Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/07/2006 S (LDC Amendments) December 7, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 7, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION, LDC Amendments, in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas Jim Coletta Fred W. Coyle Donna Fiala Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: JeffKlatzkow, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ LDC AGENDA December 7, 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 December 7, 2006 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE A V AILABLE 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 December 7, 2006 December 7,2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the Land Development Code Amendments for 2006, Cycle Number 1. And this evening we've got a large agenda. Our game plan is that we're going to run until nine o'clock, and then this is scheduled to continue on the 14th of December. So we will take as many of the items as we can till nine o'clock tonight, and then we will adjourn and then reconvene on December the 14th at 5:05. At this time if anyone has a cell phone or pager, if you'd be so kind as to turn it off. And also, before we rise to say the Pledge of Allegiance, if you'd just keep the thoughts and memories of the people who lost their lives on December 7th, 1941; it's the 65th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. So at this, we'll all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I believe that I'll turn this over to Catherine. Catherine, I think we're going to take this in regards to the order of -- I believe you've got a time certain, is that correct, 5:05? MS. FABACHER: Exactly, for the essential services. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: So I think we have -- good evening, Commissioners. This is the first meeting of our second hearing or second public hearing, our second reading, as Jeff calls it. I know you said that, but I've got to make sure, okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And one other question. This has been properly advertised? MS. FABACHER: Yes, it has. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, very good. MS. FABACHER: All right. The first one is going to be on page A of your summary sheets, and you'll see that I had given you an extra summary sheet so you didn't have to flip around so much in your book, so you could just open your book -- Page 2 December 7,2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: -- to the regular -- well, it's Joe's idea. We're on page A of the summary sheet. Weare going to discuss section 2.01.03, essential services. And our first speaker is going to be Chief Page. And this is on page 1 in your book. CHIEF PAGE: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Jeff Page with Emergency Medical Services. I wanted to review this map that we utilize within EMS, and I'm going to be talking about this area right in here as an example. As you know, EMS and fire is currently a permitted use in commercial, industrial and agricultural zoned areas. The problem that we're having is, is that the calls are originating in areas where we have to apply for conditional use. This area right in here, that's Logan and Vanderbilt. In 2004 transportation had purchased this property. After they designated their future use, we purchased it in March of this year. As you can see, this area all through here is an area that we need to address. There are no commercial facilities in that area that we can purchase. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you tell me what the little yellow things are? CHIEF PAGE: Those are dots in excess of 10 minutes, or they're actually GIS coordinates. So all of those yellow areas are response times that are in excess of 10 minutes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. They're actually responses that you made and took longer than 10 minutes to get there? CHIEF PAGE: Last fiscal year, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHIEF PAGE: Sorry. This other picture here is the actual site. In this area here, there used to be a house that was there. Transportation had bought it for the Vanderbilt Beach roadway widening project. It left 2.4 acres that we were able to purchase. So Page 3 December 7,2006 this is an area that we have to apply through the permitting process. The cost of hiring a civil engineer and a firm to take that through the conditional use process, that cost alone is anywhere from 50- to $100,000. The time involved, from what facilities has been able to provide us who do our buildings, is anywhere from nine months to 12 months. So what we're asking today is that you consider amending this particular land code to allow essential services to come through there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: For this particular property? CHIEF PAGE: No, ma'am. This was just used as an example. This will be coming through the conditional use process as it is right now. But this was just an example of what we're faced with and some of the delays we're talking about. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may. You said that it would cost between 50- and $100,000 for the engineer and you said the civil process -- if we went through the process as it is now? In other words, you do not have to spend that money if you don't go through that process and the way we're proposing -- it's being proposed today for us to do it? CHIEF PAGE: That's correct. That 50- to 100,000 would be saved because we would not have to go through the conditional use process. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that -- but I mean, you mentioned an engineer. That's the part that confused me. CHIEF PAGE: That's what I'm talking about. That conditional use process of taking it through the permitting, that's what facilities provided us. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, my concern is, where is the money spent if it's for a conditional -- in this case versus if you just come before the board and want to know if you can get this piece of Page 4 December 7, 2006 property rezoned? CHIEF PAGE: I'm not sure that I understand your question, but I think what -- the delays involved in having to go through the conditional use permit would not be required. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What delays would you run into? What -- you would have to still address South Florida Water Management if there were wetlands, or the Corps of Engineers, right? CHIEF PAGE: That's possibly correct. I'm sure -- actually we do have an attorney here that's representing North Naples and East Naples in this matter, and she's more involved in the technical aspects. I'd be glad to turn it over to her to answer those questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I'm trying to figure out where the cost is. You'd still have to have an engineer whether you went through a conditional use or not to figure out what it's going to take to go through the other avenues of getting permits, whether it's through South Florida Water Management or the Corps of Engineers or if you come through the county here; am I right? There's going to be time involved in those two agencies. They're not going to give you conditional use; is that correct, the other two agencies? CHIEF PAGE: Well, if it's a condition of right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: But you still have to abide by whatever -- by what lands or anything else, don't you? CHIEF PAGE: That would be approved. Commissioner, if you would, let me bring Laura up. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. MS. DONALDSON: Hi, Commissioners, Laura Donaldson here on behalf of the North Naples Fire Control District and East Naples Fire Control District. I'm their special counsel on the issues such as this. You're correct, Commissioner, it's two separate processes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: This does not take us out of any permitting Page 5 December 7, 2006 process whatsoever. What -- the cost savings is a result of one, the -- you have a decreased time, so you avoid the increased construction costs. You also avoid the potential of having to continuously redesign your facility based on staff concerns; whereas, this you still have to go through the -- you have to go through all permitting requirements, but there's the difference between the permitting and actual -- like the buffering and the looking at it. Because currently if we don't have to go through -- let's say it's a commercial piece of property . We can look at the code, we know what landscaping has to go in, we know what setbacks has to go in. If we go through the conditional use process, we don't know what those requirements are going to be. