Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/30/2006 S (LDC Amendments) October 30, 2006 LDC MEETING OF October 30, 2006 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Tom Henning Fred Coyle ALSO PRESENT: Catherine Fabacher, Principal Planner Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ LDC AGENDA October 30, 2006 5:05 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY 1 October 30, 2006 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. INVOCATION AND 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 2 October 30, 2006 October 30,2006 MR. SCHMITT: You have a hot mic. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is the first reading of the Land Development Code amendments summary for 2006, cycle one. And anybody in the audience that may have a cell phone or pager, if you would be so kind as to silence them. And at this time we'll all rise to say the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. And at this time -- MS. F ABACHER: Catherine Fabacher for the record. Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Catherine. MS. F ABACHER: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Lead us here. MS. FABACHER: Lead you here. Today we handed out a new summary sheet. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we can put these two away? MS. FABACHER: No, no. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice try. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just in addition to. MS. FABACHER: This is the -- one we'll be using today and we'll be working from this. And we have highlighted in green all the things we need to hear today. And I'll be guiding you by this sheet and then referring you back to your green book or your orange book, and hopefully we can get through this in a methodical, expeditious way. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That sounds great. MS. FABACHER: Doesn't that sound great? All right, let's see. Okay, well, I think we're ready. And instead of going in order, the first one we would like to hear this morning -- oh, I'm sorry. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. Page 2 October 30, 2006 Just for clarification, this is a continuation of your first hearing. It's the -- we're still doing the first hearing for the LDC amendments for this cycle. And the follow-on hearings will announce the times and dates at the end of the meeting. But just for clarification, this is the first hearing. The ones we're going to cover today, the ones on your spreadsheet, are highlighted in green. Catherine, go ahead and start. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Essentially it's the third meeting of the first cycle. MR. SCHMITT: It's the third meeting, but the first hearing. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct, thank you. MS. FABACHER: All right, Commissioners. Ifwe go to page CC, the fourth from the last. And we're going to look at the top of the page there, Section 5.06.04, sign standards for specific situations. And that is on Page 207 in your green book. And we have Diana Compagnone here to discuss the amendment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where is it in the summary sheet? MS. FABACHER: On Page CC. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have CC. MS. FABACHER: 207. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, you mean in the rear? We're going to repeat these things. I got it, okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Secret code. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MS. FABACHER: And this is Diana Compagnone, and she's with the Sign Review Department and author of the amendment. MS. COMPAGNONE: Commissioners, this amendment is to allow informational and directional signs for government, parks, fire departments, police stations, extra signage in which they need to guide the public in through and to find their facilities. And I have some examples for you. This is an example of a ground sign that is at the Sheriffs Department. Some of these are existing and some of them are just proposed to still Page 3 October 30, 2006 go on buildings. And a lot of these signs would not be allowed without -- this government complex has changed the PUD to allow for extra signage, informational and directional signs. But other of our satellite offices do not -- they are not in a PUD, and they don't have those extra benefits. That's just an example of a wall sign that is informational in nature only also. This would be for the Parks and Recs department. This is our new Regional Park. They would have been allowed, because of their zoning and the conditional use that they went through, one 32-square-foot sign and one wall sign for the whole property. And when you think of how big it is, and everything that you're guiding the public to inside the property and outside, it is just not enough signage for them to direct the public properly. This is another example of a sign that wouldn't be allowed because they had the one out front. And they're only allowed the one ground sign. This is an example of a directional sign that they would have been allowed one of them, and they probably have probably six or seven of them on the property to guide to the softball fields, the soccer fields, the water portion of the park. There's the lagoon for the water park. Other part is for emergency -- or I should say for hospitals. I was told by some people in the hospital community that it is a regulation, and I'm not sure if it's state or what, but every hospital has to have a minimum of one electrical sign that says emergency room. And if they only have one road frontage, then they would not even be allowed to have the name of the hospital that people are trying to look for. Here's an example of a directional sign once you're in on the hospital grounds. Page 4 October 30, 2006 And another example of just directing the public and informational and directional uses. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Have you finished your presentation? MS. COMPAGNONE: Yes. Any questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning's got a question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do these signs exist today? MS. COMPAGNONE: Some of them exist today. I went out and I did some site visits. The park is waiting on either this amendment to pass or they're going to have to come in for a variance for the ones for the Regional Park. There is one sign that was already in a variance for the hospital that you did on Collier Boulevard. An example. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the one for the Sheriffs Department, that first exhibit, you're saying that's illegal? MS. COMPAGNONE: It would be if your PUD that you amended for this main campus didn't have the verbiage in there that you allowed for extra directional and informational signs. So for any satellite office that's not in this PUD, it would be illegal. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So on number I (sic), the example is you could have one ground sign or an eight-foot entrance to public roadway. Does it call for anything on the building? MS. COMP AGNONE: It would be -- it would be whether or not it's a wall sign or a ground sign. It's including everything. Whether the informational sign is being put on the wall or whether it's a freestanding sign. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So they could only have one. MS. COMP AGNONE: For the parks? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this is on -- MS. COMPAGNONE: You said I. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- this is applying to schools, hospitals, law enforcement, fire, emergency, and whatever you deem public facility. Page 5 October 30, 2006 MS. COMPAGNONE: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if I have a ground sign, I cannot have one on the building. MS. COMP AGNONE: You're allowed one of each. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, so you could have one of each. MS. COMPAGNONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You could have duplication of-- it's there to guide the public. Well, what about a shopping center, like a mall or something like that, they're not allowed to have a directional sign and a building sign to direct the public? MS. COMP AGNONE: They have their own set of guidelines for commercial development. They're allowed a directory sign that goes at the entrances that's 20 feet high and 150 square feet of copy. They're allowed, depending on how many parcels are on a shopping center, whether or not how many directional signs they get. And every business within the shopping center would be allowed a wall sign and possibly two, if it was an end unit. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So let's take example Waterside Shops. They would be allowed a -- I'm not sure, it's not my forte to shop at that type of place. I forget what kind of stores they have there. ABC Store. They could have one at the -- each of the entranceway, along with the other stores. MS. COMPAGNONE: Waterside is in a PUD all of its own. So it does have its own guidelines for that center. But even if it was -- if it didn't -- if it wasn't zoned within a PUD, they would be allowed, because of the size of the shopping center, one sign per entrance on different streets that is 20 feet high and 150 square feet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: With all the different stores on it. MS. COMP AGNONE: Maximum of eight, minimum of four names on that sign. Page 6 October 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then they're also have a sign on the side of their building for the different businesses. MS. COMPAGNONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So is this any different than what you're asking? MS. COMPAGNONE: Than the minimum? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the difference between a generic shopping center versus what you're proposing? MS. COMPAGNONE: Well, you're talking about advertising for a business versus trying to get the public to emergency facilities and guiding them through the emergency room, the birthing center -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's take an example: A park versus a shopping center. MR. SCHMITT: Let me answer. I know what you're asking. Basically a shopping center, in most cases, it's a PUD and they have a comprehensive sign plan or a sign criteria in the PUD. What this ordinance does for public type facilities would preclude having to come in for an amendment or a conditional use -- or I'm sorry, for a variance. For instance, the water park. It would prevent -- these signs are only signs to facilitate movement of the public through a facility. This would be applicable to a college campus or campus like this where we do have a sign criteria for this PUD because it was amended, and that sign criteria is put in. But that is -- this amendment basically has -- it prevents or it precludes having to come in for a variance, like just recently what happened with Collier Regional Medical Center. They wanted to put up directional signs to various elements of the hospital, and in doing so they had to come in and ask for a variance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, that really didn't answer my question. Most of the PUDs that I see conforms to the Land Development Code. So what would be the difference between a Page 7 October 30, 2006 shopping center and a park? MS. COMPAGNONE: Well, a shopping center, you have to -- to get those bigger signs, you have to have a minimum of eight independent tenants and a leasable area of greater than 25,000 square foot of leasable area. Where a park, you would have one tenant, because it's Collier County parks. And you might have a bigger park, you might have a smaller park, depending on where you are. So -- and the buildings. I mean, you might have soccer fields, but that wouldn't really be considered as leasable area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I don't like number -- adding number H to an idea -- I think that's up to the board of commissioners to determine what public facilities. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I was happy to see this, because I think that at times our sign code is so restrictive that it doesn't make sense. And that's wrong. Obviously if people are entering into whether it be a hospital or a park, you need directions to tell them where to go, or they wander around, like me, helplessly until I find the right road. And I'm happy to see this come into being. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just have a couple of questions. I hope that we're not trying to circumvent the sign ordinance as we sat up years ago. I believe that we need to have direction, as Commissioner Fiala said, but I hope that we're going to have some very high standards in regards to what the signs are going to look like so they don't become tacky in the sense that they're just black and white signs that say this direction or that direction. I think there has to be maybe some more guidance in regards to if we decide to go this way that the signs look very upscale, I would think. Even if in the hospitals, okay? MS. COMPAGNONE: We might be able to put some criteria in here for maybe a master sign plan that has to be approved before through planning and also through the building department, if that Page 8 October 30, 2006 would help. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just -- I think we've worked very hard with the sign ordinance, okay, and I believe that we need to make sure that the signs that are there for the health, safety and welfare of the people, but also I believe we need to make sure that the signs are of quality. I just -- when I go through other counties, I won't mention any, but when I go through other counties and see what we've accomplished in such a sort period of time, I just don't want to revert back to that area, okay? Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me see if I can get a little closer to getting Commissioner Henning's question answered. Let's suppose at Waterside we have a Burdine's and a Saks Fifth Avenue. Now, they're both interested in attracting customers to their location, and they're permitted to have signs and the sign plan is approved in the PUD. Now, we have a North Naples park. Let's suppose the soccer fields are like Burdine's, the Sun-N-Fun is like Saks. We're interested in getting customers to the appropriate location, too. So we put up signs to get us to those locations. The problem is, the LDC doesn't have specific provisions for those signs currently. Am I right so far? MS. COMPAGNONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what you're trying to do is to give public use facilities a set of sign standards that will help them do the same thing that commercial PUDs are able to do to move people to the right locations and get them where they want to go. Do I have that right? MS. COMPAGNONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning, did that come closer to answering your question? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why don't -- I mean, sign Page 9 October 30, 2006 code, how many pages is the sign code? It's like five or-- MS. COMPAGNONE: More like 21. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 21 pages. Well, why are we treating public facilities different than places like the Waterside Shops? MS. COMPAGNONE: Well, you have a bigger campus, and you're trying to guide people to more -- it's not really advertisement in as far as you're not going to buy a pair of shoes versus the emergency room at a hospital where you're trying to find that entrance if somebody's hurt and they're driving up -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's take the example of-- we're on the example of Waterside Shops and the North Naples Regional Park. Are we granting any special privileges for Waterside Shops or the Regional Park? MS. COMPAGNONE: We are granting Waterside through the PUD additional signage that they have -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's say that it just has to go by the sign code. Are we granting either one of them any special privileges with this amendment? MS. COMP AGNONE: We would be granting something for the parks and also the Waterside Shops. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That doesn't answer my question. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, to answer your question, yes, this would preclude having the Parks and Recs come in and ask for a variance to the sign ordinance that would allow for additional signage to move people through the facilities. So it does preclude having to come in for a variance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask, is -- does the Waterside Shops today, let's say just as it pertains to the sign code, does it have more latitude for signage than the North Naples Regional Park. Page 10 October 30,2006 MS. COMPAGNONE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just under the sign code today. MS. COMPAGNONE: Yes. It's part of the PUD. And ifit was straight zoning, it would still have more signage than the park would be allowed, only one wall sign and one ground sign at 32 square foot, because it was a conditional use. Where the Waterside Shops, because it's commercial ground that you're putting a shopping center on, would still be allowed the directory signs, and each of the businesses would be allowed a sign, and then they could have an extra ground sign saying the name of just Waterside Shops on it. So yes, they have a lot more signage than the park would have. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So would this amendment give it the same equal as the Waterside Shops? If it wasn't a PUD again, it just had to go by the sign code, it would be equal? MS. COMPAGNONE: You're going to get more directional signs, like the example with the arrow in the park, so that you could direct the people. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. COMPAGNONE: But the sizes of the signs and, you know, the height of the signs would remain the same across the board, whether it was Waterside Shops or whether it was Parks and Rec. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. Can you cite some of the specific code numbers so I can look those up? Thank you. And again, all I have is a problem with H. I still believe that if we -- if we need to amend the code, if we haven't captured something, that should be the determination of the Board of Commissioners. MS. COMP AGNONE: The code that you want cited for the on-premise signs would be 5.06.04(C). One. Also three, which would be your directory signs, and also four. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? Page 11 October 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I hear some very good questions here and I just want to see if I can get us to refocus on this. Would you define public facility? First part of my question. MS. COMPAGNONE: I would say the government buildings, the parks. We made the list. The one that comes to mind that didn't necessarily go on the list would be the Immokalee Regional Airport or the Marco -- the airport down off of Fiddler's Creek. Sometimes they might need more signage, they might not. They have not asked for that yet. The fire stations I've denied certain signage. They've asked for, like their emblem up on a tower that's, you know, a non-electrical sign, but they're only allowed one wall sign. So when you try to combine the name of the station and the emblem, the square footage is too much. So I would have to rej ect them. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me rephrase that. Other than government facilities, what would come under this definition? MS. COMPAGNONE: Fire department. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, they're government facilities. MS. COMPAGNONE: Hospital. Schools. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hospital, schools would be government -- I mean, the hospitals, schools. I'm just trying to see what would all fall in there encompassing. Is it a broad term or someone that may have a commercial enterprises and say well, we do something that meet the needs of the health, safety and welfare so we should be able to apply this. Is there limitations to this? In other words, a mall that has a day care center, would that be a place that would able to qualify? MS. COMP AGNONE: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. I'm trying to narrow it down. Is the definition clear enough so that we won't have someone challenge it that should be on that list? MS. COMPAGNONE: Well, that's why we did do the list. And Page 12 October 30, 2006 we felt like these certain services pertained to that. And we did put H in there, just in case we missed something. