHMITT: What Barbara just said makes sense. If you clear land and convert it and use it as ag., and what this mandates is you have to restore it or -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Before you get a result. MR. SCHMITT: Well, you have to restore it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or you have to wait 25 years. MR. SCHMITT: Or you have to wait 25 years before it can be developed. So what it's saying is in actuality, even if you don't, when you Page 61 January 11, 2006 come back in for any type of zoning, you're going to have to restore and create preserve under other mandates. All this does is say if you quit farming, you have to leave it basically barren for 25 years or restore it. And that's really not a bad thing. I mean, what we're trying to do is say you can't just wholesale clear ago for two or three years and then leave it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it says 10 years. MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You went from 10 to 25. MR. SCHMITT: If you leave it, you're prohibited from developing it for 25 years. So this is a criteria that says that -- frankly, it's a criteria that dissuades somebody from trying to just come in and ago two or three years and leave it, and then flip the property and somebody try and develop it. This says, whoa, wait a minute, you need to make a commitment that it's going to be ago and if you do that, it's ago for 25 years or you restore it. That's really what it basically is saying. It doesn't prohibit you from developing a land, it just puts a further restriction on the requirement either to restore or leave it as ago if you in fact try to -- if you want to use that land in the urban area as farmland. CHAIRMAN HALAS: If it's presently ago and somebody -- and has it for 10 years, it's been grandfathered in; isn't that correct? MR. SCHMITT: If it's presently ag., I don't think this is a problem, because this doesn't pertain to that, does it, Barbara? If it's already ago and already being used. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. And then if somebody decides-- MR. SCHMITT: This has to do with a clearing permit. CHAIRMAN HALAS: This was -- yeah, this was where it's not ago and it's whatever, it's woods or something. MS. BURGESON: Right. Any parcel that was previously Page 62 January 11, 2006 approved with an ago clearing permit prior to the GMP changing to 25 years would have that 10-year restriction on it. MR. SCHMITT: Right. That's exactly what you suspected, Commissioner, is if it's wooded area, preserve and you want to convert it to ag., you have every right to do so. But there are -- you're going to face these restrictions or you're going to restore it before you can rezone it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me see if I can understand this. So if I buy a piece of property -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's wooded. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what you said is I bought a piece of property that's wooded and -- or even not wooded. What you stated was the intent was not to clear it for three years, and then flip it for a profit to sell it for a development. MR. SCHMITT: If in fact you come in and apply for an agricultural clearing permit. So you come in, not for a development clearing permit, any other type of permit, you basically come in, Right to Farm Act, you want to farm that land, you get an ago clearing permit, then there are provisions that are going to restrict you to the use of that land for 25 years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where did the three year number come in that you threw in? MR. SCHMITT: I don't know. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Joe, you threw in the number. MR. SCHMITT: I said three? CHAIRMAN HALAS: You said if you farmed it for three years MR. SCHMITT: Oh, three years later you flip it. Say, for instance, you only farm for three years and then you try and flip it, basically, and sell that land, you clear it. Once you begin to farm that land, you have changed that land and then you remove all of the preserve, you do other type of things on there that no longer puts you Page 63 January 11, 2006 under the purview of environmental preservation criteria on those lands. You may impact wetlands or some other type of things. Because you're going to farm that land. And you have a right to farm. This is a -- and so you can come under the guise, say and I'm going to farm this land, you change the character of that land and then maybe three years later you sell it, what this is telling you is if you get an ago permit, you're restricted for 25 years that that will be ago property. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe, maybe I can -- I hope this -- maybe this will clarify -- MR. SCHMITT: Unless you want to rezone it, and then you've got to restore it. And basically that's what it's saying. CHAIRMAN HALAS: How much land are we -- do you think we're talking about here? MR. SCHMITT: Not very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what I was going to say. Because most of it's in ago right now. MR. SCHMITT: Well, most of -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay? And it would only be -- this would be small confined areas I believe would be under -- that would fall under this amendment. MR. SCHMITT: It's small areas. The only area is maybe where Commissioner Henning mentioned, out in Immokalee. But when you're really talking in the urban area, there is not much left that hasn't been disturbed. CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's already ag., most of it, I would think. MR. SCHMITT: It's disturbed or it's existing ago that has already been impacted. And, you know, that's not very significant, but it -- I mean, the question is a valid question. We could certainly address that, if you want clarification, at the next meeting, as far as the mandate and the final order and clarification, discuss with the county attorney if we need to clarify this language, make it more definitive. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you, in the next -- when it comes Page 64 January 11, 2006 back to us, could you let us know about how much land we're talking about? MR. SCHMITT: I certainly will. We have a map that shows pretty much what's, quote, undeveloped in the urban area -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that's something to put in the package. MR. SCHMITT: -- not very much land. But we will, we'll provide that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Please continue. Any other questions before we go on? (No response.) MR. SCHMITT: How are we doing for a break? It's been two hours. We only have a couple amendments left. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got four more. Do you want to take a 10-minute break? Please continue. MS. FABACHER: Now I will go to Page 19 in the summary sheet. And the -- it's Section 10.02.13. And unfortunately it's mislabeled new, because it's not. It's a simple clarification, a housekeeping chore that something was changed in one of the sections during the last LDC cycle and they failed to change the reference to it. So that is I think on Page 211. And it's just the things moved around in 10.02.12 and then it became 10.02.13. And like I said, it's a housekeeping issue. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: No questions on that. Please continue. MS. FABACHER: The next one is Section 10.03.05. It has to do with the change in a notification range for public notification. Currently in the non-urban areas we're required to notify adjacent property owner in a range of 1,000 feet from the subject property in all directions. So at some point, I think it occurred at a town meeting, Page 65 January 11, 2006 where one of the commissioners was there, someone said, well, that's not very much in the Estates, so -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Fifteen. MS. FABACHER: Right. Well, we had -- so this amendment was to address that. And in the interim we did some kind of data research with the GIS people. And we do have a -- Joe has a presentation on that. But I wanted to say that the -- and we will give you the numbers on that. But the DSAC did not recommend it and the planning commission also felt that it would be more of a financial burden because the applicant does need to mail out and pay to mail out all of these notices, these letters, you know, at 39 cents a letter plus creating the letter and he has to buy the list from the county. But if you'd like to hear some more on that, I believe Joe has the information. MR. SCHMITT: Really, in a nutshell, it's the Estate lots that are near primarily the developments like Valencia or some of the other areas. The mailings increase significantly, going anywhere up to almost 2,000 mailings. And the po stings -- I think what the committees pretty much said, between the sign notification, the advertisements and the neighborhood meetings and other requirements, the mailings were not deemed to be that critical. But this was raised in the Estates that it could go to 1,000 or 2,000 feet and -- from the property. And just an example, the current LDC, 1,000 feet may be 115 mailings; 249 at 1,500; and 493. Some others go up significantly, depending on if you're near an urban or a more developed area like Golden Gate or Orangetree or that area where you may have proximity to those areas, there's a significant Increase. But it was your recommendation. And then the developer is certainly responsible for that. But it's the homeowner who may have a variance in the Estates, and it was most of the advisory committees Page 66 January 11, 2006 pretty much said gee, if we're only talking about some kind of a variance, a homeowner 2,000 foot away is really going to not be that much severely impacted. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I wish the commissioner that most affects this was here tonight to -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- put some impact into this. But I believe Commissioner Henning might have a question on this issue. MR. SCHMITT: I can present this at the next meeting and we'll go through it, I'll give you the numbers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I live in Golden Gate Estates. You know, I was driving down the street and seen a sign that said hey, we're going to continue this -- we're going to ask for a continuation of the PUD. And it was a four-by-eight sign. Drove right by it. I seen it. Seen it, seen a phone number on there, I seen all that stuff. So, I mean, I think everybody drives out there. I would think they would see signs, big signs. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe that Commissioner Coletta is the one that instituted this, wasn't it, put a lot of input -- MR. SCHMITT: I believe it was raised at one of the town hall meetings that folks felt in the Estates, they -- just as Commissioner Henning just stated, there may be something that may -- that they would like to have known about. And it just is -- it's just more mailings. CHAIRMAN HALAS: My problem is the amount of mailings that's going to be incurred by the homeowner in regards to this. And, you know, I think we're trying to look out for the people in regards to making sure we don't overburden them with the amount of mailings going out. I think you brought up a good point there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's involved in variance? I mean, who is it going to effect? The guy to the right and the guy to the Page 67 January 11, 2006 left, right? CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the guy across the street. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the guy across the street. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Five hundred feet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And both the DSAC and CCPC recommended denial, so -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I guess we'll deny it. I think we got it then. We got three nods? MR. SCHMITT: That's 1,500 feet. That's how many properties. You can see all the lots. And that's 2,000 feet. So there's -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. MR. SCHMITT: That same property might be only -- that same property, ifit were at 1,000 feet, maybe, to the neighbors three, five down, left, right, forward and back. So it is a significant change. Only when you look at the scope of it. It doesn't sound like it when you go from 1,000 to 1,500, but it is inclusive in that entire circle. CHAIRMAN HALAS: When you're looking at it on this kind of a chart. What do you need, three nods for denial? MR. SCHMITT: Well, it's your desire. I mean, it's just -- and it is significant in some -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to deny. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. We cannot vote tonight. We have to wait till the second hearing. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just want to put on the record, it takes four affirmative votes to pass the LDC amendments. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. MS. FABACHER: All right, we'll move to -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Got direction on that. MS. FABACHER: Great, we'll move to summary sheet, Page 20, for our last two items. Page 68 January 11, 2006 Okay, and again we're in Section 10.03.05, which is the public noticing requirements. And this was -- the history of this amendment is staff has asked for this change. Originally we were required to send these notice letters in the mail from the zoning department at 15 days, 30 days prior to, or no less than 30 days from the receipt of a request for an application, a receipt of a sufficient application, and then we would send another -- we'd put it in the newspaper. That happened about 15 days. And then we would send another notice at 15 days. Well, when it was changed, without really thinking about the -- sometimes you change these things and then you put it into practice and find out it's not going to work, and that's what happened. Because the planners and the applicants have all the way up until the legal notice goes out to really change or withdraw or maybe they don't make a deadline, so in a lot of cases now, these 21-day notices are going out with incorrect information. So they're asking that they make it a 15-day notice. And that actually turns out to be more like 18. And it jibes. And then the notice in the paper will, you know, always match the letter. It's just a disservice to send out false information to these people, so that's what they've asked staff to bring it back. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm not sure who pushed the button here first. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that was from last time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm fine. MS. FABACHER: Okay, no questions? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay, we'll go to the last one then, and that is Section 10.08.00. And then addition ofa requirement to notify applicants of a conditional use petition closure by certified mail, return receipt requested. Page 69 January 11, 2006 Right now we're sending a letter, but we're not -- we just want to make sure that they know that after a certain amount of time, if you don't continue on your conditional use petition, if you drop the ball, then it expires. And so we're just doing this to be more -- you know, to make sure they got the letter. Essentially that's the change requested by staff. And I think that if there are no more questions, that does conclude the amendments to be heard for the first time. Excuse me, I'm sorry, we've got more. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Catherine, you did a great job. I want to thank you very much. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Halas, we need to put a couple of things on the record. And I want to ask you one question of the board for the next meeting on process. So Susan, you had something for us? MS. MURRAY: I needed to just put a correction on the record. It was the first item we talked to, and I'm referring to Page 2, when I asked for clarification from Nick about whether large item C should be removed per the direction of the planning commission. Actually, that was incorrect. So large item C should remain. It basically restates the requirements of the code, so I'm not sure why it needs to be there. But the corrections that were asked for by the planning commission were made, so your text reflects that. So I just wanted to clarify that for the record. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Anything else we need to address? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner Halas. That the next meeting, and board members, Mr. Dave Jackson, your CRA executive director for the Bayshore/Gateway area is going to give a presentation on the overlay. I would ask -- I'm asking for your guidance. And I just want to preface, there's been an enormous amount of Page 70 January 11, 2006 effort by staff; there was a contractor who produced that overlay for the CRA, your staff has gone through that in, I will call it, pretty excruciating pain in reviewing that. And the planning commission has reviewed it four times. So I'm asking, do you want the executive over-brief or do you want the detailed review? I can assure you that it has been reviewed thoroughly. My intent is to have Dave come in with his consultant and give you the executive overview and then answer your questions. It's a rather extensive document. It's a thick document involving the overlay. And unless you want to get into the -- into the details of that overlay, which certainly it's your prerogative. But my intent is to give you an overview of it so you have an understanding of what Dave's intent is, and then we can move from that. Or do you want the entire full briefing as to the entire process? CHAIRMAN HALAS: You said that your department has gone through it four times -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, thoroughly. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- in excruciating pain in regards to this. So I would -- I'll ask the board here. I believe Commissioner Coyle has a question before we make a decision. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I was going to make a recommendation, it would be the chairman's call of course, but I would suggest that since it has been reviewed so thoroughly, that you give us the results of those reviews. In other words, if there were things that you or the planning commission did not agree with, we need to focus on those kinds of things. If you're in agreement with them and you've reviewed it so thoroughly, there's no need for us to get into the details, I don't think. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's what I was-- MR. SCHMITT: It is the latter, Commissioner. We've reviewed it. Your staff reviewed it mainly from our perspective for implementation. How we can take that language and adopt it in our Page 71 January 11, 2006 day-to-day process. And the planning commission focused on that as well. I commend your planning commission for their diligence in this, because it has been reviewed, in one meeting almost eight hours. So we're comfortable with it, they're comfortable with it, the planning commission is. So we'll give you an overview. I believe, Catherine, there's nothing that is of concern. But you're going to hear from one speaker on a -- I will call it an 11 th hour addition to that and we can talk about that at the next meeting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that the density bonus unit? MR. SCHMITT: No, sir, that is the input for some deviation process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I see. Well, just for my information, has the density bonus transfer issue been reviewed by you and your staff? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. The issue was the cost. And I think the county attorney would have to address that. There was some -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I have briefly discussed that with outside legal counsel, because there are certain requirements local government have to meet in terms of how they raise funds. And then once those funds are raised, how they're spent. And it was with a firm we have on retainer, Nabors-Giblin. And he thought there were issues with it. I feel that we would need to have a consultant such as Dr. Nicholas -- Dr. Nicholas is associated with that firm -- to assist us on the financial aspects of it, and also assigning a value to a unit, because there needs to be a rational basis for that. I do not believe it can be accomplished in this amendment cycle, but we would be looking to do it as soon as possible in the next amendment cycle. And also, it may need a compo plan amendment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: When is the next amendment cycle? Page 72 January 11, 2006 MS. F ABACHER: It's tentatively proposed to start March 17th and run through October of this year. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just want to state, it may need a compo plan amendment. I have put that on the record that I feel that it does and we're held up with the EAR amendments right now. As you know, the TDR provisions are very specifically set out in the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. MR. SCHMITT: We'll come back at the next meeting. Because a provision is in there for the opting out and the transfer. But what is not in there is the actual revenue source for the CRA in paying for those -- the transfer. So we'll come back and -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bottom line is, my preference would be just for summary review. And then if you -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have three nods. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or the staff have any concerns with it, then we'll discuss it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We got three nods. Anything else we need to clarify here before we close this? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: This is a very small housekeeping item required by state law, that it just be formally announced by the Chair -- I think we all know when the next meeting is -- but when the next meeting is, the date, the time and the place. It's just a statutory requirement. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And when is the date, time and place? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's February 8th, at 5:05 in these chambers, Board of County Commission meeting room, Harmon Turner administration building, third floor. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. On February 8th, we'll have the second hearing of the 2005 Cycle 2 Land Development Code amendments. And they will be held here in the Harmon building at 5:05. Page 73 January 11,2006 Does that cover it pretty well? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any other concerns or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, we are adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:18 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL. ~>~~~ FRANK HALAS, Chairman A TTES'F~ c,:: , DWIGHT E."BROCK, CLERK ,. " . ~..: Bytl(kO~~ fA ~),/), j}(' These minutes approved by the Board on J~. presented ~ or as corrected Jr-/ :1!f6 (; , , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INe. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 74