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, you just brought up something that just kind of triggered me. And you said that there may be a possibility that we may have to meet some architectural requirements, and that may be because of -- the surrounding neighborhood may require some architectural enhancements. What would you do in a case of that nature? MS. DONALDSON: What we believe is under the LDC requirement on the neighborhood information meeting -- the difference from now is, when we have to do -- we go through the conditional use process. You have a neighborhood information meeting. It's very far into the process. You have a site plan, you know what your building's going to look (sic). What we've proposed in this proposal is at that neighborhood information meeting, which is once the conceptual plan -- so you may just have -- this is where the building's going, we think it's going to look like this, but you haven't spent the cost to have it architecturally designed to look like that. We get public input well before we ever submit anything to the county. And so I think the neighborhood concerns are addressed. If anything, they're addressed way at the front end of it, not midway Page 6 December 7,2006 through the process, which is more expensive. But we have a plan that's been submitted and we have to then make changes. You know, that's more engineers, that's more architects that we're going to have to pay; whereas, if we do it on the conceptual plan, you know, time period, that is -- I mean, we believe that's a cost savings. CHAIRMAN HALAS: You lost me. I hate to say it, you've lost me -- MS. DONALDSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- because --let's try to start all over again just for a second. If you've got a piece of property and you want to make this a conditional use item, how are you -- how are the people going to have an input in regards to how they want this building to look in regards to how it is going to fit in their particular neighborhood? MS. DONALDSON: Before I answer your question, can I ask, do you mean under the current system or under what we're proposing? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Under what you're proposing. MS. DONALDSON: Under what we're proposing, the -- for example, the fire district would buy a piece of property, so we'd have the property . We would develop a conceptual plan. We would take that conceptual plan to a neighborhood information meeting -- and there's all these requirements in regards to that -- and we would take public input at that meeting. So well before we spend money on major plans, it's very early on. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to comment. I thought under this plan they don't ever have to have a neighborhood meeting; is that correct? MS. DONALDSON: Oh, no, it is -- and if you want, I can go through all the requirements that we have to go through, if you'll allow me the time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: My understanding is neighborhood meetings wouldn't really mean a whole heck of a lot, that they would Page 7 December 7, 2006 -- well, I'll let you explain. Who was next here, Commissioner Henning or Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Susan, help me out here. Let's say that I had a three-acre square site and I -- the fire station is proposing to put the fire station in back of the property but the driveway's up in the front of the property. What would the buffering requirement for the drive -- would there be a buffering requirement for the driveway, you know, a wall? Or would they have a menu of choices to the -- if they choose to put the driveway next to the neighbor, neighboring property? MS. ISTENES: For the record, Susan Murray Istenes, Zoning Director. I want to make sure I'm understanding your question. Are you trying to determine what the buffering requirements would be with respect to the location of a driveway, per se? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Because I think the buffering requirements are basically based upon the fire station, what's written here today. MS. ISTENES: Well, yeah. And I've got Mike Sawyer in the office -- or in the room -- still back at the office -- who can address that. But let me -- while he's coming up, let me mention one thing. Currently if a conditional use is required and you go through the process and it is approved with additional buffering requirements, that could be the case. I guess the point I'm trying to make is, we have minimum standards. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. ISTENES: But often buffering is enhanced or changed somehow through a conditional use process because it obviously makes things in some cases more compatible with each other. But as far as the minimum standards go -- Page 8 December 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: In what the language is in here today. MS. DONALDSON: Can I make a comment on that? In response to your question, we could put the driveway along the property line. The proposal requires a 30-foot setback that's landscaped. So obviously we can't put a driveway. It has to be landscaped. The only change to that is we potentially -- 20 feet in we could put some water structures for water management issues. What I have up here is -- I did not do this. I'm not technical enough. It's kind of a proposed site where you could see the facility is in the middle of the piece of property. We've got the buffering, because the buffering's required on all the sides and the rear of the property. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's not 30 foot? MS. DONALDSON: Yeah, it's required. We don't meet the conditions unless it's 30 feet of buffering. And then I show -- in the one corner you could see where it's a-- 20- foot from the property line. There are trees. There's a hedge. The fence is actually 20 feet in. And then you can put trees. But then from the fence to the facility, there's still 10 feet that you can't put a parking lot or a driveway. That was one of the concerns that the staff brought up. And, you know, you're just going to stick all your parking along the residential side and they're going to be harmed. But it might be helpful if I go through all the requirements that we have to go through and potentially, if the board will allow me, to answer, you know, then we have the questions following that, because I tried to make it simplified, because I know there's a lot of requirements. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: Put it in the-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what I read here, you have Page 9 December 7,2006 a menu that you can choose from as far as buffering. MS. DONALDSON: There is a menu of planting options. And there's a menu of what type of fence, but the location -- well, except for if you do the berm, it's not a fence. It's a berm. But it is at 20 feet In. MS. ISTENES: And that's what's proposed in their text. That's not existing minimum standards to the degree that she's talking about now. I just want to make sure we're not talking apples and oranges. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: We basically -- my understanding, a lot of this was based on gas stations' buffering, which my understanding is one of the most intensive and detailed amount of requirements. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm looking at what we have -- what we potentially might adopt, not what's being proposed today. MS. DONALDSON : Well, what I've done basically is -- is I've broken it down into each type of requirement, and then when you see at the end, you'll see, wow, this is a lot of requirements. The first is the site requirement. It has to be on an arterial collector road or adjacent to a site. Now, this map shows you all the roads that would qualify under this requirement, so that's the first requirement you have to meet. If you don't meet this requirement, if you're not on one of those roads that are highlighted, you don't even qualify for the section of your conditional use unless, of course, you're agricultural, industrial or commercial. You know, this is set today. For you to change this -- it's not something that would be easily changed. It's in the compo plan. You'd have to do a compo plan amendment, so it's not like a free-for-all, all of a sudden you pass this and all of the roads are going to be designated arterial collector. I mean, this is something that, you know, the comprehensive amendment takes care of. Page 10 December 7, 2006 The next is, you know, parking has to be pursuant to the LDC, so that's just site alone. The next set of requirements are building requirements. One, it has to be a public building. Two, it can't be more than 12,000 square feet, can't be higher than 35 feet, limited office space, not an administrative facility, not an outdoor training tower -- not include an outdoor training tower, can't exceed limits of noise control, and has to be located at least 30 feet from the sides and the rear of the property. So that's just your site. Now, the next requirements are buffering. As you can see, there's a lot of buffering requirements along the right-of-way. So the front of the property is pursuant to the LDC, which you have to do now. The landscaping on the side and the rear, 30 feet -- that's what's proposed -- with a minimum six-feet high opaque screen located at least 20 feet from the property line, and then yes, there are three options, and those include not only the fence or a screen, but also