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, Commissioner Halas brought up a very good point. Especially coastal Collier County, they expect certain standards as far as sign goes. And the signs that I see, the examples I see here are absolutely beautiful. I don't think anyone would ever have any problems with it. But how can we be sure that some -- one of the prior -- the smaller fire stations will unearth to some sort of standard if there's no standard that's identified? MS. COMPAGNONE: Well, they would have to compete with -- they would have to do the same standards as the regular sign code. That doesn't preclude them from that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, it doesn't. So the same code. Also, too, this is quite similar, I might want to point out to my fellow commissioners. We do something that we'd never allow private enterprise to do. We put up these road signs on a continuous basis, telling about dangers ahead, public meetings coming up so that we can serve a public purpose. And it far exceeds -- you know, it has to do with the health, safety and welfare of the community. And keeping that in mind, I don't have any problem with the direction we're going with this. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, in the -- regarding Commissioner Henning's concern with number H, which I'm fine with, by the way. Going along with Commissioner Henning. But I just want to make sure it doesn't cost them any dollars. I mean, probably most of them will be improved. But as Commissioner Henning said, he would like it come before us. But I wouldn't want it to cost them months of time or many dollars. MS. COMP AGNONE: We might be able to set something up where maybe Joe and Susan do the approval on -- Page 13 October 30, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: If this -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, what he's saying is he would like -- before that approval is granted, he would like that to come before the commission. Even if it's on a consent agenda, in case anybody does have a problem with it. Like Commissioner Halas said, he wants to make sure they're quality signs. If anybody does have a problem with it, then they'd bring that off the consent, put it on the regular agenda. Otherwise, they would just approve it. But this way we know what's happening in the community that we're responsible, too. And they're going to ask us first what's going on, so we have to know what it is. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, Commissioner Coletta brought up a good point. I never thought about it till he brought it up. A, it says government building and uses. And if you look at B, those are government building and uses. The same way with I, which I don't understand the -- maybe that's supposed to be B-1. That's government use. Schools are government use. Law enforcement's government use. So is fire department. Emergency medical services is government use, unless you're talking about private transport. Are you talking about private transport of ambulance? MS. COMPAGNONE: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No? Okay. Well, why can't we just do A, government buildings and uses? Because all of those except for the hospital is government uses and buildings. You simplify it and maybe we can spare a page, or a tree. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I see what you're saying. But not everything would be government uses. Something like -- I'm just trying to think of a for instance. The Red Cross, they have a large facility and they might want to direct people to a certain Page 14 October 30, 2006 end of the building. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we looking to do that for not- for-profits? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Public facility? MS. COMPAGNONE: Well, we haven't thought of the Red Cross. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I guess just -- MS. COMPAGNONE: That might fall under H. You know, something that we didn't think about. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, that's what I thought public facilities might be able to pick up on is that part of it that serves a governmental purpose. And we have a number of different agencies out there that -- most of them are fairly small, but some of them are fairly big. Our CMA, for example, that serve a purpose. And they may need to have this type of signage to be able to direct their particular clientele to there. In this case, I don't have a problem. Either we change the definition of serve a governmental function or we keep public facilities in there; maybe a little deeper description of what it actually is. CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, can you give us a hand here? I think we're getting outside the realm of things and I think we need to -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, I think it's a good discussion. Because as I read this, we talk about public use facilities as the main thing. And then we include government buildings as a public use. So when I see schools, to me it means both private schools and public schools. When I see EMS, to me it means both private services and public services. So that there is a -- in my mind this is a very good discussion, because this needs a little work, a little clarification, anyway. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, just wanted to make sure that we Page 15 October 30, 2006 were within the realms of what we were trying to get accomplished here. Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah, I think we need -- definitely need a definition of public use facilities. If Commissioner Coletta wants to go to, example, Red Cross, which is a not- for-profit, that's considered not for profit. MS. COMP AGNONE: Okay, we can come up with a definition, if that's your direction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we want to be consistent with the rest of the code also. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, it's going to be almost impossible to anticipate and define -- or write a definition that will anticipate any future requirement. Can we solve this problem merely by saying limiting this application to things we really know: Government buildings, park and recreational facilities, hospitals, law enforcement, fire. And then say government emergency medical services and anything else approved by the Board of County Commissioners. And that way it comes back to us, we get the chance to look at it in the context of health, safety and welfare for our citizens, and then we can make that decision. Would that work for you? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Let me tell you why. Ifit's the interpretation that emergency medical service is also the private sector transport, I don't want to give one sector of the business more privilege than others. You see what I mean? It's-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you would have the option to grant that privilege, if you wish. I specifically said government emergency medical services would be a permitted use. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you just say government -- Page 16 October 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then that excludes the others. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that excludes the others. That's what I'm saying, if you have government buildings and uses, that would mean public schools, public law enforcement. I mean, you wouldn't have Wackenhut. Wackenhut, you wouldn't be giving them special privileges, you know. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Unless it came to the Board of County Commissioners, they asked for it and we decided it was in the public's best interest to do so. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. And if we just eliminate all of these except for D, hospital and government buildings, that's -- that's a catchall. And unless the board of commissioners deem differently through a public petition of some sort, come to the board of commissioners, then we could determine at that time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would leave out, though, Collier County Parks and Recreational facility. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a government building. And the uses. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe it's not a government building. It might be a government use. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How would -- give me an example where it would not be a government building. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there -- government buildings are not necessarily the predominant use for some of those services. Soccer field, that's not a building. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's a use. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then we'd have to -- in order to make it clear, we would have to change A to say government buildings and/or uses. Because there are uses which don't include government buildings. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Then underneath would be like parks and recreation facilities -- Page 1 7 October 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I think Commissioner Henning is suggesting we not have parks there, just lump it all into government buildings and/or uses. So it's government facilities only. And then anything else could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the Board of County Commissioners if it proved to be in the best interest of the citizens. Is that what you have in mind? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, that's great. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have a problem with that. And as long as that government buildings and/or uses would include -- and we need to have hospitals. You know, you need to have that specified. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Whether it be not or profit or for profit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. And if it's understood that that would include parks and recreational facilities. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Such as boat ramps, launches and beach access, et cetera, et cetera. Then it seems to me that that would cover everything there that is of importance to you. Is that not true? MS. COMPAGNONE: What about schools? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a government building, as I understand it. And it would not apply to private schools, unless they came to us for an exception. MR. KLATZKOW: And we do have a sign variance procedure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Would that do it for you? MS. COMP AGNONE: I think that covers it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have a problem with that modification either. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have consensus on this board here that this is the direction that we want staff to go in regards to this Land Development Code? Page 18 October 30, 2006 MS. COMPAGNONE: We're going to change the government buildings and/or uses, and that should include the parks and rec., that will include -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Schools. MS. COMPAGNONE: -- the schools, law enforcement, fire emergency services. And then we're going to leave also hospitals. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The schools are just public schools and not private schools; is that correct? MS. COMPAGNONE: It was going to be for both of them. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Didn't you say -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't have a problem with it being both of them, but Commissioner Henning might. I don't know. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I do, because I mean, you have so many different schools out there. ABC Academy I can think of. You have for profit and not for profit. And you're picking one part of the industry that enjoys a privilege where the others do not. And I just don't think that's fair. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't you just say public schools then. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm starting to have a problem with this. I think what we're trying to do is come up with some way to be able to make the life for the public a little bit easier so they can find the right kind of signage to get from point A to point B. A number of our parents out there do have their children going to private schools. Private schools should be able to receive the same kind of definition as public schools as far as the signage goes. Why should we put a burden upon them just because they're not under the school board when they do serve such a wonderful government purpose? I think we're starting to stray far afield in saying that just government entities are going to be the ones that are going to be able Page 19 October 30, 2006 to benefit by this and only the public that uses government entities is going to be able to benefit from it. MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I would just say to that, since we've got attorneys who specialize in these nuances with our code, we do have karate schools out there, we do have -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Driving schools. MR. KLATZKOW: -- tennis schools out there. We have schools -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think the definition of schools needs to be clearly defined. You know, I agree, ABC Academy is more of a day care than a real school, although they would probably argue with me on that point. COMMISSIONER HENNING: My oldest son went to ABC Academy to where they have a -- they're certified to teach. So I disagree with that. I mean, I just -- I don't want to create special privileges for one business versus another business. If we do, then we should allow all to enjoy this, if it is a privilege to have. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but let's take a better example than that. Let's look at St. Elizabeth Seton or Seacrest, Palm Academy. These are places that are very large, they serve a real public purpose, they do the same thing as our regular school system, and by putting it together in such away, we do make them a separate class totally. I think the idea was to come up with something that was going to be user friendly to the public. So I guess we have a slight disagreement here. And there's probably a way around it. But I'm sure Commissioner Coyle will figure that out. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do you have something to offer, County Attorney? MR. WEIGEL: Perhaps so. You could conceivably go accredited schools K through 12, and that would cover public and private that are recognized, I think. If that's the kind of schools you're Page 20 October 30, 2006 talking about. Not K for karate, but K through 12. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's go -- how about International College? MR. WEIGEL: Through 16 then. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, I don't mean to make life difficult. I just want to make sure that we really do what the public needs out there. But I agree with you on eight to 12. And maybe we should expand it to institutes of higher learning. Then it's going to have to be fly fishing. Which counts. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are any of the colleges PUDs or all of them PUDs, or are they something separate? MS. COMPAGNONE: Edison is within, I believe, Lely's PUD. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Any other colleges of any kind that are not that you're aware of? CHAIRMAN HALAS: How about International? MR. SCHMITT: Northbrook. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Northbrook. MR. SCHMITT: International College and Northbrook PUD. It's within a PUD. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So they're already covered. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like the wording accredited. That leaves out the karate schools. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not necessarily. They are accredited, also nationally, in some cases internationally. MR. WEIGEL: K through 12. COMMISSIONER FIALA: K through 12. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, they're not accredited K through 12. Yeah, that one's okay with me. Anything that makes it simpler would be fine with me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, does that get closer to where you think we should be? Page 21 October 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: K through 12? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Accredited K through 12 schools. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I'm fine with that. I just -- and it is a public benefit. But so is Bass Pro Shops. My wife and I were talking about that this weekend, what a benefit that is to the public. But anyways, K through 12 is fine. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Accredited K through 12, right? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that good you some additional guidance? MS. COMPAGNONE: Yes, Commissioner. MR. SCHMITT: We will look at it, Commissioner, and come back at the second hearing with some amendments. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any further discussion on this item? We'll move on. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we beat it to death enough. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your patience. MS. COMP AGNONE: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Commissioners, I'd like to direct you to page B of your summary sheets, and the item is Section 2.03.07(1), 2.03.07(N). And this provides for an administrative deviation process in the mixed use project approval process that we created last cycle. For the BMUD and the GTMUD at the moment. You know, the mixed use districts. And I believe? Do you have any questions on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What page? MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. Page 7 in your orange book. And it's the second Page 7. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is it in the green book? MS. FABACHER: No, it's in the orange book. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second Page 7. MS. FABACHER: Right. Page 22 October 30, 2006 Let's see, the origin, the author is the CRA advisory board. And it would be on Page 8, if you found that one. CHAIRMAN HALAS: CRA advisory board; is that correct? MS. FABACHER: Exactly. And that's Page 7. If you turn to Page 8, it begins with subsection five, administrative deviations. And this is -- the reason that staff wrote it, we were asked by the industry also, is that the BMUD and the GTMUD mixed use districts have some pretty stringent regulations, and it's really kind of not one size fits all. You have very small properties and then you have very large properties, and just because of the ways things are laid out, you can't always follow some of these things, like the requirement to face Bayshore Drive when you've got a 38-acre parcel or something and all your buildings have to face there. It's just -- so hopefully we can use our best professional judgment and based on our knowledge of other mixed use proj ects, you know, look at what would be reasonable under the guidelines for the BMUD, the Bayshore mixed use district and the gateway triangle mixed use district. Any questions on that? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions from commissioners? (N 0 response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay, excellent. All right, so now we're going to move to -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any public speakers on this? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. We move to the next green box, which is on summary sheet -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Page, please? MS. FABACHER: I haven't found it yet. We've done a lot of work. MR. SCHMITT: Summary sheet N. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. Okay, this is Section 4.02.23 in your green book. Page 87. And Page 23 October 30, 2006 this is an amendment that came up as a result of a settlement agreement from a lawsuit between the county and City gate LLC. One of the items of the settlement agreement, among others, was that the county would put a freestanding clock tower as a permitted use in activity center number nine, which is an interchange activity center. Where the Citygate PUD is located, Citygate Properties. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Over by the dump. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Commissioner. I don't think I've ever been over there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You haven't been over there? MS. FABACHER: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nobody can find it now that they renamed it Collier County Landfill. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The reason is because it doesn't smell anymore. MR. SCHMITT: This is the business located just in front the water treatment facility on Collier Boulevard. This is the activity center in that area, Citygate. CHAIRMAN HALAS: When we're talking clock towers, what height are we looking at here? MS. FABACHER: Let's see. Maximum height -- I believe we said 35 feet. COMMISSIONER FIALA: DSAC and CCPC both recommended unanimously to approve, so I have no problem with it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Neither do I. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What about the -- what the planning commission came up with? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Unanimous, 7-0. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any public speakers on this one? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. All right, we're going to go to Page 0 Page 24 October 30,2006 of the summary sheets, section 5.03.02, fences and walls. And that will be on Page 101 in the green amendment book. And there was a -- basically came up with a case where a -- it's a nonresidential use, such as a golf course would abut a residential area. There are currently no requirements for them to screen things like a golf cart barn or a maintenance facility in this case. So what this does is allow them to put up a wall or a concrete fence so that the neighbors don't have to look at the tractors and everything. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or a golf course? MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So they don't have to look at a golf course? MS. FABACHER: Well, no -- well, they usually -- no, it's for the facilities, it's not for the -- perhaps we need to clarify that. It is meant mostly for kind of unattractive ancillary facilities. I mean, you make a good point, Commissioner. You pay extra to live at the golf course. But this is not -- we're not talking about the fairways and the greens, we're just talking about those sort of -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Maintenance buildings. MS. F ABACHER: -- unsightly uses, yeah, that right now we have no requirements for them to screen. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Definitely need some clarification. COMMISSIONER COYLE: This doesn't just apply to the golf courses, does it, this requirement? MS. FABACHER: Let's see. Mike? Maybe Mike Sawyer can help me out. He works with this a lot. MR. SAWYER: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Sawyer, for the record, Senior Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. What this is the board had directed historically that when you've got nonresidential parcels adjacent to residential parcels, because of Page 25 October 30, 2006 the incompatibility, that a wall should be required in those cases. What this is trying to do is to change that I believe as far as zoning districts to uses as well. And where this has recently happened was where we had a golf maintenance facility coming in a residential zoned area as a conditional use, the argument was because it was residentially zoned, they weren't required to do the wall because it was residential zone to residential zone, even though they were coming in for a conditional use. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wouldn't this be within a PUD? MR. SAWYER: It can happen within a PUD. It can also happen CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wouldn't that take care of it within a PUD? Shouldn't that -- MR. SAWYER: This particular one was an older development where there wasn't a wall requirement at all. It wasn't anticipated as far as having that type of buffering or that kind of screening. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Sawyer, can we -- do you think it would be appropriate, 10, where it says nonresidential uses -- where nonresidential inappropriate use shall provide a masonry wall or prefab concrete fence? MR. SAWYER: I'm not sure if we could define inappropriate. That might be a little difficult. We could possibly find some other language. That might certainly be possible. We could look at that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because preserves is not a residential, it's nonresidential. Wouldn't you consider preserves nonresidential ? You can't sleep in there. MR. SAWYER: I would hope not. Hopefully the animals and stuff are sleeping in there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. SAWYER: Above and beyond that, the thing with the preserves certainly would be that it would be its own buffer, in and of Page 26 October 30, 2006 itself. And so I don't think you would certainly look at that as being a requirement. Honestly, where -- most of the time where this is actually applied is where you've got commercial developments coming in adjacent to -- you know, right up against residential developments. I think what we're trying to do here in this particular case is to also address when you've got a golf maintenance facility. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would that be considered a commercial use, golf maintenance facility? MR. SAWYER: It certainly is. The golf maintenance facilities, because of the noise that they generate and the types of materials that they store on there, they almost verge on industrial. That's why when it comes to buffering, for instance, on a golf maintenance facility you're required to have a type B buffer going all the way around it, even when you're adjacent to a golf course itself. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my concern is it might be misinterpretated where you need to put a wall between a neighboring body of water or a preserve or a golf course. That's all. That's my concern, is the interpretation of it. MR. SAWYER: We can certainly look at that and come up with some revised language for you on that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The language as it is currently written simply states whenever a nonresidential use abuts a residential use, shall provide a masonry wall or prefabricated concrete fence. Now, that essentially means if you've got a preserve there, you have to install the wall. It doesn't say anything about a golf course or a maintenance building, that it's only to screen a maintenance building. I'm concerned that the written words here don't reflect what staffs intent seems to be. And I think it's subject to misinterpretation. And one of the things we can do is be very specific and say that whenever a -- you might even want to screen multi-family from Page 27 October 30, 2006 single-family. I don't know. It might be a good thing. But you could revise this to say whenever a commercial or industrial use abuts a residential use, you have to do these kinds of things. But just saying that whenever a nonresidential use abuts a residential use, it leaves it wide open. It means that you have to put up a wall no matter what is there, as long as it's not residential. And I don't think that is what you have in mind, is it? MR. SAWYER: I think I understand where most of the questions are coming from. The way that the current code is actually written is nonresidential adjacent to residential. That's how the current code is actually written. What we're trying to do with this is to address one instance where a conditional use came in for a golf maintenance facility zoned residential within a residential area. And so we're trying to just change it from the zone designation to the use designation. That's primarily where it is, what we're trying to do with this particular amendment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But this particular wording doesn't -- isn't that narrow. This wording is very, very broad. And it says that any time you have a nonresidential use abutting a residential use, you have to build a wall. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what it says. MR. SAWYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so if you have a preserve area, you're going to have to build a wall. If it's zoned conservation, you're going to have to build a wall. MR. SAWYER: That -- no. The thing is with the preserve, it is its own -- it's buffered in and of itself. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It doesn't say that here. MR. SAWYER: Right, it doesn't say that. There is also a process built into this as far as an administrative variance. Any time Page 28 October 30, 2006 that the wall is required, you can come in for an administrative variance to either not do the wall or do something instead of the wall. So there is that relief also. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, why wouldn't you say -- I mean, if you're trying to do it for a very narrow purpose, why won't you just say if a structure of any kind is developed adjacent to -- a nonresidential structure is developed -- is built next to a residential use, it must be screened with a wall. MR. SAWYER: That's probably a very good suggestion. We could certainly make it that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make it real simple and get specifically to the issue you're trying to address. I mean, you're really not trying to fence off a golf course from residential use. MR. SAWYER: Certainly not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're trying to fence off a golf course maintenance building from residential use. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if that's the case, why don't we just specify that if a commercial building or a nonresidential building is constructed adjacent to residential use, it must be screened with the wall with whatever vegetation is appropriate. MR. SAWYER: I think that's a good suggestion. We can certainly do that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: You say this is only one instance. MR. SAWYER: The particular one that most recently triggered this amendment was a case where there was again the golf maintenance facility coming within a residential zone. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it had already been there, this was an older facility. My problem is, it seems like we're changing the whole LDC, and so everyone has to conform to it because of one problem. Why can't we just address the one problem? Page 29 October 30, 2006 MR. SAWYER: That's a very good question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's kind of a shame -- I think now, and you can help me along with this, I think of Lakewood, the Ironwood Golf Course. Now, they're just -- it's an older establishment, the restaurant and so forth. I moved in there in '74. I don't think they built that much before '82 or '84, okay? They have a maintenance facility there as well as a facility that did house the swimming pool before they buried the swimming pool. And nobody's ever had a problem with it nor the restaurant. Now, if something like this comes into being, they wouldn't then be able to get a permit, even though it's never bothered a soul in the neighborhood before. So that everyone has to conform because of this one instance. I really think maybe it's overkill. I think that's what's happened a lot in our LDC is a lot of times because of one problem arising, we change the whole LDC and then after that we had problems after problems because people had a problem conforming to what that one instance once. And also, I did not like chain link fence. The chain link fences used to be used a lot. And I think they look disgusting. I'm trying to get them all down in East Naples. You know, not very successful yet. But can't we suggest something other than a chain link fence? Even though they have bushes around them, the chain link fence still sits there. And it looks like -- well, it doesn't look very good. I mean, decorative fence of some kind would be much better. But anyway, that's my personal problem there. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can we write in there possibly you have the option of either a wall, depending upon what the citizens want, or a hedge? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or a decorative fence? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or a decorative fence? A hedge or something? Not just limit it to a wall and vegetation. But maybe you could come up with a hedge or something that looks a lot better than a Page 30 October 30, 2006 wall and some vegetation, it's an option? MR. SAWYER: Sure. And again, that can come in with an administrative variance as far as if you don't want to do the wall, you can do the administrative variance to come up with an alternative solution such as that. You know, additional buffering, additional plantings, you know, that sort of thing. And again, that's done administratively. COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask one more question? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you need to change the Land Development Code for this one instance, or is there another way of handling this either administratively or with something that you might need to come back to us for a one instance thing? MR. SAWYER: To be honest, maybe you should ask the author. Catherine is actually the one that authorized -- was actually the author on this. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, Catherine, step up to the hot seat. MS. FABACHER: Unfortunately George wrote it, but I'll try. What was the question again, Commissioner? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ifwe could have handled this, this one instance, because that seems to be what the catalyst is. Other than changing a whole LDC and making other people conform to something that we've never had a problem with before. Isn't there another way to handle this? MS. FABACHER: Well, Commissioner, if we had the power to enforce that or require it administratively, we would have done it. Well, these are -- go ahead, Jeff. MR. KLATZKOW: I've had the same discussion with staff as you're having right now, quite frankly. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. I'm glad I'm not the only one. Page 3 1 October 30, 2006 MR. KLATZKOW: The problem is this: It's hard to fix something that's grandfathered it, because it's grandfathered in. So I don't know how this is going to help, quite frankly. On a going forward basis, and Joe can correct me, but if there's a site development plan come in, we can require the fencing be done that way . You know, if there's a PUD hearing, we can require it that way. So on a going forward basis, I'm not sure that there aren't other ways that we can get this done. MR. SCHMITT: If I recall, this really had to do, if I remember, with the Pelican Marsh. We built a maintenance facility, many of the residents were upset because they were not going to take measures to screen in. And there was really nothing that we could do to require it. They finally did acquiesce and did screen it somewhat, but I can't remember what the final result was. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That was within their DR!, right? MR. SCHMITT: It's within a PUD. But when they come in and do a site plan within a PUD and they -- then we can require the criteria to be applied to that. They actually rebuilt an entire maintenance facility, and many of the folks were upset. Again, that's something that we just turn and say there's nothing in the code that requires it. That's between you and the property owners association, or you and the management entity, and we're out of it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Couldn't they solve that between themselves? MR. SCHMITT: Good-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Properties association? MR. SCHMITT: Should they? Yes. But oftentimes they come to the government and say we can't make them do it, you make them do it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we're here to fix everything that's broken. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, maybe they should bring that Page 32 October 30, 2006 in as a one-instance thing to us rather than change the whole LDC. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They can't bring it to us because we don't have any authority. There's no law to enforce, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's true, because we can't tell COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct. There's nothing we can do. That's why they're looking for a change, I suspect. But will it solve that problem retroactively? No. MR. SCHMITT: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if you're -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will it create new problems? COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- going forward, you should be able to review it at site plan development. The key is that if you really want to deal with this same occurrence sometime in the future, what you're going to have to say is the site development plan must conform to certain guidelines. In other words, a change to -- if you're going to rebuild a maintenance building in a PUD and you come in with a site development plan change to do that, then we've got to have a law that says okay, here are the conditions under which you can do that. And that's what staff is attempting to do, as I understand it. And my proposal would do that, where you merely change it to say that if you have a structure that is adjacent to nonresidential use, you will have to landscape it, buffer it to these specifications. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But don't we already say that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no. No, not when somebody comes in for a site development change for an existing PUD. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said plan. You mean change? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no. They might want to make a change to their site development plan. And they obviously did in this case, because they built a structure that was larger, if I remember correctly. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, I have another question Page 33 October 30, 2006 to ask you. If we go this direction, are we going to classify the buffer, the minimum amount of buffer, class B? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we should. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Class C, or what? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We should establish the minimum requirements for the buffer. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. Because if you don't, then of course then you're going to have problems whereby the residents are going to say there's not enough buffer there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then they're going to complain about the chain link fence here. MR. SAWYER: Commissioners, if I may, we do require a B buffer to go continuously around maintenance facilities. So if that's the concern, that should address the buffering issue, the planting requirements. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Can we -- is there an option or can we take out a wall or chain link fence? You've got an option between a wall, chain link fence or just strictly a heavy buffer? MR. SAWYER: Well, I think most people would agree that a chain link fence really doesn't do anything other than just secure the facility itself. I think what we're -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or a wall. MR. SAWYER: -- trying to do is -- yeah, either have the wall or something that's equivalent to it in these instances. And again, with the administrative variance that allows the applicant to come in and propose something other than doing the wall. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, why didn't you do that in the case of Pelican Marsh then? MR. SCHMITT: We did require -- as in the code today, we did require a chain link fence with buffering. That is what the complaint Page 34 October 30, 2006 was about, that the buffering was inadequate. This would require an opaque fence. It would require a wall or a prefabricated fence, not a chain link. Chain link is up in -- which we are not changing, that's in paragraph five. And that currently exists and always did exist. This is just one additional measure requiring basically a mandate for better screening. Wherever you want to go. If you want to eliminate it, we will eliminate it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the wishes of the board? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you explain landscape buffer B for everybody's benefit? MR. SAWYER: Certainly, Commissioner, thanks. A B is trees 25 feet on center with a five-foot hedge. The five-foot hedge is supposed to grow up to six feet, 80 percent opaque within the first year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And really, in this case would you be -- I think you'd be buffering the use of the building, not so much the building. And a five-foot is not enough? Obviously not enough for certain people. My opinion, I'd much rather see landscaping than a wall. I don't see anything broken in this, and I think that we need to -- if it's really broken, we need to think about it a little bit more before we do any changes. MR. SAWYER: There is still plant material that's required even with the wall. You still have plant material that -- the trees are still required. The hedge goes down from a five-foot hedge down to a single row 24-inch hedge, as far as on the outside of the wall. The purpose of the wall is to diminish more of a noise issue, as well as debris and some of the other types of things that you get with these types of development. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, it would be -- a B buffer would cover the -- any debris. I say let's rethink this and -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the trees cover the building, 25 feet Page 35 October 30, 2006 on center. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you want a wall, change the-- landscaping D calls for a wall, doesn't it? Which one does, A or B? MR. SAWYER: That's actually one of the options for a B buffer. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's one of the options, either/or. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which one requires a wall? MR. SAWYER: There is no time that a landscape buffer requires a wall. Again, like you said, it is an option in either a B or a C type of buffer. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I -- Mr. Chairman, to answer your question, I don't think it's broken. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Joe, maybe I misunderstood what you said. I thought you said this amendment just requires some kind of buffering. MR. SCHMITT: No, ma'am. In paragraph 10 it's clear. It says a masonry wall or prefabricated -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's that I was going to question, because I thought that's what you just said before. And it clearly says walls and fences. I really don't care for this amendment and I'm not going to be able to vote for it. And I must tell you up front. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think it needs some work also. Remember that if you're going to build a structure like a maintenance facility for a golf course adjacent to a residential property, you as the owner of the maintenance facility are going to want to protect it some way. Now, they have an option of protecting it with the chain link fence, and we're not changing that. Trees 25 feet on center are not going to cover that up. And a hedge that is planted 24 inches to grow Page 36 October 30, 2006 to 36 or 48 within a year is not going to cover it up either because a chain link fence is higher than six feet, in most cases it's eight. So if what you want to do is conceal the building, then we have to do a couple of things. We have to get away from the chain link fence idea, require a decorative wall, or at least an attractive wall, supplemented by vegetation. So I think those are the things you need to do to make this more acceptable to anyone living in a residential community adjacent to a nonresidential structure. So I agree, we need to do some more work on it. But I do believe that we apparently have -- don't have the necessary regulations to satisfy people in residential communities who are adjacent to structures of this type. We've got to find a way to solve that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have any speakers on this item? MS. FABACHER: No speakers, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So what's the wishes of the board here? To give guidance to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't have enough votes to pass it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: We will withdraw it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. Next item? MS. F ABACHER: All right, Commissioners, on the next sheet, page P of your summary sheet. And you're going to be on Page 107 in the green amendment book. And this is a pretty straightforward request from the transportation department. They now use a stormwater management modeling system in transportation, just getting a little more sophisticated. And to that end, you'll see on Page 109, they're asking the applicants to put in some more information, design criteria so that Page 37 October 30, 2006 they can evaluate the stormwater management system. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any discussion? Commissioner Coletta -- Coy Ie, sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question. What happens if you don't approve the site development plan? You've already rezoned the property. And what happens if you get into looking at the site development plan and you decide that well, wait a minute, there's no way to really make this thing work properly. What do you do? MR. SCHMITT: Wow, let me -- I can't answer that question because I need for you to clarify it. The only way we can not approve a site plan is if we have legitimate reason defended by the Land Development Code that something isn't in accordance with the code. Then we will cite that as a corrections needed. It's basically a rej ection notice and notice what needs to be correct. But once everything's corrected and it's in accordance with the code, we don't have the subj ectivity of it. We have to approve it. I don't know if that answered your question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of, you see. And there's a dilemma here. At the time you do the rezone, you're not -- you don't have the information that is available to determine whether or not an adequate stormwater management program can be developed for the property. But once you've rezoned it to, let's say, a PUD and somebody comes in with a site development plan and you say well, no, this site development plan really doesn't do the job or it really pushes the water off on somebody else's property and we're not going to ever approve it. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, in that case all water has to be retained. COMMISSIONER COYLE: For some specified period of time. MR. SCHMITT: Specified period on the project, yeah, and then Page 38 October 30, 2006 released. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you find that the site development plan doesn't permit that and you've got the specific stormwater management model information to demonstrate that and you say no, we're not going to approve this site development plan, what does the developer do? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Stan Chrzanowski with Engineering Review. Commissioner, every site is buildable. But we joke around, we have something called a blivit concept. They try to put like 10 pounds of crap in a five-pound bag. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm familiar with blivit concept. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We see it all the time. And in that case they have to go back. Like I said, from an engineering point of view every site is buildable. They just have to come in with revised methods of holding their water on-site. That's why you see a lot of people trying to hold water under the parking lot and under buildings. Engineers are a pretty inventive bunch. They'll find some way to make a site work. Put it up on piles. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, to answer your question, if they cannot demonstrate that they're in compliance with the code, the plan is rejected, period, until they submit an acceptable plan. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the stormwater management model that's referenced here in this proposed amendment will provide us with definitive information concerning whether or not the plan is adequate; is that true? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. There are a variety of stormwater management computer model programs out there. But basically what they all do is they take the topography of the site and you tell them how much water a given storm drops on the site. It tells you where on the site the water goes to and how high it rises and how fast it leaves. And you put your roads above a certain elevation and your buildings above a certain elevation, based on that information Page 39 October 30, 2006 that the computer gives you. And sometimes on certain sites -- the worst sites are the ones that are so low that you practically can't get an allowable discharge from them. But you can't just -- we tell people -- the rule says you're allowed a bleed down, and the bleed down is a three-inch orifice. And most sites can bleed down over a period of time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does the model provide you with an assessment of the stormwater flow, the proposed stormwater flow as compared with the historical preconstruction stormwater flow? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The county has an ordinance that was done by the stormwater department that fixes rates of allowable discharge throughout different parts of the county . Water management used to have a formula that was based on the type of ground, the topography, and the size of the basin. And you used to -- 20 years ago you used to compute each site separately. And they ran into a few sites, notably Imperial Golf Course Estates where the ground went from elevation 12 to elevation three on the same site, which is unusual in Collier County. And their discharge rates were so high that the Water Management District wouldn't let them have it. And then they started passing -- and we have an ordinance, I can't remember it, it's 2000-97 or something -- fixes the allowable discharge rate for every basin in Collier County, and they're all different. Most of the county is .15 CFS per acre, but some of them, Cocohatchee and others that are stressed, the rates go down as low as .04 CFS per acre. If they meet that criteria, we automatically assume that it's going to work. But locally we don't do a neighborhood basin plan. Maybe when we have watershed management plans, basin studies, we'll have the information on a more specific basis, but now these things are basin-wide. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: To put it simply, will this help solve Page 40 October 30, 2006 problems like in the gateway triangle or Mandalay is another good one or the L.A.S.I.P. area? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: This amendment that they're looking for is only to make it easier for them to record what's out there for the national pollution discharge elimination standards that we're going to have to conform to in one way or another sooner or later. CHAIRMAN HALAS: DMDL's, right? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's a part of it, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And this is based on a three-day or twenty-five year event; is that correct? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The information they're looking for is the district permit number. Everybody that gets a district permit gets a district permit number. The control structure locations, to some coordinate so they can feed it into the computer and the geographical information system can pop it up and show you where it's at. The control elevations are off the permit. Referenced the NVD and NGVD. And the design discharge is what the computer tells you the water rises to in a certain storm. So-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think Commissioner Coyle asked a good question, and I don't know if you fully answered it. To me it wasn't clear enough. Maybe it was to Commissioner Coyle. And I think the question was that you have data to indicate a PUD that is going to be rezoned from agricultural land, what the capabilities of that land is to handle so much water per hour, okay, in a rainfall versus when it's developed. Such is the case that took place in Commissioner Fiala's area where now we're having flows onto neighborhoods. And I think that's a good question is, do we have any data like that? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir. We have the predevelopment versus post-development discharge rates that are shown in county ordinances for different basins. That basin there might have been the Page 41 October 30, 2006 .15 CFS per acre, if I remember right. By ordinance that's what we tell them their predevelopment discharge was. Not scientific, but it's an ordinance. Sometimes we wish we didn't have to go by ordinances, but we do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can change them. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just looking to when you take a large area, let's say you've got something like a shopping center that somebody wants to build and it's ago land and then they cover the whole area with asphalt and everything, buildings. Well, then obviously it becomes impervious. And how do you determine that the rate that you can discharge water off that property and where is it going to go? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: By ordinance, if it's an area that is .15 CFS per acre, you would have to put enough lakes and retention and storage in there so that the water running off the roofs and off the impervious surfaces, the asphalt, whatever, concrete, goes into the lake and into the retention areas. And then the lake has a control structure that allows -- that attenuates the flow leaving the site, and only allows it to leave at .15 CFS acre per ordinance. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, to answer your question, yes, it's post -- pre and post. And then the system is designed. If they have to control the water, we don't tell them how much money they can spend to do it. But with engineering, you can spend a lot of money, and they'll have to do it to meet the requirement. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I ask -- MS. FABACHER: No speakers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: No speakers, okay. Why don't -- at this time why don't we take a 10-minute break. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we vote on it first? CHAIRMAN HALAS: We don't vote on it, we just -- Page 42 October 30, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: No, it would -- if there's no comments, we bring it back for the second hearing for the vote. So if there's no objections, we'll just leave this one in. CHAIRMAN HALAS: At this time we'll take a 10-minute break for the court reporter. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We're back in session for the first reading of the Land Development Code, cycle number one. And Catherine, if you'd direct us to the next item? MS. FABACHER: All right, Commissioners. We're on Page Q of the summary sheets, Section 10.02.13, PUD procedures, and that will be on Page 11 7 in your green book. And this is really kind of simplifying the PUD document for the industry. And Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, is going to have -- if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Proceed, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, Commissioners. As Catherine indicated, I'm amending 10.02.13, and that's the planned unit development procedures contained in the Land Development Code. The purpose is to eliminate the requirement for the petitioner to submit a PUD document with their application. What we'll be asking instead is taking out the most pertinent information from the PUD document. That would be a list of permitted uses, the development standards, any deviations from the Land Development Code, the developer commitments, such as right-of-way donations, and also the master plan and any other exhibit. The reason is over the years the PUD document has grown to about 30 to 40 pages. The average review of a PUD rezone is three to four reviews. That means staff and everybody has to review a 30, 40-page document every time. The purpose is during those amendments and changes to the document, there are times conflicting information gets put in and Page 43 October 30, 2006 redundant information that doesn't need to be in there. By eliminating the PUD document and just taking the pertinent information, it will streamline the information that staff reviews and also the information that comes before the board. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Not hearing any, sounds like you did a goodjob. MR. BELLOWS: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: All right, Commissioners, now we turn to Page R of your summary sheet. And we're going to begin with some -- the environmental amendments. And we'll be on Page 123 in the green book, just the beginning of the environmental section. And this will be Section 1.08.02, definitions. And it's a definition of passive recreational uses, which both compo planning and environmental services and Conservation Collier lands needed. Because they had that term in there, some of their provisions. And they got together and felt they needed to define it. So if you have any questions on that, I'd be happy -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MS. FABACHER: Well, then. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Who is -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, I didn't push. Henning is first. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was the planning commissioners' recommendations accepted? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Recommendation of -- approval of7-0. MS. FABACHER: Exactly. Page 44 October 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, they had some language change. MS. F ABACHER: Language change. Remove motorized activities, remove typically and changed harmful to negative impacts. And yes, that was all taken -- done. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about DSAC's recommendations, were they added to the text? MS. FABACHER: You know, I'm --let's see. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's within the definition of -- MS. FABACHER: I understand. Well, not exactly, because it had to -- like I said, it had to fit for the compo planning section for the compo plan, it had to fit for environmental services, and it had to fit for Conservation Collier. And we adjusted the rest of the essential services section to take care of those problems from Conservation Collier. Because as I explained, the definition had to fit for everybody across the code. So that's the way we did it. And we made the provisions about the motorized access in another section in essential-- I think it's even in here. Yes, I think if you turn to Page 126, and it's going to be subsection B, permitted essential services in con. districts, or FMU, NRP A's, HSAS, FSAS. And I think it says on E, Conservation Collier lands which provide public access for permitted non-destructive paths of natural resource. Basis: Recreational. And it's underscored, where allowed by individual approved land management plans, hunting and vehicle use from maintenance management purposes shall be permitted. So that gave them what they needed but took it out of the definition, because that didn't work for the compo planning people. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's they? When you said they. MS. FABACHER: Well, the Environmental Services worked on it, David Weeks worked on it from Compo Planning, Alex Sulecki. Page 45 October 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know, but I'm very confused. I think you're going back and forth between the planning commission and staff. And I think my last question was about DSAC's recommendations. And it says definition does not meet all the Conservation Collier lands needs. LDR's suggest adding other uses in the body of the text in essential services. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. And that's what I just read to you from E. That's the body of the text of essential services. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you said -- I got confused -- MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- because you said Conservation Collier, environmental staff, they. MS. FABACHER: Okay, forgive me, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I didn't know who all that was. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. DSAC was done by what I just read. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I'm concerned about what we're doing here for access. Possibly what we own now, what we put into inventory, it might not be conducive to using off-road vehicles. But, you know, there may be some future pieces we'll put into use, and they may border on an area that does allow it. I think it's very short-sighted to totally rule out the fact that off-road vehicles to be used. And I'm not going to accept it. Also, too, when it comes to the ability to be able to hunt in the right kind of appropriate areas where the land is removed far enough from the area, the -- it might border on like a picayune forest, and I wonder if we're kind of limiting when we say dismanaged. What we're talking about is a lottery system where only a couple of people might have access to the land to be able to hunt. I don't think that's Page 46 October 30, 2006 what a lot of people were envisioning when they first came up with the access rules. The way it's stated now, how does it work? MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, but my understanding from Alex Sulecki is that some of the land that they're requiring Conservation Collier, the owners want to retain the right to hunt there where they've always hunted. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Unacceptable. I'm at a dead stop right there. MS. FABACHER: Well, I think that will kill some of the accusations. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The hell with them. This is public land for public use. If I'm going to put my public dollars into it, it's going to be for the public to able to benefit from. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Coletta, the paragraph Bit's where -- the individual approved land management plans. You see every land management plan associated with the Conservation Collier acquisition. Eventually they come in. And also on Page 127 it talks of approved land management plan. Those plans come to this Board of County Commissioners for approval. In those land management plans it clearly defines what can be done on the site as far as access, passive recreation, other type of activities. That's-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, but we're spelling out some limitations in here at this point in time that go far beyond -- and I have no problem as far as vehicle use if we put down there where appropriate and we leave it open. But, I mean, to cancel it out entirely is totally unacceptable. That says it will never be considered. The other part that I'm having a problem with too is the management as far as hunting and fishing goes. And allowing people that are selling this land, we're paying these tremendous prices for to be able to retain rights. Next they'll be able to remove the oil and the gas from underneath them. You know, this doesn't make any sense. Page 47 October 30, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: The wording. This says where allowed by individual approved land management plans, hunting and vehicle use for management purposes shall be permitted. It does not in any way try and qualify or define who can -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I just heard -- or did it mishear, about the qualifications. MR. SCHMITT: What Catherine said is correct. But normally that will come up in a specific management plan associated with that specific piece of property, if there are any conditions or criteria. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, what properties come before us already? Have there been any of them that excluded hunting or fishing because the property owner wanted to retain that right? Has that every happened. MR. SCHMITT: I do not have that information. I don't think -- MS. F ABACHER: I do know that when we last cycled we passed the first piece of legislation about that -- I mean, an amendment about the Conservation Collier lands. The owners are retaining the oil and gas rights under the property. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and that I can understand. That's to a point. But still, the land up above, the public has access to it in a meaningful way. If you restrict the hunting and fishing just to the people that originally owned the land, that's taking away the public benefit, a tremendous public benefit. MR. SCHMITT: I honestly cannot think of any land management plan that has come before you that's limited it to that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The fact that it's even mentioned in passing that that is something that we're negotiating on, I'd be -- you know, I'm starting to have second thoughts about this whole thing. Maybe Commissioner Henning might have some very good ideas about the upcoming referendum. Page 48 October 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'd like to clarify something. It seems to me that the land management plan is the wrong place to address this particular issue. That is, of an owner retaining certain exclusive rights. The place when that should be addressed is at the purchase, time of purchase. Because if you purchase the land with that condition, you then can't establish a land management plan which permits public access for hunting, as an example. So it seems to me that we have to know before we agree to purchase something if the owner is insisting on retaining certain exclusive rights. And I would imagine that if the owner wishes to do so, that the purchase isn't going to be approved by this commission, particularly if they're charging us these outrageous prices for this land. But saying that if a land management plan permits hunting and vehicle use, that's -- you know, the barn door has already been opened, then the horses are all gone. Because that was taken care of during the purchase agreement. So I think we have to be very careful about what the conditions are for some of these purchases. And particularly if someone has demanded exclusive rights to this property, we need to know about it before we approve the purchase. MR. SCHMITT: We usually do. That's usually brought up through the land acquisition committee, Conservation Collier land acquisition committee and normally part of the executive summary when it comes to you that there are criteria. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I can't recall any time when someone has said to us that we're buying this property and the owner is going to retain the exclusive right to hunt on the property for a specified period of time. MR. SCHMITT: I as well. I cannot recall any time when there was a provision. I will -- we'll come back with that. This is nothing more than a generic statement that's being put into the Page 49 October 30, 2006 code. MS. FABACHER: Correct. And Commissioners, maybe Susan could comment on it. But when they use passive recreation in preserves, for example, they would never allow motorized vehicle use or hunting or anything of that nature. Am I correct? MS. MASON: Correct. Good morning, Commissioners. Susan Mason with Environmental Services, for the record. The definition is passive recreation in a smaller preserve, in like a PUD or something like that. Obviously there could be safety issues with allowing hunting. With Conservation Collier lands, sometimes it can be important when it's a large area for you to have the ability to use hunting as a management tool if you have too many deer, say, in an area or something like that where it's actually killing vegetation and allowing mismanagement. How that hunting would be -- how the licenses would be distributed, that would be completely up to the management plan in which you do have the ability to comment on and approve. So you could deal with that as they came forward. Nothing at this point has that in there yet. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow, this -- does this have to be in the Land Development Code? Could it not be part of the Conservation Collier ordinance? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, probably we could do that, if you'd like. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The-- MR. KLATZKOW: We could have an administrative manual to these things as well that's also very easy to change. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. It's my opinion, I mean, I think the Land Development Code is thick enough. And the ordinance, Conservation Collier, it can always be changed a lot easier on the fly instead of during Land Development Code changes, cycles. Page 50 October 30, 2006 And that would probably address Commissioner Coletta's concerns. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, my -- if I may speak out of turn? My light's not on. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. My concern was based around the planning commission's recommendations, you know. And when I see that, I realize that they can have quite an influence. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just don't see a need to put this in our Land Development Code. This is-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whatever way gets us there, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, this is -- I mean, I think it will flow better, because your -- Conservation Collier and the advisory board is going to be working under an ordinance. And I think it would be just appropriate to put in the ordinance what you can do, instead of within the LDRs. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, anymore discussion from the commissioners? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I guess that direction is given, that they're just going to put this into -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bring it back. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Conservation Collier. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bring it back in the ordinance if there are any changes. MR. SCHMITT: Do I hear just recommend to withdraw this? You're withdrawing the one definition for passive recreation, and then you're also withdrawing clarification on essential services, so -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the passive recreation applies to private too; is that correct? Or is this just Conservation Page 51 October 30,2006 Collier? MR. SCHMITT: This was a definition that was being added that would cover all preserve activities, or preserves or any other activity -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask that a different way. Does this apply to the public only, or does this apply to private passive recreation lands? MR. SCHMITT: It applies -- it's a definition that would apply to any place that was -- that restricted, as defined passive recreation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you have a conservation easement across your property, does this apply to it? MR. SCHMITT: Only if that conservation easement allowed for passive recreation. Is that -- I don't know if I answered your question. It doesn't open a book to allow anybody into a preserve area. There are some preserve areas that were identified, most specially though were the Conservation Collier lands to allow for, as by ordinance, passive recreation. What we were trying to do here is define what passive recreation is and put words into the essential services to allow for certain activities to take place which are above and beyond the definition of passive recreation. And that was as defined in the land management plans for other types of activities. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, can we remove any reference to Conservation Collier and the added language? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's where we can deal with it in the ordinance, instead of the Land Development Code. Like I said, you got two times to deal with the Land Development Code. And if we do it under the Conservation Collier ordinance, we could just do it at any time. If we find there is a problem, we could do it any time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, there's a good reason Page 52 October 30, 2006 for doing it that way. Because if we put it in the Land Development Code, we're dealing with it in some cases after the fact, after it's been purchased. If we put it in the Conservation Collier ordinance, it gives instructions with respect to things like guaranteed exclusive access to the property after it's been sold and all of those kinds of things. Then you have a better chance of making sure that our wishes are considered from the time it is purchased until the time the management plan is created. And you have it all in one place. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and I have to go back one more time. Ifwe go to Page 125, item number nine, where it says allowed by individual approved land management plans, hunting and vehicle use for management purposes shall be permitted. I'd like to give serious consideration to removing for management purposes and inserting where appropriate or when appropriate. That gets us past the point where it -- what we're doing is we're removing the classification of hunting and vehicle, A TV use to a very distant third-party type of use. In other words, it has to fall into all sorts of very defined criteria before you allow limited use to take place. Where "appropriate" gives us the ability sometime in the future to be able to redefine what it is. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the discussion on the floor right now is removing public lands, government -- county government lands within this section of the code. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I couldn't quite see what we were going to gain by that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what we can gain by that is just put it in the Conservation Collier ordinance and let that be the governing document. We have so many ordinances. And Mr. Klatzkow and I were talking about this. We have so many rules and regulations that are in different places. And if you can put all those things, in this case Conservation Collier, into one document, that Page 53 October 30, 2006 would -- it would make it a lot easier for everybody to use that one governing document instead of the Land Development Code and in this case one ordinance. MR. KLATZKOW: Now, do you want all of nine to go into the Conservation Collier ordinance? I mean, right now we've got a piece of it already into the Land Development Code. All we're doing is amending it. And I guess this piece came into the last cycle, because it's not in my book. So this is fairly recent. MR. SCHMITT: Right. This came in during the last cycle. If we remove nine, there was a significant amount of controversy. And this was all agreed to land -- language that defined clearly the oil and mineral rights. We would have to go back -- if you want to cancel this paragraph, it would have to be in the next cycle. I would have to go back through public meetings and advertise these types of amendments. I don't think I can do it -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have to ask the attorney about this. Because it was advertised as amending the code, certain provisions of the code. Don't we have the latitude to remove things out of the code? MR. KLATZKOW: No. Because we haven't given the public notice that we'd be taking all of nine out. All we gave the public notice was that we were going to make this hunting and vehicular use amendment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I think we're beyond that point of not including it in the amendment. And I just would like to give the guidance to remove all references of Conservation Collier and Land Development Code and put it in the ordinance. Mr. Chairman, would you ask the colleagues if that's appropriate? CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the wishes of the board? COMMISSIONER COYLE: As I understand it, we will have to Page 54 October 30, 2006 disapprove these items, or this item, and I don't have a problem with that. MR. KLA TZKOW: There is one minor -- they sort of combined a couple of things here, Commissioners. One is they want to amend the definitional section, 1.08.02. And that is everybody. It's just not Conservation Collier lands. That's all passive recreation for anybody that would fall under that. And I think it's a separate issue than what we're talking about here. I don't know if you want that or not. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What's the wishes? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have a problem modifying the definition, because it's going to apply even beyond Conservation Collier. I think that the concern that has been raised by Commissioner Coletta is that there might be certain exclusive uses that are granted to certain people if you have the land management provision there that addresses hunting and vehicular use. And maybe the quick solution is just remove that one sentence from this document, approve the definition change and then provide guidance to the staff to give us a modification to the Collier -- Conservation Collier ordinance that would address the issues as we think they should be addressed and remove them from Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I get enough nods? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one question. You are talking about that sentence that starts off where allowed -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, just take that out right now. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I translate that to be come back with 1.08.02 definition, but the essential services piece withdraw from this amendment cycle, leave as worded. Got it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then come back with a proposal to change the Conservation Collier ordinance to include all this stuff and take it out of the LDC. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. Page 55 October 30,2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right? Does that hit everybody's concern? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. Any speakers on this particular item? MS. F ABACHER: No, I don't believe we have. So the next one will be -- we're on summary sheet R still, and the next one is Section 3.05.02, exemptions from requirements for vegetation, protection and preservation. And this basically has to do with exempting county workers or contractors from having to get vegetation removal permits for county projects in rights-of-way, essentially. If you have any questions, Susan is available. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions by my commissioners? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is limited just to the right-of-ways? It wouldn't be like if we bought a regional park and decided to clear part of that? MS. MASON: Correct. This is only -- if you see on the bottom of Page 131-6. It's for FP&L easements. Or if there was another company, too, an electrical transmission line for utility line for their maintenance. And then also, the paragraph after that, number seven, publicly owned right-of-way or publicly owned canal. As in South Florida Water Management owns a lot of the canals and they do maintenance on their easements, and this would allow staff not to have to issue a clearing permit for things that were just a part of maintenance for their recorded easement. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me describe a recent occurrence that could cause some residents a great deal of concern. There was a drainage canal in the East Naples area that had some very Page 56 October 30, 2006 mature palm trees along, and it provided excellent screening between the homes located on both sides of this canal. These were very large, very large trees. And our crews went in and cut them all down. There's no longer any screening then between the homes. The people got a little upset about that. I'm -- is there some way to make sure that we take those kinds of things into consideration so that staff doesn't just go in and start lopping down huge mature trees that serve an excellent screening purpose? MS. MASON: There is certainly perhaps more ofa zoning buffering kind of issue with that. But the thing is, with the way the Land Development Code is written currently, if some utility company or canal maintenance people wanted to come in and clear their easement for maintenance purposes, we would have to grant that permit anyway. They would just have to come in, have a fee, staff would have to do a site visit. And then there wouldn't be any way for us to stop it. We couldn't say, the way the LDC currently is, that we're removing a buffer and you're required to replant with something appropriate that would have to be reviewed by the landscaping reViewers. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, why wouldn't we want to do it? And we're talking about in many cases our own staff, not somebody else's organization, but our own staff. MS. MASON: Right, we just can't require that. We would issue the permit, allowing them to do their maintenance, but there's no requirement for maintaining a buffer where trees had grown up naturally, or even if people had planted them in their easement for us to require that they replace the trees with something else. COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's no requirement because we haven't written anything into the Land Development Code for that. MS. MASON: Right. If you -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we wanted to, we could write Page 57 October 30, 2006 something into the Land Development Code to provide for the retention of some kind of buffer. MS. MASON: Certainly. And that -- you know, then if you wanted to do that, I would imagine you'd still want them to come in for a vegetation removal permit application so that could be evaluated. But at this point they just would be able to come in, they'd have to get their permit and we would approve it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you could approve it or you could not approve it. But I think the focus should be on not just letting somebody come in and start clear-cutting everything as they see fit. It is to try to maintain any natural buffers that have grown up for whatever reason, and at the same time preserve the utility of the right-of-way. If they're blocking a canal, of course we need to do something about that. If the trees are growing too high and they're interfering with the power lines, of course we need to do something about that. But the solution doesn't necessarily mean you just come in and cut all the trees down. The solution could be trimming trees back. MS. MASON: It could. But if it's their easement and they need it for maintenance, which the -- whether it's South Florida Water Management District or our stormwater management department, if they justify that this in their easement and they need it because of previous problems with blockage after hurricanes and things like that, which I know was a concern of the rainy season, we wouldn't be able to require that they replace it with something else, the way it's currently written. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I'm suggesting is maybe we should write something that would require us to do that. That is, we would have a little more control over what happens there. MS. MASON: I could certainly speak to the, you know, people in the zoning and planning group to see where they would want to have that be a requirement. It would have to come in a future Page 58 October 30, 2006 amendment, if that's the board's direction. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be my preference. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, I'm on with you there. Including replanting, that we're going to -- I just had that problem along this new canal that we're digging in the L.A.S.I.P. project. They're making this canal from 20 foot to 80 foot. All the people along that roadway -- or along that canal way will be losing most of their backyard because it's in the easement. They planted very lush, beautiful trees and fruit trees and so forth, this will be all ripped out. And this canal will be as close to some as 10 feet from their back door. And now they're not even -- they're going to rip all of their plantings out and not replace anything. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did they get paid for any of this land that they're taking? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it's an easement. CHAIRMAN HALAS: They widen it, don't they have to come in and buy land? MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. If it's platted and identified as a utility easement, legally we have to provide access. That is a utility easement. And in fact there are very strict state laws for FP &L and other type of utilities that prohibit planting in easements. I think what Commissioner Coyle is talking about is over time through natural growth you get a buffer, a natural buffer, and then the South Florida Water Management District, because they can, it's their utility easement, has to bring in equipment into that easement to clean canals or whatever, they will take down trees in order to access and bring equipment onto that easement. What Commissioner Coyle is asking is that somehow we limit the clearing, instead of just wholesale clear-cutting, we limit. And if we were to do that, we will have to define in this some kind of procedure where they come in and ask for again a permit. And Page 59 October 30, 2006 we have to at least review or somehow come to consensus as to what can and cannot be removed. So-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Remembering also that a lot of times they're doing this because it's the cheapest way, but not really the best for the residents in the area. Which is stated throughout the L.A.S.I.P. project. There would be a cheaper -- there would be a more expensive way to do it, but this is the less costly way, by just clear-cutting everything. MR. SCHMITT: I think what we need to put in here then is some language that says for areas where natural buffers, that somehow we review through a permitting process the extent of the trimming that will take place, or the clearing. And that's -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about replacing some of the vegetation? MR. SCHMITT: I'll have to defer. And I think Jeff and I will probably have to defer legally, because there are some laws that prohibit the planting in an easement. Especially FP&L. Even though it does happen, FP&L has every right to come in and clear, without asking any question, because that is in their easement. And I'm -- there are easements that have no electric lines through them, but they are easements that were identified years ago, and they have every right to come in and ask for the property owner to remove anything that's in that easement. CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's their land, right? MR. SCHMITT: Well, it may not be their land. They may not own the underlying land, but they own the easement. They have a right through the utility easement. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can you give us some clarification on that? MR. KLATZKOW: From what I understand from the conversation, the board would like some sort of remedy that the county could have when these things get clear-cut that these things get Page 60 October 30, 2006 replaced, if possible. I don't know how many instances it will be possible to require that. It's going to depend upon the language of the easements, depend upon state statute. But we certainly can address something so that where possible, they will have to replace. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It would be like the Golden Gate canal thing, too. Didn't South Florida Water Management District go in and just -- people came home from work and found their backyard scraped clean? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. That was the District that went in and did that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's no way we'd ever be able to supersede the Water Management District with an ordinance. I imagine if we ever tried to put something in place, they would probably ignore it or, what, take us to court? MR. SCHMITT: I would guess so. We'd have to take a look at what legal limits we have and enforcing -- or prohibiting the District from clearing an easement. I suspect right now very little, but we'll look at it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if they had an-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not prohibiting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- elected board, maybe they'd be more sensitive, wouldn't they? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good idea. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did he say? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Elected board, they'd be more sensitive. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's grab that and run with it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So what's the wishes of the commission on this? MR. SCHMITT: What I heard is to look at the wording on here, and it's not a wholesale right to clear, you want to look at some Page 61 October 30, 2006 language that would prohibit wholesale clear-cutting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Basically my concern is with this amendment we're giving away all control of any kind whatsoever. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'm suggesting that I don't want to do that. I don't know how many other commissioners would want to do it. But I don't want to give away all of our control. And I would like to be able to make some judgment calls where it is possible to try to maintain reasonable buffers. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we could remove the public owned canal from this, which case they'd have to come in for their permits. And just leave it for the public owned right-of-way, which is generally us anyway. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. MR. KLA TZKOW: And that would probably eliminate the issue. MR. SCHMITT: But even if they're public canals, the question, and what Susan answered was, we may have no method to deny the permit. MR. KLATZKOW: But at least-- MR. SCHMITT: But we'll check it out legally. We'll have to do some research on the legal requirements. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that there's no misunderstanding, it was county staff that did the clear-cutting that I have just described. It wasn't somebody else, it was county staff that did this. So I'm a little worried sometimes about the county's actions, too. So -- but I would like to have at least some review. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Does that give you direction? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Get enough nods here? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Page 62 October 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, continue on to the next one. MS. FABACHER: All right, Commissioners, we're on Page U of the summary sheet, Section 5.03.06(1), protection of sea grass beds. And that is on Page 139 in your green book. MR. SCHMITT: Before we jump to U, I just want to point out on page S, the large red line through. Just for your awareness, we were trying to create stormwater and preserves criteria. We basically have reached an impasse. I spent numerous, numerous hours with many stakeholders, and basically we're at a point where we have disagreement amongst stakeholders, and we're going to continue to work that amendment. That is what started out to be a rather I would say simple amendment has turned out to be almost an LDC in itself in trying to comply with the criteria for meeting stormwater and preserves and water quality standards. We'll continue to work with the stakeholders, both the development community and the other interested parties, so we can come up with a process. I just wanted to report on that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: Did you want me to comment on T, Joe, too? MR. SCHMITT: No, it's pretty much the same thing. I mean, that's -- oh that was -- , MS. FABACHER: That was board directed. MR. SCHMITT: -- board directed. That's done. That's withdrawn. MS. FABACHER: We'll return then to summary sheet Page U on Page 139 in the green book. And I'm going to let Barbara -- I'm sorry, Susan -- explain about this one. Thanks. MS. MASON: This proposed amendment of 5.03.06(1) on Page 139, the actual language change is on Page 140. It's a deletion of by a site visit. There are other ways that staff can verify whether or not there are sea grass beds affected by a boat dock going in there. Page 63 October 30, 2006 And the way it's currently written, we don't have the discretion of using either a prior -- like a site visit on an adjacent property or maps that we have of the county. And it's just not efficient use of staff time. If we could make the determination some other way. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I guess we'll move on. Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: All right, Commissioners, if you'll turn to the next page, Page V in your summary sheets, we're going to be looking at Sections 8.06.03, powers and duties of the EAC, 8.06.04, membership. You'll recall that at some point there were some failures to make quorums for the EAC. And I believe the board directed that two more members be added. Based on that, I'm going to ask if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions on that? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, they couldn't make the quorum so they're going to add more members? MR. SCHMITT: We -- this adds two alternate members so we can -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. SCHMITT: That's two alternate members. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got enough nods? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MS. FABACHER: Well, we do have a speaker on it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, we do? MS. FABACHER: Yes. Mr. Doug Lewis. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. LEWIS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Doug Lewis. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Roetzel and Andress, representing our client, the Bonita Bay Group on the proposed amendment to Sections 8.06.03,8.06.04 and 8.06.10 of the Page 64 October 30, 2006 Land Development Code. I'd like to bring your attention to two cleanup items, briefly. Initially as you're aware, the staff has withdrawn the proposed stormwater amendment to Section 3.05.07. The stormwater amendment sought to establish the Land Development Code criteria for allowing treated stormwater in preserve areas. After much discussion and input, a consensus on the proposed criteria could not be reached and this will be addressed in the next cycle. The proposed revision to the Land Development Code under 8.06.03.02 reads, the surface water management aspects of any petition that is or will be reviewed and permitted by the South Florida Water Management District are exempt from review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged in preserves, as allowed in Section 3.05.07. This revision was a companion item to the stormwater amendment, and Section 3.05.07 will not be admitted in the cycle to establish criteria for allowing treated stormwater in the preserves. As such, the amendment to Section 8.06.03.02 should be removed. Secondly, among other things, this amendment adds an EAC appeal provision under Section 8.06.10 which is available to any party aggrieved by the decision of the County Manager or his designee regarding any petition for which environmental issues could not be resolved between the applicant and staff. This newly added appeal provision, however, does not provide a mechanism to appeal the action -- or a recommendation, rather, of the EAC in the context of an SDP plat review or other application identified under 8.06.03(N). As such, Section 8.06.03(N)(I)ofthe Land Development Code should not be removed, as it provides an appeal mechanism for certain EAC recommendations to the board of zoning appeals. In addition, the LDC amendment request offers no reason for removing Section 8.06.03(N)(I). If you read the stated reason, it reads as follows: To ensure a quorum, obtain EAC input on stormwater and Page 65 October 30, 2006 preserves and insert the appeal process in a more appropriate place in the LDC. This latter part speaks to I believe 8.06.10, not the removal of 8.06.03(N)(1). F or these reasons, we request that these two cleanup items be fixed prior to the approval of any amendment to the LDC section. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Any concern on this? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Sir, don't go away. I don't think that the EAC does SDP's or plats. Was that one of your concerns? MR. LEWIS: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you said your concern -- one of your concerns is about the EAC dealing with plats and SDP's? MR. LEWIS: The EAC would review any land development petition that would require an EIS. So to the extent an EIS is required, currently under 8.06.03(N) all preliminary subdivision plat and/or site plan submissions for development, it reads -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, here it is. Here, I'm seeing it. Preliminary sub -- okay, this is in the case only it applies if you have an EAC. And then they have to approve the plat and the SDP? MR. LEWIS: Well, it's only -- it's a very limited context. But there is a mechanism to appeal in this limited context under 8.06.03(N) the action of the EAC to the board of zoning appeals. And I'm just not sure why it's being removed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then we go to -- there's added language, 8.06.10. And that goes -- doesn't that go back to the Board of Commissioners? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. MR. LEWIS: Yeah, this is a mechanism in which a party can appeal a decision by the County Manager or his designee, and that would then take it to the EAC. Page 66 October 30, 2006 In the limited context in (N)(I), this would be an appeal process of a recommendation or an action by the EAC, which is distinct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so you want -- MR. LEWIS: I'm just not sure I've heard an explanation as to why we're removing 8.06.03(N)(I). I understand the appeal provision under 8.06.10 -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. LEWIS: -- but again, I'm not sure that staff has explained why we're removing 8.06.03(N)(I). COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if we add the EAC within the appeal process, wouldn't that take care of it also? MR. LEWIS: Well, the appeal mechanism that I see is a fairly broad appeal mechanism, which allows the applicant to appeal to the EAC a decision rendered by the County Manager or his designee that the EAC would then make a recommendation which would then come to the Board of County Commissioners for -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the way it usually happens. MR. LEWIS: And that's correct. And this is not a problem. My question, in terms of a cleanup question, is why are we removing 8.06.03(N)(1) which does not involve an appeal to the EAC, it provides an appeal mechanism to the Board of Zoning Appeals -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what you're saying is -- MR. LEWIS: -- in its limited context. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you think it's right to appeal or petition your local elected officials to take action? MR. LEWIS: In this context. Again, it's permitted here, and I'm just wondering why we're removing it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that anybody should be able to petition their elected officials. CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, can you shed some light on this? Page 67 October 30,2006 MR. KLATZKOW: The EAC makes no binding decisions. They just make recommendation to this board. There's really nothing to appeal from. They're just part of the process that filters ultimately to this board. And that's why it was taken out. There's no need to appeal anything. If it's going to get heard from you, it will be heard from you at their recommendations, whatever they're looking at. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, we did -- in planning commission we gave them certain authority on items. MR. KLATZKOW: They look at boat docks. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure what else they look at, actually, Joe. Planning commission. MR. SCHMITT: Planning commission approves boat docks-- well, boat dock extensions and boat houses. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the Board of Commissioners, you're saying, even approves EIS's with the EAC's recommendation? MR. KLATZKOW: No, what I'm saying is that if there's a PUD process that goes through and the EAC happens to see it, you're the board that ultimately says yes or no on it. They're solely there to make recommendations for you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we do -- the final decision on EIS is the Board of County Commissioners then. MR. KLATZKOW: You're the final decision on pretty much everything in this county, sir, other than what you've delegated to other people. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we haven't delegated anything to the EAC. MR. KLATZKOW: Not that I recall. MR. SCHMITT: The EAC does review and approve EIS's. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's your whole point. Page 68 October 30, 2006 MS. MASON: If I could kind of clarify where you might not see an SDP or plat, that's where if an EIS was triggered in the LDC for a straight zoning and they needed -- they qualified, they had to do an EIS, the EAC would review it and could make recommendations. But they are just recommendations. The staff wouldn't have to -- if it was something above and beyond the code requirement and the applicant didn't agree to it, then you could follow that appeals process, that 8.06.10 allows for. And we did want to -- we did say that you have to do what the EAC had recommended. If they weren't willing to do that, they could go back and see you and you would make the final decision. But other than that, for a plat or an SDP that has an EIS, they simply have to follow either their PUD rules or the zoning, what's already been approved in the LDC which you all have control over. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's just what I was going to point out, that the EAC doesn't make any final approvals that we don't review anyway. All they make are recommendations. And so I -- it shouldn't have been in there in the first place. So I think it's okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I do, too. Okay, thank you very much. MR. LEWIS: The first point, did you address that, or is that okay as well? The first point that I read, the criteria. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The criteria I think meets the guidelines that we gave to staff to bring this forward. MR. LEWIS: If staff could just for the record just indicate to the development community the criteria that's established under Section 3.05.07 for allowing treated stormwater into the preserve, I think that would be helpful, because I don't know of a criteria. I think that was the crux of the discussion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, is you follow the same guidelines as South Florida Water Management on stormwater storage and preserves. Page 69 October 30,2006 MS. MASON: This clarification was simply to allow for the review and make sure that the EAC has the ability to evaluate a preserve that's also functioning as a stormwater management aspect of the development. And really, where I could see that there could be a problem with what the District had permitted from our native vegetation requirements would be an area that they don't consider to be a preserve, it's just functioning as stormwater management, but it does also function as our preserve. They don't take into account what vegetation is there and how the additional water would affect it. So it could affect the retained native vegetation on-site from our requirements, but not theirs. And we just need to make sure that when the EAC evaluates an EIS for a project, that they're able to take a look at that whole system and make sure that it's going to function in terms of preservation requirements and not just stormwater, which is -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that answer that question? MR. LEWIS: Commissioners, I don't think so. I mean, I think that's the crux of the issue that we had with the development community. We don't have at this time a criteria that evaluates the flow of stormwater into the preserve. There is no criteria. So I'm not sure what the EAC would be doing under this section in reviewing the stormwater management aspect. I think again this is an example of where we're putting into code very ambiguous language, language that, again, I don't know of a criteria. And I think that's an issue that we're going to examine in the second cycle. But I saw this clearly as a companion item to the stormwater amendment. And I think it's dangerous to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's what was just said. But yet the criteria is silent. So it should be allowed. But this says something different. MR. LEWIS: This allows the EAC to evaluate the criteria for stormwater into preserves. Page 70 October 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there is none. MR. LEWIS: There is none. So I don't know how the EAC can do that job. You're asking the EAC to evaluate criteria. And again, these are very complicated issues. There's been a lot of discussion, and I think we've made a lot of progress. But again, I see this is a companion item to the stormwater that I think is better served. Otherwise, we're going to create some real ambiguity in asking the EAC to do something they're not equipped to do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to remove all that until all that's settled with everybody that has concerns. MS. MASON: If I might, we had -- I know I've talked with Mr. Lewis on the phone, and other staff members have been dealing with him, and we didn't know if there might be something like to -- if you follow with permitted by the South Florida Water Management District are exempted from review by the EAC except to evaluate the functionality of the preserve receiving treated stormwater or something to that effect. We need to be able to ensure that the EAC won't be exempted from any review of a preserve, if it's also functioning as stormwater. That's really what -- MR. LEWIS: That's the crux, again, there's no real criteria. That's fairly fluffy language. MS. MASON: Well, part of their preserve management plan too they do have to be able to provide information that would justify that that amount of stormwater is going to allow for the preserve to function as native -- retained native vegetation and not -- that's where they would justify how it's able to work and function and benefit the preserve, or at least not harm it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I can't do that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe? MR. SCHMITT: We can take the sentence out, and as Mr. -- just so the board and Mr. Lewis understands, as he stated, there is -- there are no criteria right now, and it becomes a matter of debate between Page 71 October 30, 2006 staff and the applicant. And we will continue to move along that same path. The proposal here was in some way, manner or form to allow when there was an impasse, even under today's criteria, to bring it to the EAC as the body that you authorized to at least, I don't know, I guess adjudicate the disagreement. Otherwise, it's coming to the board. Because right now we have no criteria. And we understand in certain instances it makes sense for stormwater to go in preserves. Especially preserves with hydric soils or other type of biological requirements that would validate stormwater preserves. But there is nothing. And that's been the impasse for almost a year in developing the ordinance. We got into methods of treating, and it's -- again, not having ownership in one way or the other here, it just became that groups disagreed. Not staff, but there were different factions within the review community and the applicants in regards to this whole criteria. So right now we don't have anything, and this was an attempt to at least allow the development community to bring a proposal before the EAC. We can eliminate that and we're back to staff and the applicant disagree, and those matters, just so the board understands, they'll come to you for a decision. Because that's the only other alternative I have. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have some real issues with using preserves for stormwater storage. And I know that that's a big issue, especially when it deals with runoff from lands with a high amount of fertilizer content on it. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to this issue, we have only two alternatives: We take it out and essentially say we won't perform any function with respect to reviewing or evaluating the criteria for discharges and preserves. In other words, we just throw up Page 72 October 30,2006 our hands and say we're not going to have any role at all in evaluating that. Or number two, we do have -- we specify that we do have a responsibility for evaluating criteria for discharge into preserves, and we'll do it to the best of our ability. And if somebody disagrees with us, then the opposing arguments and all the data will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners and then we can weigh the evidence and make a decision. I come down on the side of having greater control rather than throwing up our hands and saying we don't have any control. I think it will also move along a little more rapidly the mutual effort to develop the criteria if we just discharge it completely and we're not going to get involved in it. Then I don't think anything will ever get done with it. So I would suggest we leave it in and then we can continue to debate the criteria. And I think out of the process will come a meeting of the minds and probably better management of some of the preserves. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with Commissioner Coyle. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's my understanding it always was allowed in preserves until the Kraft project came up. And then all of a sudden it's not allowed. And what was proposed that was withdrawn was to regulate stormwater within preserves. And I'm fine with that, as long as, you know, we get most of the community to agree to it. But to say that we shouldn't have stormwater in preserves, it actually is creating sprawl, urban sprawl, and eating up land. You know, as I look at lands in Golden Gate Estates where I live is -- there is stormwater that sits there for many, many months, in what you would think would be uplands all slash pines. Some of it even with Palmetto. So we allow it today. Am I wrong? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, the project you brought up was Page 73 October 30, 2006 really a recreated strata. That kind of was different. There were other projects that tried to use preserves in a dual use. Northbrook PUD being one, where the preserves were also trying to be used for water management retention/detention areas. The Kraft project was different because they recreated preserve. But that's probably the most memorable, but it really is a little bit different. There were -- there are -- to answer your -- your other question where you said it was always allowed, it really was never allowed holistically or just unmanaged. Part of it -- it is a design element, part of the design and the plan review process. Susan, I don't know if you want to highlight in areas where we disagree or the EAC -- your EAC has extremely competent and talented folks who can have the technical background to deal with some of this. I don't know if I answered your question, that's -- again, I MS. MASON: The way the Land Development Code is and the way it was applied is it was not allowed in upland preserves, it was allowed as basically what the South Florida Water Management District would allow in a preserve area. And we just -- we do need to evaluate some of these areas that are not claimed as jurisdictional wetlands but might be able to handle some water, too. And that's where the whole discussion got on with environmental groups on the outside, the developers and staff trying to find a balance between a functioning preserve and yet letting them use it for this point as either a benefit or at least doesn't harm the existing vegetation. But it was never allowed or permitted just by right. And it did have more to do with these -- a lot of them are infill projects where they're really small parcels of land and they're trying to fit a whole bunch of stuff on one small parcel and trying to use both as much as possible. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the Kraft project in my Page 74 October 30, 2006 opinion was just a case where environmental policy went wild in an area where it didn't make sense. And I hope we will always be able to make the distinction between something like that and something like a 500-acre development. So I too hope that the Kraft project was one of those one-time situation that won't be repeated. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that was when the discussion came up about using water in uplands. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's why we have two alternate members. So I think there is a correlation between the Kraft projects and what we have in front of us. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there might be. And certainly evaluating the impact of water discharges into wetland preserves is an important thing. But if our data indicates that there's no damage being caused by it, then we should be able to make an appropriate decision based on that. MR. SCHMITT: That's exactly correct. The primary issue here was uplands and dealing with gopher tortoises and all the other impacts. Certainly there are preserves, cypress areas or others, that certainly should have water to remain or to be in those preserves in order to maintain an ecological balance of those preserves. MR. LEWIS: Commissioners, if I may-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we've heard about enough on this. I think we'd like to move on, okay? I think we've got three nods on this to proceed. Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, for clarification, are we going to leave in the added next on Page 142, number two? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MS. FABACHER: Okay, thank you. Okay, the next amendment would be on the next page of the summary sheet, Page W. And it's Section 10.02.02, submittal Page 75 October 30, 2006 requirements for all applications. It's on Page 145 in your green book. And under certain circumstances what the amendment proposes to do is to eliminate the requirement for an EIS statement for conventional zoning that doesn't require an SDP plan. So if you have any questions on that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: We don't have any. MS. FABACHER: Okay, we do have a speaker again. Mr. Lewis. MR. LEWIS: Good morning, Commissioners. Doug Lewis with Roetzel and Andress, representing Bonita Bay Group on the proposed amendment to Section 10.02.02(A)(2). Again, like the prior amendment, I think we're looking at enacting code that is ambiguous and can create real difficulties in terms of interpreting for the development community and for staff. Here we've -- staff seeks to amend 10.02.02 to require a new staff approved environmental impact statement where a prior EIS was prepared and approved by staff and preserve areas within the development were quote, unquote previously approved. The term previously approved as used in Section 10.02.02 is not defined, it's ambiguous and it's subject to misinterpretation. Are the preserve areas identified in the PUD master plan preserves that we would deem previously approved? Are the preserves identified in an approved EIS or a site development plan or plat such preserves that we would deem previously approved? As drafted, it's uncertain under what circumstances staffwill determine the preserve areas have not been previously approved and require a new EIS. Further, it's unclear from looking at the proposed ordinance the reason for the change. Why are we making this change? If you look at the text or the -- if you look for the rationale for the amendment Page 76 October 30,2006 under reason, it says to eliminate the need for an EIS for projects where it's more appropriate to postpone the assessment to a later process. Number two, Policy 10.06.03, the conservation and coastal management element requires shoreline projects where an EIS is required to provide an analysis demonstrating the project will remain fully functional for its intended use after a six-inch rise in sea level. And number three, to allow exemptions for single-family homes. I don't see in the rationale why we're adding 10.02.02(A)(2)(D)(5) which would subject a project to an EIS where an EIS was previously prepared and approved and where the preserve areas were not previously approved. I'm not sure why we're doing that. I don't see a rationale either. The LDC change creates ambiguity and could unnecessarily increase costs by requiring a new EIS where it was not previously required. It can delay project approvals by subjecting previously exempt land petitions to EAC review. Pursuant to 8.06.03 of the LDC, the EAC reviews all land development petitions that require an environmental impact statement. Here I'm not sure what's broken, why we're doing this. And for these reasons we request that 10.02(A)(2)(D)(5) be stricken. MR. SCHMITT: We have -- we've been talking with Mr. Lewis. And up on your visualizer is some verbiage to try and clarify this. Again, what we're trying to do is eliminate some of this repetitive resubmittals and the mandate for EIS's. And I thought that he had already seen this. Susan, I don't know if you can explain. MS. MASON: I did send this to Mr. Lewis over the weekend, I think in an e-mail. He got it on Friday. And I know he expressed some concerns that it really didn't go where he was concerned about adding the required amount. That was to clarify that if in a PUD they came up with their 75 percent that we wouldn't require an EIS for the additional 25 percent, we would just evaluate that on a needed Page 77 October 30, 2006 information that was required when they came in for whether it was a plat or an SDP, such as current wildlife surveys, wetland lines, that type of information. This is really to clarify on some older projects where there might have been a master plan as part of a PUD and there -- they don't designate preserves at all on there. We need to make sure that even if the EIS was less than five years old, that they'd still update their EIS, their original one, to show that the preserve selection they've made in compliance with the Growth Management Plan, and LDC requirements as that may be for that proj ect. This will not result in us getting anymore EIS's or taking anymore projects with EIS's to the Environmental Advisory Council. There's a lot of work and review time involved with an EIS, and we're certainly not out to try to get anymore information, or unnecessary information, just what we need to make that. And this is really to make sure if a master plan has been approved that does not show preserves, that we have the information to be able to ensure that those preserves comply with the Growth Management Plan. And in regards to what approves means, it is not listed because it varies, depending on the type of development it is. If it's a PUD master plan, that would be the approval when it goes to the EAC and then ultimately to you. If it's a plat or an SDP, that's that approval on a straight rezone type of situation. But the various approvals are not -- staff does not have any different definition of approval. It's simply whatever mechanism is described in the code that allows a development to go forward, that's the approval that this is referring to. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And DSAC recommended this, right, the language that we have today? MS. MASON: I'm not sure. I didn't attend that meeting. MS. FABACHER: Yes, DSAC recommended it 8-1, with the addition of a rezone to other than a PUD. But I think staff declined to Page 78 October 30,2006 put that language in. MS. MASON: That's regarding the second, the H, small letter H on Page 149, the conventional rezone. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And then it was unanimously approved by the planning commission. MS. FABACHER: Yes. MR. LEWIS: Commissioners, if I may, in response to address a question. The master plan in a PUD is not approved, it's identified. Again, I think we need to be very careful. We're drafting language that is inaccurate and ambiguous. And the requirement for -- certainly master plans are approved, but the native preserves need to be identified on a PUD master plan. And so I'm not sure when we're requiring an EIS for a preserve area that was not previously approved, are we talking about a preserve area that was not previously identified on a master plan? What about the remaining 25 percent that needs to be approved? When does that occur? What is sufficient to demonstrate that that's been identified such that we would be exempt from the EIS requirement? Again, this is very ambiguous language. I think you need to take a look at that. I'm not sure how it works and when an EIS would be required. CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, can you give us some guidance? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I mean, there should never be a rule without a reason. If you concur with the reasons that staff just gave you, you should go with the rule. If you don't concur that we have a problem or with the reasoning, then there shouldn't be a rule. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you very much. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's too fuzzy for me. Reason. Under the reason, 145, number three, to allow exemptions to Page 79 October 30,2006 single-family home. Tell me where the added language allows for the exemption of single- family home. MS. MASON: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question. MR. SCHMITT: Exemption ofEIS's for single-family homes. MS. MASON: That is covered under seven in the exemptions, A. Page 148, the exemptions as page -- excuse me, Section 4.02.14(H). That exemption is from the public hearing for -- for the EIS's with -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, single-family homes has always been exempt. MS. MASON: Right, right. Except for when they have an ST or an area of critical state concern overlay, in some cases they do -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we're not changing that. MS. MASON: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the statement of the reason to allow exemptions of single-family homes, that's always been allowed. MS. MASON: Well, it wasn't clear. And-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why-- MS. MASON: The new section, the 4.02.14(1) for exotic removal and prescribed berms, and then you can see right underneath that, B, single-family or duplex uses. They took out also single-family or duplex use. It's just a clarification, because they had it in there twice, I guess. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's see, you've got exemptions, number seven. You go to B. Your strike-through, it says also single-family or duplex uses. MS. MASON: Right. But it's listed right before that. It almost appears to be a typographical error, because it says B, single-family or duplex uses. Also, single-family or duplex used on a single lot or parcel. So this just cleans it up to say single-family or duplex uses on a single lot or parcel. So it's still an exemption. Page 80 October 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, but what you're saying in your reasoning, it says to allow exemptions which already existed. It's a little bit fuzzy for me. I mean, I think all this that needs to be dealt with, with all those other issues, and come back through the advisory boards, the board of commissioners for their adoption. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't really find anything fuzzy about saying if an EIS is more than five years old you have to have a new one or an updated one. And if the required amount of preserve area was not previously approved you've got to have an EIS. You know, that's fairly clear to me. I don't see any problem with that. Either you've got the required amount of reserve area or you don't. If there is an issue with respect to timing, and some of it is going to be identified at one point in time, some of it's going to be identified at another point in time, that can be stipulated. So I don't see any problem that would occur here except when there's somebody who wants to get away with not designating the required amount of reserve area or who wants to try to deal with an old EIS. And I don't see anything ambiguous about it. MR. LEWIS: Staff indicated the reason for this is there are certain PUD's that do not have master plans that identify the preserve. And I think if that's the issue, we're not objecting to requiring an EIS where the preserves were not identified in a PUD. I think that's -- but again, we're talking about previous -- does that mean put in conservation easement? What does previously approve mean? And why are we now -- we already require an EIS over five years old where there's a new listed species that's been identified on the site where there's greater impacts for jurisdictional wetlands, where there's greater impacts to preserve areas. Why are we doing this? And again, it's very -- looking at the language, it very imprecise. And I'm not sure what they're -- and in asking staff, when I asked in communications with staff, my understanding is that -- that a master Page 81 October 30, 2006 plan -- identification in a master plan preserves would be sufficient, would not require an EIS. Ifpreserves were identified in an SDP or a plat, that would also meet this previously approved language. But again, I'm not sure what this means here. MS. MASON: Joe Schmitt just put up a potential proposal for a change in language. And item five there, to change it from previously -- not previously approved to not previously identified. If that is his concern. But we are not talking about requiring conservation easements or anything like that at a rezone level. That always comes later with a land development order that actually allows the work to be done on the site. And that's even -- the actual recording of that is actually stipulated after the plan approval. MR. SCHMITT: Then I would have to leave in that other line, because if you do an EIS and then you decide to make changes in your preserve plan that you now want to include areas that were not previously part maybe of the PUD or whatever, you may trigger a new EIS. You can -- there are criteria for exemption as well to exempt from having to resubmit an EIS. But I think this may add a little more flexibility that you're looking for. MR. LEWIS: Where exactly in the process is the balance of25 percent identified? MR. SCHMITT: The 25 -- you identify now 75 percent in your master plan. And the subsequent 25 percent is identified at the first submittal of plan or plat associated with that PUD. MR. LEWIS: For off-site preserves outside of that SDP boundary, plat boundary? MR. SCHMITT: It is required to identify it for the PUD. MR. LEWIS: But what document does that identification occur? MR. SCHMITT: At submittal of plan or plat. The first development order we need to know the rest of the preserves in order to preclude what has happened in many a projects here recently where Page 82 October 30, 2006 it's kind of the tiering of the last developed lot ends up absorbing all of that preserve. MR. LEWIS: So that's helpful. So if the applicant were to identify that for preserve areas, a balance outside the SDP or plat, that would be sufficient. MR. SCHMITT: And that's the ordinance we debated the other day where we were going to talk to 95 and we've agreed to leave it at 75. MR. LEWIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: County Attorney, can you shed some light on this? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what to say. DSAC understood it, planning commission understood it, staff understands it. I'm not sure that -- I'm not sure what the reasoning is, you know, for this -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Why don't we just leave it as such. MR. KLATZKOW: That would be fine. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this language clarifies it even further. MR. SCHMITT: I think this clarifies it. And really to -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just don't want to change the meaning of what we -- the sentence that we have in here. MS. MASON: Yeah, this was the first I heard of it. And I guess I do have a little concerns. I haven't had time to really digest it, but that is that only identified by the applicant but not accepted or approved by the county or the EAC. That's where I just kind of wonder if they would -- there be debate in the future if it was only identified. Well, they identified it but it's not consistent with Growth Management Plan, does that mean that this is going to force us to accept something, versus approved as part of the EAR process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I suggest we go ahead and accept it as written in our booklets. Page 83 October 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we've got three nods. Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got to have four. MS. MASON: Excuse me, could I ask for a clarification on that? Did you want it as in your booklets or with the additional, the required amount of preserve areas, like was shown on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN HALAS: As it was written in the book here. MS. MASON: In the book. You're happy with the book. Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what our advisory boards -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are for. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- have told us, and they've reviewed it. And it's as clear as anything else we've got in the LDC, which is not saying a hell of a lot. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got four nods? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about going for lunch. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, why don't we break for lunch and report back here at 1: 00. We'll take an hour break. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sixty-one minutes? (Lunch recess.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're back from noon recess, and we're continuing on with the Land Development Code amendment cycle number one. And would you give us assistance, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Okay. Thank you. Weare on Page W of the summary sheets, the spreadsheet, and we're looking at the whole list of abbreviations in Section 1.08.01. And that's on Page 151 of the green book. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just ask a question? MS. FABACHER: Sure. Page 84 October 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we allowed to meet when there aren't four of us here because we're on LDC. MR. KLATZKOW: You're not allowed to vote, but we're not voting anyway. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm hoping that the other two commissioners will be joining us. Okay. MS. FABACHER: Any questions on the abbreviations? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions with regards to abbreviations? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I didn't have any. We'll give Commissioner Coy Ie time to -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No questions on abbreviations. I think the abbreviations are just wonderful. I wish you would have abbreviated this whole thing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you wouldn't have come this morning, we could have. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, continue on. Next one we have is going to be on Page X of your summary sheets, and it's Section 1.08.02, definitions, and it's on Page 155 in your green book. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: And it's actually removing operational provisions out of a definition and placing them in the body of the regulations. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: And also -- I was going to say, and also, it's making some new regulations for multi-story buildings. Sorry, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: New regulations for multi-story buildings? MS. FABACHER: Yes, ma'am. Page 85 October 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that the Bayshore? MS. FABACHER: No, uh-uh. It's county-wide. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. With regard to signs. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MS. FABACHER: Right, I'm sorry, yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other -- everybody satisfied? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ready to roll. MS. FABACHER: I'm still on sheet X in Section 2.03.01, residential zoning districts, and 2.04.03. And that's on Page 159 of the green book. The GMP provides locational criteria for conditional uses. So we're just adding that to the chart -- I mean, to the table. Table 2(A), you can see the footnote A for Estates zoned within Golden Gate Estates subdivision, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan restricts the location of conditional uses. And on Page 160 it says the same thing in the type. And then Section A there, it had the A land use, and it wasn't very clear, so they made it agricultural rural. Any questions on that? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do we have any questions from our fellow commissioners? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, not me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay, now we have the Bayshore and Gateway Triangle mixed use district amendments. And they begin on CHAIRMAN HALAS: 163. MS. FABACHER: -- Page 163 and go through 177. And then on 177 and they -- let's see where they end up. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? MS. FABACHER: End up on 182. Any questions? We do have some map changes. Page 86 October 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just have one question, and that's whether the CCPC recommendation about Subsection 2.03.07(1)(5) and (N)(5) were included in the change before us. MS. FABACHER: Sir, they reheard those. I'm sorry I didn't get that in there, but they reheard them and approved them. And that's what we heard this morning, just that little ability to get administrative deviations from the rules when one size doesn't fit all. But yeah, the planning commission -- my mistake for not including that, Commissioner, on your chart. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So they approved that? MS. FABACHER: Yes, they did. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I don't have a problem with either one of them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We got the nod from David, too, right? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further discussion on this? MS. FABACHER: You have any questions about the map changes? The only thing is that when the consultant did the maps -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He's shaking his head no. MR. JACKSON: I just wanted you also to confirm that not approving what's here but also on the chart for the map changes, which were administrative errors that were caught, nomenclature. One area said to be C-4 when it was really C-3, is to correct it with the underlining maps with the -- MS. FABACHER: The official zoning atlas. MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. I think that clarified everything. MS. FABACHER: Okay, now I've gone to Page Z of the summary sheets. And I'm going to be on Page 183 of the green book. COMMISSIONER FIALA: 177 was okay, too, right, with the triangle? Page 87 October 30, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Right. Yes, ma'am. Yeah, that's what I had said, through 182 were those changes. So on Page 183 is the Growth Management Plan was amended in 2004 to increase the size -- we're on Page 183 -- to increase the size of the Santa Barbara commercial overlay district. And somehow it didn't get changed in the Land Development Code, the map. So you can see that they moved over another block and we're taking the old map out and putting the new map in. Any questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any discussion? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: All right, next, I'm still on Page Z and I'm doing Section 4.06.05, general landscaping requirements. And this basically started out as a scrivener's error which said that the palm trees should be 30 inches apart instead of 30 feet, which we're correcting that. I'm available to answer any questions, if you have them. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think everything's okay. MR. McNALL: Everything's okay? All right. Glad to hear that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did you have a question, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I looked at the header wrong. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: All right, we're on Page AA of the summary sheets and we're on Page 191 in the green book, and it's Section 4.06.05(N), general landscaping requirement. And it's just simply to relocate the landscaping requirements and put them in with the rest of the landscaping requirements. They was someplace else in the code. So we haven't changed them at all, we're just moving them. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Page 88 October 30, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Okay, then the next-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any discussion? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Sorry. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead. MS. FABACHER: Next one is continuing on Page AA of the summary sheet, and Page 193 in your green book. And this includes Sections 4.07.04, 5.06.02, 5.06.04, 5.06.06, 10.02.03, and says, eliminates references to a unified sign plan, which apparently we've outgrown. And Diana is here, if you have some questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Not hearing any from my fellow commissioners, move on. Thank you. MS. FABACHER: And the next one is going to be on summary sheet BB. And again, it's signage. And it's Sections 5.06.02, 5.06.03. And it's in Page 201 of the green book. And it's changing the size of multi-family residential address numbers from eight inches to six inches. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What happens with the six-inch numbers? No, the eight-inch numbers. We're going smaller. MS. FABACHER: I think Diana can explain it. MS. COMP AGNONE: Diana Compagnone for the record. What we found out, when they wrote the code for the eight-inch numbers, they did it across the board for residential and commercial. And on some of the smaller signs for the residential, they're only allowed if they do two signs 32 square feet. So when you put eight-inch numbers on some of the signs -- a lot of the signs actually -- it overwhelms the whole sign. So I did get together with the fire department plan review in our building and their code requires a minimum of six, and they did not Page 89 October 30, 2006 have a problem with just for the residential going down to six -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're recognizing this is a minimum standard, right? MS. COMP AGNONE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So nothing happens with the eight inches. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I was just wondering, probably I shouldn't even bother anybody with this, but how come there are so many commercial buildings and retail buildings that didn't have an address on them? You would think everybody would want to know where they are, but they do not put that in there. And I thought it was a requirement. Is it just because they're grandfathered into the old way of doing things? MS. COMPAGNONE: It could be they're grandfathered in. The new ones, unless there is a problem with the addressing grid, some of them might be addressed off of a back street or on two streets. But wherever the new signs are going, we do make sure that they have the eight inches now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay, the next one on the same sheet, BB, is Section 5.06.04, sign standards for specific situations. It's on Page 203 in your green book. And Diana has added requirements for signs displayed on multi-story buildings. And also restricting the distance signs may project from the mansard roof facades. That's the one that we took out of the definition. We're putting that back in. Any questions on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Not hearing any -- MS. FABACHER: Okay. All right. Diane, you've got a lot in Page 90 October 30, 2006 here. We're on Page CC. Section 5.06.04, on Page 207 of the green book. I'm sorry, excuse me, we did that one already. Okay, excuse me. The next one then on CC. Section 5.06.04, sign standards for specific situations. It's on Page 209 in your book. And I think Diana just made it more specific about where they measured the height of the menu board from. Not the street but right adjacent to the board for drive-throughs. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? (N 0 response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS : You can proceed on it. MS. FABACHER: No, she's got one more. On Page DD of the summary sheet, Section 5.06.04, sign standard for specific situations, Page 211 in the green book. Changes citation for requirements for window signs at automobile stations. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay, now she's done. Thank you, Diana. All right, Commissioners, we're on summary sheet DD and we're doing Section 9.04.04, specific requirements for after-the-fact encroachments. And this has a kind of history about it. I think you recall the Dowdy variance -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MS. FABACHER: -- for an encroachment? And at the time the county attorney's office rendered the opinion that the language was intended to discriminate for after-the-fact encroachments, granting an administrative deviation. It discriminated between principal and accessory structures. And it was always the intent of the planning commission that clarifies their intent and the staff that it applies to both accessories and Page 91 October 30, 2006 principal buildings. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, that pretty much ends it. We've got a couple of omissions here. These were provisions that were in the code. In the recodification process, fell out the code that staff has abided by anyway that we're putting back into the code. There's no changes made on any of these. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The last four, you mean? MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah. They were just inadvertent omissions when we recodified. We find them every now and then when we're looking. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any discussion or any new business you want to discuss? If not -- MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, I'd like to announce that I believe we've scheduled the -- this is the last meeting. We finished the first public hearing of all of these LDC amendments for the first time and that we've scheduled the first meeting for the second public hearing for December 7th at 5:00. CHAIRMAN HALAS: December 7th. MS. FABACHER: At 5:00, subject to your-- MR. KLATZKOW: 5:05. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Although Joe Schmitt isn't here, and I don't think we can talk about it, he was in my office recently and he was talking about one of those that we dropped that we didn't want to talk about anymore about the preserve on a property 75 percent and over in one area and so forth. And -- but it was never really explained to us at that meeting or beforehand what the objective really was, being that on a large piece of property the developer would Page 92 October 30, 2006 put all the preserve in one area and -- MR. KLATZKOW: I'll give you the history of that, Commissioner. This has to do with -- actually there's an elementary school site near Golden Gate High School. There's a large PUD. What happened was Noah's Landing came in, and they did their site development plan. And on their site development plan the environmental staff divvied up the rest of the preserves. Unfortunately that rendered the school property unbuildable. So the school property said wait a second, this isn't fair that you're putting all the preserves on this piece of the PUD when we weren't even a part of the process. And the idea was okay, instead of doing 75 percent of the preserves initially, we'll make them identify 95 percent of the preserves. The development community objected to that because it's a significant expense for them to get people out there to figure out what the preserves should be. The development community said to staff, why don't you just, when you're doing these things, get everybody in the same room rather than just dealing with one of the parties. And that's pretty much probably where we're going to be headed now. So I don't think it's going to be an ongoing issue. If it is an ongoing issue again, we'll bring it back. But it had to do with the Noah's Landing Elementary school site. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we don't need tomorrow for overflow? CHAIRMAN HALAS: We don't need tomorrow for overflow. Unless you want to come in. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I have your proxy? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Turn that meeting over to him and let him come in tomorrow. Page 93 October 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, if there's no further business, we are adjourned. Thank you very much for your time. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:18 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL. ~~ FRANK HALAS, Chairman ;{';-;r ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BRQCK, CLERK ~\ :<0, ~~t~ ^ . ~ k '~as.to~ . 11onlt~ 0,,1- These minutes approved by the Board on presented L~ or as corrected IJ /Z9;JZtDCQ r f , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 94