hedges, except for the undulating earth and berm, which is kind of like when you go like this (indicating) and it's wider. The next requirement for buffering are trees, and we can't plant palm trees. We have to put native trees that are 14 feet high with a six - foot spread. Once again, there are three options. You know, one is, if there's already existing tree cover, you know, we don't have to tear it down. You know, pull them all out, kill all the trees and then plant more trees. If they're already there, they're there. And then all other landscaping pursuant to LDC. So that is all the buffering requirements without -- now, you think we're done, right? We're not. Next are all of the publication requirements, which, we have to have a neighborhood informational meeting, as I mentioned, at the conceptual plan. Now, we believe this is more input because it does allow the public to be involved well before we have a site plan. Because, you know, we've all been there. Site plans are Page 11 December 7, 2006 expensive. You have everyone, the architects, the engineers. You go forward, that's what you've giving to the county for the approval, that's what you're giving to the permitting agencies. In addition it's a public hearing process, and we believe that the fire districts, at least in our situation -- we're closer to the people. I mean, we're one level above them. If they don't like what we do, they very likely might vote out our people, which is similar to the conditional use process. They're just going to you, whereas for the informational meeting held by the governing board, we believe it is closer to the people. Second, we have to do written notice to the property owners pursuant to the code. We have to give notification of the certain condominiums and associations pursuant to the code. We have to publish in the newspaper a notice of the meeting. We have to also put a big sign so no one's going to be surprised -- if they don't live close enough within the feet of how many feet it has to be sent to, they're going to see the sign if they drive by it. And then the recording of the meeting has to be submitted to the county manager. Now, if we don't meet those two and a half pages of requirements, it means we have to go through the conditional use process. We also have to go through the conditional use process if there's an outdoor tower facility involved or if it's an administrative facility. So, you know, this is not a process that's going to -- it's not an easy process. I can tell you, my districts are still going to try to continue to try to find that ago and industrial and commercial land so they don't have to deal with this. But we have to be honest, it's not all there. I mean, if we can't find the land, we can't find the land. Sometimes we can find the land, but if you don't have someone who's going to sell it to you, well, it's great that you have that zoning in the neighborhood, but if you can't buy it, you can't buy it. Page 12 December 7, 2006 And I know that although we do have the authority to do the eminent domain, local governments really don't like to do government -- or eminent domain. And I think, you know, a question to be asked is, this really shouldn't be political. I understand it is. But if a fire station needs to be built, it needs to be built. I mean, think about the scenario if every single time a fire station or an EMS or sheriff tries to build and neighbors come out, where are they going to go? And I know that we talk about saving of time and cost by removing the conditional use process, but what about, you know, lives being saved or property being saved? And we can't quantify that for you. So I can -- I'm the technical person. I can answer the technical questions about the proposal, but there are a lot of buffering requirements that we believe are sufficient to provide protection to the neighbors. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've got a couple questions. I don't know if you could answer this, but I'm sure staff could. Have we ever refused a location request for a fire department before? MS. DONALDSON: My understanding, if it's just a facility, not including an outdoor tower, it's no. But I'm not staff. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. You're saying the commission voted -- will vote no if it's an outside -- I'm sorry. One more time. MS. DONALDSON: An outdoor training facility -- which is not what's in front of you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forget that. We're talking about MS. DONALDSON: Just a fire station. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Apples to apples. A fire station. Page 13 December 7,2006 Has this commission ever refused a fire station request? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or an EMS. MS. DONALDSON: From what I've been told, no. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me ask that same question of staff. Are you aware of anytime that we have? I'm just curious. I'm trying to put everything in perspective. MS. ISTENES: I'm not aware of any since I've been here. MR. SCHMITT: Nor am I since I've been here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Help me with item B, I'm sorry, in section B of this thing, item E in there where it refers to certain districts that we can do it, and it mentions habitat stewardship areas and flow-way stewardship areas. Is this a place we normally can build anything in, or is this normally where -- we're precluded from going into conservation areas, aren't we? Or am I wrong on this? I'm curious to how this all fits together. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, for the record, Joe Schmitt, your community development/environmental services division administrator. Those are the -- that's terminology associated, as shown, with the rural fringe mixed-use district. To answer your question, no, not all of those areas would be prohibited. They're identified in the rural fringe mixed-use overlay, but you would have to have associate stewardship credits and define the area. Of course, it would have to go through review process. I'm not saying you're prohibited. It would probably be more difficult, but you could if, in fact, it's identify and you had the proper stewardship credits in order to compensate for the impact in those areas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're not giving them carte blanche to be able to go -- MR. SCHMITT: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- any particular place? If Page 14 December 7, 2006 there's someplace that's been designated as far as a conservation area, they can't -- they can't just automatically go into there? They would have to meet all the requirements that would be in place to be able to do so? MR. SCHMITT: This allows them by right, but they would have to meet all the requirements associated with that, stewardship credits and such. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Then under section G, item F, the facility contains an office, and it goes on and on. A meeting space. I mean, would -- one of the nicest things that's been happening now with the new fire stations that are built is they are providing public meeting space. This doesn't in any way preclude them providing space that could be used for public meetings, does it? MS. DONALDSON: Commissioner, yes, it does. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, it does? MS. DONALDSON: Per staff. That was not our requirement. The concern was, since these are supposed to be neighborhood scale facilities, like -- almost like substations, that they did not want the traffic that would be generated if we were having public meeting space. And that's why it's very clear that we could have a little bit of space, but it could only serve the station. I mean, we would have loved to have, you know, a public meeting room in all of our stations, but we weren't able to get that through the negotiations. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well-- okay. When you were -- your public meetings that you held, was this one of the things that people were concerned about, public meeting space, or no? MS. DONALDSON: Staff was. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Staffwas? MS. DONALDSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it wasn't the public, per se? MS. DONALDSON: Not that we know of. I don't know if staff received calls about it. Page 15 December 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm just a little bit leery. I mean, there's a lot of good ideas that we're coming down with in this particular change to the ordinance. To all of a sudden come up with something that's going to limit the public's ability to be able to use the facility -- because let's face it, it might be a fire station, but it's still owned by the public, the people that pay for it. We'll get into that, I'm sure, as the evening goes along. May I have a few more minutes, sir? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. The facility will not at any time exceed the sound level limits according to our zoning requirements. And what does that mean, that when the fire engines leave, they can't use the sirens or they just -- they exit until they get to the main road? Would you explain that, please? Because I'm not too sure how this all fits in with our present sound ordinances. MS. DONALDSON: The -- my understanding, that is related to the facility. Like we can't have sirens going off at the facility. In regard -- this does not deal with the trucks going out. But I can tell you the trucks, you know, aren't turning their sirens on to leave their building at two o'clock in the morning or three o'clock in the morning. I mean, the sirens, my understanding, are generally used when, yeah, they're trying to get through traffic and they have the lights and they're trying to move quickly. But yes, this does not limit once they get on the road. Now, we do have an existing station that's in a neighborhood, and I believe that they've kind of out of -- you know, with the neighborhood, have agreed -- not in writing, just, you know, handshake -- we're not going to have the sirens going when we leave the facility. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And also, too, the under -- the handout you gave with the essential services and -- where it says building designation requirements, the first -- bullet point, public law Page 16 December 7, 2006 enforcement, fire and emergency medical service facilities. What is an emergency medical service facility? Can it be a private clinic that's open around the clock or -- MS. DONALDSON: It'd be your EMS. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be a, what do they call them, the emergency care center? MS. DONALDSON: No. It has to be a public emergency medical facility. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So EMS -- I'm not too sure how we could designate that so we don't have somebody at some future time trying to reinterpret that. It's just a small concern. The only closing comment I'd liked to make is that possibly we might want to consider leaving the option open for a public meeting room to be discussed when you have your public meetings as far as the local neighborhood and how they feel about it. It may be something they would embrace. MS. DONALDSON: We'd love to. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was -- I was under the impression it would be very difficult to locate stations in Golden Gate Estates the way our comprehensive plan is written. I found that -- that is not true whatsoever, and they can locate out there without doing a Growth Management Plan amendment, so I apologize for that. The second thing is, I think we have to do a conditional use for a park or a neighborhood community center. I think what we want to do here is provide emergency services to service the community instead of having a -- meeting rooms for the community to come to the fire department. I think we're looking at two different things, Commissioner. Wouldn't we have to do conditional use for park, community service? MS. ISTENES: It depends on the type of park, but yeah, it's Page 1 7 December 7, 2006 really depending on the scale. The small-scale neighborhood low impact to the neighborhood types don't have to and the larger scale higher impacts do. This was evaluated by staff as having a higher impact since it's a 24-hour operation and thought that, to minimize some of the impact, we would suggest that they not have public meeting rooms because of the -- Laura stated that accurately, because of the traffic and the hours of operation and the size of the -- it affects the size of the facility as well. And she mentioned that, that it was -- they were to be smaller neighborhood type of facilities. MR. SCHMITT: But if they want a public meeting room, they certainly would have the option to come back and ask for that under the conditional use process for any site. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But, I mean, the whole reason for this is to avoid -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a conditional use process. So I assure you, no one's ever going to come back here again through a conditional use process to add something to it. It just doesn't make any sense. We'd look at them like they were crazy when they came through the door, I'm sure. You're not, by the way . You're a very sane person. MS. DONALDSON: Well, I was going to say, you know, you've got us because, you're right, we would not come back in because once again, we're trying to avoid time delays, cost delays, and coming back in would do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm talking out of turn, forgive me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a concern. You made a statement saying that if somebody doesn't want to sell us land. What benefit would this give you -- or what leverage would this give you with this amendment to our Land Development Code to go out and purchase the Page 18 December 7, 2006 property if people still didn't want to sell to you? MS. DONALDSON: It doesn't. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, because you made that statement, and I was wondering how this would be tied in with this particular amendment. MS. DONALDSON: Mr. Chair, right now when we start looking for sites for fire stations, our first, initial, is commercial, industrial and ago Those are the first three zoning districts that we look at. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: Willing seller within those, and then willing seller at a price that we can afford to pay. What this code does is open it up from industrial, ago and commercial, to industrial, ag., commercial, residential, and it's still a willing buyer. I mean, we're not gaining any power to take it from residential. CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's just the statement and how you phrased it, I was -- somewhat had some concerns the way it came out, that you have people that don't want to sell to you. And so I was wondering what -- since you were talking in that tone, I was wondering what was in this that I did not read in regards to, would this give you some additional leverage or buying power to purchase that property anyway, and that's all I was trying to get across. MS. DONALDSON: No. Mr. Chair, I think what it does, it allows us to be smarter purchasers, which as government officials, everyone wants to be, because we have more options to purchase land now. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But I think the -- what was brought before the board of county -- one of my commissioners said here, is that we've never turned down a fire station, so I don't think we'd ever turn down a fire station. I don't think we'd ever turn down an EMS. But I'm concerned about the process where we would lose control Page 19 December 7, 2006 over a particular -- particular items in regards to putting together a fire station or an EMS. You said you're going to have neighborhood information meetings, but how effective is that going to be if the neighbors have a concern about some architectural enhancements or enhancements as far as landscaping? How are you going to address that? MS. DONALDSON: Can I respond? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. MS. DONALDSON: I think, one, the landscaping -- I mean, these are very strict requirements. Two, I think if I'm correct -- and I don't live in Collier County -- you guys are -- it's districts. North Naples Fire Control District, they represent everyone in that district, so they're going to have to listen to those public comments. And I think that's why -- it brings it closer to the people, and that's why they have more say. And my com -- I guess my question in regards to you guys have never turned one down, then, you know, why all the additional costs and delays if we know at the end of the day we're going to get approved? CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the only additional cost or delay was involved in a particular fire station that was a PUD. I think that's where the only -- the additional cost and delay was. And I believe there's another one whereby there was some problems with some wetlands. MS. DONALDSON: Well, this won't impact the wetlands. I think -- I mean, if it takes six to eight months to get approved and construction costs go up, that right there is a cost savings. But I do -- I mean, I understand the concerns. But we have to remember that at least on the fire district level, they're elected officials. They can get elected out of office. They have to listen to their constituents. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? You've been pretty quiet tonight. Page 20 December 7,2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You noticed that too. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've been trying, but I've been unsuccessful. Tell me why we shouldn't do this with everything, not just fire departments and EMSs? You're saying that we can draw up a set of standards and requirements, and then you just go out and do it and everybody will trust you because you're elected. Well, we're elected too. Why don't we just take our LDC, Land Development Code, and our growth plan and say, here it is, folks. Go do it. Do you think that would work? MS. DONALDSON: I think you've done that. I mean, that's what the LDC is and that's what the conditional use permit process is. I think the difference between, let's say, a commercial building and a fire district is -- or a fire station or EMS or sheriff, is we don't get to choose where those go. I mean, we have to plan on response time. It's not, well, we really want to put a McDonald's over in this neighborhood. It's -- you know, the map that was put up early that showed the 10-minute response times, that's not good. I mean, the standard -- you know, what insurance companies really want are five-minute response. So I think there's a difference between essential services, emergency services, to, you know, any other type of development. It may be I'm biased because, you know, I like fire districts, but I don't know. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you see, that's the point. The 10-minute nodes that were contained on that have nothing to do, in most cases, with the location of the fire departments or the EMS departments. MS. DONALDSON: I disagree. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, tell me why it took more than 10 minutes for responses in the City of Naples and they're by and very Page 21 December 7,2006 close in that area. There is no restriction with respect to that. Take that slide and let's talk about it a little bit, okay? MS. DONALDSON: Since it's Chief Page's slide, I'll let him go into it more. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But, you know, while you're doing that, the reason that we don't just turn loose the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan and let people go do what they think is consistent with that plan is it is not that simple. There are all kinds of interpretations, interpretations by neighbors, interpretations by the people who want to develop. That's why we sit here in meetings for 12, in some cases 24 hours going through those kinds of petitions so that we can help people interpret what we have in mind and reach an agreement between them and our constituents. Now, we all like to think that we are autonomous, and the fire departments are probably more autonomous than any other segment of government in Collier County, but they're still responsible to the taxpayers. And when you start trying to cut out the taxpayers from a review process and an opportunity to really affect what it is that is going to be in their neighborhood, then you're really making a big mistake. And I know there are people in this room who are going to petition us to do that, and a lot of them are my friends, and I support the fire departments. I am not going to support this, I simply am not, because there's nothing I have heard that will justify cutting out the process of review and approval that we have established. So I will sit here and I will listen to this, but in the end, I'm going to vote against it, okay? Now, let's take a look at some of these -- these nodes that are -- that took more than 10 minutes to respond to. CHIEF PAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, show me -- let's go down to Page 22 December 7,2006 area one, okay. All of those just to the north of that. Why did it take so long to respond to those? CHIEF PAGE: Typically what happens, Commissioner, and it's more prevalent right here -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let's talk about number one. I'm not -- I want to talk about number one. We said that all of these were because we don't have places positioned in the right locations. CHIEF PAGE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, I want you to-- CHIEF PAGE: Because number one is a call. It's out of zone or transported. There is -- the closest station is either over here at the airport or up here at 26th Avenue North. So it's fine to -- you know, typically in a fire department, you may have two or three engines. In an EMS station, I've got one unit typically. Look at station 70 here. With that right in the middle, there are a number of calls in this area. That's because there's more calls than one unit can handle. Either the transport time to the designated hospitals are involved -- this station 75, it's the one that just got built on Santa Barbara. That's going to take a huge chunk of this out, and it will help station 70. But before station 75 was built, the closest unit was coming from here, and it doesn't fly by the crow. It has to go down by the roads. So that's why this area was impacted. So what happens with EMS is, sometimes you typically -- you know, this year we're going to put a second unit in station 70. You just have to look at where the call volumes are. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, wait a minute. Let's stop right there. You said you're going to put a second unit in number 70. You don't need to buy any more land, do you? CHIEF PAGE: Not for that unit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You don't need to build Page 23 December 7, 2006 another building, do you? CHIEF PAGE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've already approved for you to buy additional units, haven't we? CHIEF PAGE: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So any of those circumstances that are arising because you have a unit out on a call and you get a second call and you have to transfer, you have to pick up -- have some other station pick it up, I understand that, but that could have been solved by putting that second unit in that bay, and we are going to be doing that. So I do not want people trying to tell me that these failures to respond in 10 minutes are all the result of not having enough locations for facilities. They could very well be the reason -- the reason could very well be that we don't have enough units at the current locations, and we're trying to solve that right now. But I don't buy this as a -- as a reason for doing what you want to do primarily because, as it's been stated before, we haven't turned down any. We find a way to get these where you need them. We find a way to do it, and we do it without circumventing the normal process of review and citizen input. CHIEF PAGE: Understood. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that's where I am, Mr. Chairman. And we can debate this until 10 o'clock tonight if you want to, but you know where my vote's going to be. CHIEF PAGE: This particular area here where the proposed station is at Vanderbilt and Logan, there is no station there. That's the property we want to purchase. But there is no station close enough. There is no commercial/agricultural area within two miles of there that we can build. It we did find one though, the current price is about 10 times more than what we were -- purchased this for. But it isn't that we haven't looked. We've been looking. Page 24 December 7, 2006 But the bottom line, we do have to try and get in here, so we will be coming through the permitting process. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I guess what I have to say is that if you find a piece of property, you can always come before the Board of County Commissioners and get it rezoned, okay. So that's part of the process. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Haven't you already been partnering with some of the fire stations to incorporate EMS with fire as well as having paramedics on the fire trucks and cross-training? CHIEF PAGE: Yes, ma'am. Ifwe look up here in North Naples, we both have this area identified as an area that we need to be in. This is another area that will probably be a joint location with North Naples. So we try and do that. But, again, we've got to find the property. And of course, we're trying to do it as cost efficiently as we can. And although there are some commercial tracts in this area here, we're looking at a couple of million to $3 million for a parcel there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that doesn't have anything to do with this if you're buying land. I mean, I know my guys out in East Naples, they buy up land -- they've owned some of their land for quite a long time, identifying areas that they want to go in eventually when the population comes into that area. And I think, again -- you know, I'm only talking about my area. But I know when you were showing places that have more than a 10-minute response time, geez, our guys are all over the place, and they're fast. I mean, you know, they have a call and they're out the door, and they have a paramedic on their trucks all the time. CHIEF PAGE: That's right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I wasn't sure how they were so late in all of these areas when they're right there all the time. And I didn't even see one on Davis Boulevard there, and I know they're Page 25 December 7,2006 there. CHIEF PAGE: The fire station is yes. We're not. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But do you have a paramedic? CHIEF PAGE: We have a paramedic on their engine. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHIEF PAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Ifwe don't have any further questions -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I have one more. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: We were talking about noise -- that's all right. We were talking about noise and we were talking about sirens, but there's also the noise that comes into -- that beep-beep-beeping noise every time they back up or anything, you know. I don't care if it's a delivery truck or whatnot, but, boy, that's aggravating, I would guess. Also, when you were talking about a public emergency facility -- and you were mainly talking EMS -- but could that be like somebody building a detox center there? CHIEF PAGE: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do you prevent that? CHIEF PAGE: My understanding, the way the wording was-- do you have that? Public Emergency Medical Services specifically meant EMS, Emergency Medical Services. COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, but like Jim Coletta was saying before, how do you really state that? Because if it just says public emergency services there -- and say, for instance, that is an emergency. You know, they have some guys that are picked up on the streets and, you know, maybe they first -- before they could even be taken to anyplace else, they need to be dried out, and that would be an emergency. And what he's saying is -- or what I guess he's saying is Page 26 December 7, 2006 that, not in the neighborhoods. He doesn't feel that that's a place that CHIEF PAGE: I understand. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Over at my house, yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, do you have any more questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I think that was already it, yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I'll do at this point in time is we'll continue on with the people that may have public comment, and it's limited to three minutes. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And how many people are here to speak on this item? Okay. If you would be so kind as if it's already been mentioned, if you'd just waive your time unless you have something additional to add to the discussion, okay, so we don't have the same verbiage over and over and over again. Okay? MS. F ABACHER: All right. Mr. Chair, our first speaker will be Leo Davis. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: And the next speaker after that will be Angela S. Davis. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. DAVIS: I waive my right to speak but I'm in favor of the amendment. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. DAVIS: Angela Davis. I waive my right to speak, but I'm also in favor of the amendment. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, the next speakers would be Paul Plamondov. I killed that one. Page 27 December 7, 2006 MR. PLAMONDOV: Close, Plamondov. I waive my right to speak, but I'm in favor of the amendment. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm not trying to stymie you. If you've got some good ideas or some information that hasn't been discussed, you know, you're welcome to come up to the podium. I just am trying to move the proceedings along, okay, sir? MR. PLAMONDOV: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Next speaker would be Michael Brown. Then after that, Alan Yarusevich. CHIEF BROWN: Thank you very much. I won't take up a great deal of your time. My name's Mike Brown. I'm the fire chief in North Naples, and I urge your support for these amendments to the Land Development Code. I believe through the consensus document we've addressed, the concerns of the potentially impacted neighbors -- and we have been sensitive to the neighborhood concerns -- these amendments will preserve property and save lives by allowing neighborhood scaled fire EMS and police and substations to be built in a timely planner. Thank you for your consideration, and I urge your support on this very important issue. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: All right. Mr. Yarusevich, and apparently Mrs. Yarusevich would be next. MS. Y ARUSEVICH: I would waive my right to speak. MS. FABACHER: Okay, MR. Y ARUSEVICH: Commissioners and the commissioner, Frank. I'm going to -- I have something to say in defense of our EMS, fire and police department. And on Palm Sunday this last year, I was getting ready to watch the automobile races on TV. My wife was going to go out shopping. She went to get dressed. She returned to the living room and found Page 28 December 7, 2006 me lying face down on the carpet unconscious and blue. She immediately called 911. Within three minutes, a police officer is in my house giving me CPR and started to recover me back to my normal color. Within a very short time after that, under six minutes, the fire department arrived. They then took over. They transported me to the hospital. I spent six days unconscious in intensive care. Five days they moved me to another room so I could be operated on. And thank God for all -- everyone's efforts, I'm here today to tell you that story. I feel that if I had to wait for that EMS and fire to come from either the Pine Ridge facility or the Veterans facility I would, one, either be dead, or I would not have any brain to be able to stand up here and talk. It's important that we have these facilities in our areas where we live so the response time can be cut down immensely, and I think that we have to make it as cheap as possible so we can get as many of these units up in our areas. And I support the change. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Next speaker will be Karl Reynolds. And then after that, Chief Rita Greenberg. MR. REYNOLDS: Good evening, Commissioners. Karl Reynolds, deputy chief in North Naples Fire Department. A couple of things. If you really want to help and -- so that we don't have to build more stations, one thing the commission could do is vote for a moratorium and stop everything in Collier County, and unless you don't drive on a daily basis out here, I don't know how you can underst -- why you can sit there and think that we can get anywhere any faster on a daily basis when the traffic gets worse with the population getting bigger. The problems we have is the time and the money is the one thing that we talked about. No, you may not have ever turned one down, Page 29 December 7, 2006 but that 50- to $100,000 could go to a lot better use than going through the engineering and the other to go to -- to do what you're talking about for the conditional use. When these items has been worked out with staff and with the fire and emergency districts or emergency medical districts on all of these items which also includes the Land Development Code, includes the landscaping, we still have to meet those standards. We don't draw up the blueprints on the back of a napkin and then take them out and give them to a contractor to build. They still have to go through the planning division. They still have to go through Collier County for permits. They still have to meet all those standards. So what I'm hearing is not exactly what really the truth is, and that bothers me. They do have to meet the standards, and there is standards built into this for the buffering, but there's still landscape requirements. You don't think we're going to build a station and not put plants and stuff in front of it. That has no bearing. But a 10-minute response time to save somebody's life, that's not right. And the only way we can do that, for the same reason that EMS has stopped -- been stopped from being able to put that station at that location, which would increase the -- or decrease the amount of time it takes for them to respond to areas, just by putting two ambulances in the same location does not fix the problem. If you don't have those places where they are located in more density areas, spread out -- which nationally, it shows that the heavier the density that you get for population the more stations that you need spread out in those density areas in order to maintain the time frame. So basically all you're doing is voting for the fact that we're trying to save lives, we're trying to put out the fires, and we're trying to get the sheriffs department there as fast as we can, but you can't do it from the same location by cramming 100 vehicles in the same spot. It doesn't help you when you can't get there because the traffic and the roads and the population doesn't allow you to do it. That's all I have to Page 30 December 7,2006 say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sir? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just a question. I hope that we're not building a trench here or drawing a line in the sand. That's not what we're here for. What we've discussed this evening was the fact that you were telling me that there's times when you can't purchase property because somebody won't sell it to you or the property that you can purchase is not zoned correctly. MR. REYNOLDS: For the conditional use process. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. REYNOLDS: To get us in the spot that we need it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. But if you decide that you bought -- want to buy some property and you come before this commission and say, we've got this property, we need to have it rezoned, don't you think that we would listen to your concerns and do that because of the safety of the -- and health and welfare of the people here? MR. REYNOLDS: If you're telling me basically all I have to do is buy a piece of property and come to you and say that we want to rezone it because it's a residential zoning, are you still saying that I don't have to go through the conditional use or that I still have to go through a conditional use -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: You still -- MR. REYNOLDS: -- use 50,000 to $100,000 that I could use for the fence and the barriers and the buffers and make the place blend -- which is my job, to make stations blend in a residential area, to make it look like a home so it fits -- those type things, I'd rather use that money for that than I would to have to do that conditional use when we could do it in black and white but still have to go through the permitting to make sure -- and your staff is making sure that it fits that criteria, which is no different than anything else in the LDC. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Joe Schmitt, would it cost that Page 3 1 December 7, 2006 much to go through a process of this nature? I mean, what's the big advantage here? Can you enlighten me here? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. The cost of the application -- what the chiefs talking about is time and the engineering behind the cost. But the engineering for a plan, a site plan, a master plan, is still going to have to be done as part of the review process. It may change during the conditional use process which may necessitate a redesign of a site if it comes up during the public hearing that something has changed, either an access or whatever, but I -- and I think what the chiefs trying to say is, this ordinance kind of allows for a boilerplate type design to be applied most anywhere in anyplace. The engineering may -- like I said, may come as a result of having to redesign. So you design once for the public hearing, then you have to go back and redesign again. That's only a possibility. I believe that's maybe what you're referring to. MR. REYNOLDS: That's part of it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And how many times did this happen? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, I don't know, but you just had one of your -- one of Collier County EMS stand up here and just tell you that it's going to cost them 50- to $100,000 of time and money that was given to them by the information from staff. MR. SCHMITT: And I can't -- I cannot validate that it costs that much. I would have to ask one of the consultants to validate what it would cost to go through what they would charge. I know what our costs are, but what they would charge to shepherd a proj ect through the conditional use process, any idea? MS. ISTENES: No. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm confused. I truly am confused on the cost here. I don't understand. And what I'm concerned about is, if we end up cutting out a particular part of the process, as Commissioner Coyle said, where we don't have the input of the citizens and it's taken Page 32 December 7, 2006 at heart for what's put in -- that's why we have redesign work. MR. SCHMITT: Right. You still have to do the site plan, you still have to go through the site plan review process. If you're impacting jurisdictional wetlands, you have to go through the respective agencies for those jurisdictional wetlands. MR. REYNOLDS: Agree. MR. SCHMITT: So you're not bypassing any of those requirements. All this is doing -- and I'm not speaking for or against, I'm just trying to say, all this is doing is eliminating one step, and that step is the conditional use and the public hearing process. MR. REYNOLDS: No, sir. There is a public hearing process that is written right into that document. MR. SCHMITT: Well, the neighborhood information is a neighborhood information meeting. A public hearing is before the Board of County Commissioners -- MR. REYNOLDS: I understand. MR. SCHMITT: -- to actually vote, and as a matter of record, decide as to whether that use will be applied to that area. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you. Yes? COMMISSIONER COYLE: How many fire stations, EMS stations, sheriff stations are there in Collier County? MR. REYNOLDS: I wouldn't know, except I can tell you what's in our district. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about you? Can you tell us? CHIEF PAGE: Not for all the districts. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Give me a -- just a guess, how many? CHIEF PAGE: Five in the east, seven in North right now, three in the process of being built. Two or three? Three in big corkscrew and two in Immokalee and four in Golden Gate. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's 24. How did they get there? Page 33 December 7, 2006 How many more? CHIEF PAGE: Well, with EMS -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think there's quite a lot more than that. CHIEF PAGE: Yeah, with EMS there'd be another 19 to 20. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. REYNOLDS: Those were just fire stations. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And I think if you took into consideration the sheriffs substations, you're up around 65 or so for the entire county. MR. REYNOLDS: Which is fine, but we don't run EMS or the fire station. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hey, we're talking about protecting people and saving lives, aren't we? MR. REYNOLDS: But they don't have a fire truck. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Isn't that what we're doing? Didn't this gentleman just say to you that a police officer arrived before you did? MR. REYNOLDS: Agreed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then we're talking about health, safety and welfare of the people of Collier County. MR. REYNOLDS: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, how did all those places get there? We interfered with them somehow? MR. REYNOLDS: No, that's not what we're saying. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, we helped get them there, didn't we? The Board of Collier County Commissioners helped get those places there? MR. REYNOLDS: We brought them to you, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, and they all got approved, okay? Now what's to keep us from putting 60 or 70 more there? Nothing. Page 34 December 7,2006 MR. REYNOLDS: Nothing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely nothing. The only issue here is whether you should be given the unilateral right to hold a meeting with residents and say, this is what we're going to put in here whether you like it or not. MR. REYNOLDS: And we wouldn't do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do you enforce that? There's a representative for developers back there. He will tell us the same thing, we wouldn't do anything that the residents wouldn't want us to do, okay? He really wouldn't do that, and I believed in his heart he believes that. But when the time comes, there's going to be a disagreement about some of those things, and those residents don't have a recourse. They don't have anybody to come to and say, we don't necessarily agree with this thing being here in this particular location or we'd like to make some modifications. There's nothing that guarantees them any opportunity to do that. We're the only ones who can provide them with that opportunity. MR. REYNOLDS: So we don't have elected officials at the fire stations for commissioners that those residents do vote in -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're responsible-- MR. REYNOLDS: -- so we're not looking at them as -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're responsible for enforcing the Land Development Code and our Growth Management Plan. That is our job. MR. REYNOLDS: Agree. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you wouldn't have all these stations out there if we hadn't done that. So I would say that there's been a lot of hyperbole about, we're going to take actions that will place people in danger or that it's going to cost lots of money to keep doing it the way we've always done it in the past without any really concrete information. People are just throwing numbers around here. Page 35 December 7,2006 I think when we get right down to it, you're going to find out the cost isn't substantially different. The cost of land is always going to be expensive. We always have -- we all have that problem. But this process is not going to place people in danger. Weare anxious to review and approve facilities that protect the people of Collier County. And I think there are a lot of ways that fire departments, EMS departments, could enhance that capability themselves. So I resent the implication that we are somehow placing people in danger and prohibiting them to be treated in a timely manner because we want to make sure that the taxpayers and voters have input and an opportunity to appeal an approval process. And that's not what this change is all about, quite frankly. MR. REYNOLDS: I think it is, but that's my opinion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is. MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. We have Chief Greenberg, and then Jerry Sanford. CHIEF GREENBERG: For the record, Chief Rita Greenberg, Big Corkscrew Fire Department. Good evening, Commissioners. When we were here, I believe, a little over a month ago, Commissioner Coletta requested that we get support from the community to bring to this meeting this evening. I, myself, have done some campaigning within my fire district. I've gone to the state civic association meeting, and I believe Commissioner Coletta, as well as myself and possibly some others, have received several emails from citizens supporting the concept of having a fire station in their back yard which at the first meeting was perceived to be possibly -- they wouldn't support that, they didn't want -- the not-in-my-back-yard syndrome. I have heard nothing but positive support in regards to a fire Page 36 December 7, 2006 station being there, and I know the process is -- the point of this amendment is the process, but the community and the citizens are behind that process. And at the Golden Gate Civic Association meeting, although they weren't allowed to actually take a true vote on it because it was not advertised, they did do a straw ballot, and about 85 percent of the close to a 100 people there were in favor of the concept. And it's just a support matter from the citizens of the community. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I make one more comment concerning that? And I think that's good news. That's wonderful. And if I were the fire department, I would jump on that in a minute. I would define the plot of land that I would like to use, I would buy it, I would get those citizens in here to support it, I would bring it before the Board of County Commissioners, and I'd be willing to bet you, you'll get real fast approval. CHIEF GREENBERG: Thank you. We're working on it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. Thank you very much, ma'am. MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Sanford, and then we'll have Orly Stolts. MR. SANFORD: Good evening, Commissioners. I've been in the helping-people business for 40 years; three years as a New York City police officer, over 30 years as a New York City firefighter, and my last six and a half years in the North Naples Fire District. Silence is deafening when you're laying on the floor and you don't hear anything, your house is on fire, you're waiting for a police officer, and then you hear that wonderful sound of a siren. Many people have told me over the years, I didn't hear anything. Then I heard the Calvary coming. Please reconsider this motion. Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Is Mr. Stolts here? And then Thomas -- can't quite read it -- Cannon. MR. STOLTS: Good evening, Commissioners. Approximately Page 37 December 7, 2006 10 years ago North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District looked at purchasing a piece of property at Immokalee Road and Airport. It's the current property where Sam's sits right now. We had many public hearings because it was a piece of property we wanted to take to our community of North Naples and see what they thought. I had quite a few -- quite a few attend that meeting, the meetings that we did have, and we had a lot of the NIMBY s that were there. And one of the NIMBYs happened to come from the community just east of where Sam's sits right now. It just so happened, a couple of weeks ago we got a call in that community just east of Sam's. It was two o'clock in the morning. Our engine responded. Got on scene, and it was the lady's seven-year-old daughter had a seizure and was unconscious. I wasn't aware of the call that time of the night. I'm sleeping away. The next day I did get a telephone call from a lady who said that she was very disappointed in our response time. I asked her what her address was and what time the call was. She gave me that information so I told her I would research it and find out what the Issue was. I went to Collier County's communications center and asked for all the times and I asked for the audiotape of that particular call. They gave me a nice printout of the particular times that the sheriff was notified, the Collier EMS was notified, North Naples Fire Control was notified. To that lady she thought it was 30 minutes response time. At least 30 minutes was what she said before anybody arrived. When we got the times and listened to the audiotape, that time was actually seven minutes when the North Naples fire engine arrived at her house. To her it must have seemed like 30 minutes, and I'm sure it would. I recognized the lady's name when she called, and I called her back and I gave her the information. I even took over a copy of the paperwork and audiotape of the entire radio communications. Page 38 December 7, 2006 And I asked her, I said, I recognize you from someplace. Where was it? Oh, I don't know. I said, did you ever come to, about 10 years ago, to the North Naples Fire Department meetings when we were attempting to build a fire station at Sam's? She said, yeah. She said, I was there and I was very boisterous. She says I'm against having a fire station next door to me. And I say, seven minutes is pretty good response time. We did build a fire station a mile and a half west of the location we wanted to build. I said, in the event -- we could have been there maybe within four minutes if we would have built at that property. I said, we're getting ready to come before the county commission next week, would you be glad to come down and speak your piece? And she said, no, I really don't want to get involved, but she asked that I tell the story. That she said, you know, it was very scary to her. It seemed like forever, even though -- that seven-minute response time. She said, I wished I'd have had you guys right next door to me instead of so far away. That's all I have. I'm in favor of this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to say one more thing, is that we're not here to stymie building fire stations, okay? I hope you understand that. That this county commission is not here to stop building fire stations. All we're asking is that we -- the Land Development Code, the process that we have presently, we remain -- have that process remain intact, okay? And I don't believe that we had anything to do with stopping that fire station at Sam's. Obviously there was an outcry of citizens saying, I don't want a station there for whatever reason. And that -- and I believe -- they probably came before this Board of County Commissioners. MR. STOL TS: It never got to you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, it never got there, okay. Well, then, Page 39 December 7, 2006 therefore, we didn't have anything to do with stopping it. MR. STOL TS: They took it to the community prior to even going any further with it because they knew there could be some issues with it. But we do understand that, sir. We understand that you're not here to stop it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We're not here to -- we're not here -- MR. STOLTS: We're here to ask that you help us speed up the process and cost us, the taxpayers, less money to do what we're trying to do, which you'll probably approve anyway, so -- thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just remember that one of our charges as being a county commissioner is to uphold health, safety and welfare of the citizens here of not only Collier County, but the State of Florida, okay? And believe me, that is the utmost of importance to each and every one of us that sit on this dais. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that was from last time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hmm? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was from last time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay. MS. FABACHER: All right. I think the next speaker -- is it Mr. Cannon? I can't read your handwriting. MR. CANNON: I'm Tom Cannon. I'm chairman of the East Naples Fire Control. I was going to waiver (sic) my right in support of the amendment, but that wasn't going to change anybody's mind. Anything I say tonight is not going to change anybody's mind. East Naples has five fire stations right now. Only one of those went through the conditional use process. During that conditional use process -- and this was on a piece of commercial land -- the construction cost, the engineering cost, the architect cost, costs over $250,000 additional, and it took 18 months to get approved. Page 40 December 7, 2006 That's the only thing I'm looking at. I'm a cheap person. I don't like to spend money foolishly, and I think most of the people that work in East Naples already know that. And not only that, I'm an elected official. I feel I'm very involved in my community. If I'm going to build a fire station in that community and somebody's not going to like it, they're going to tell me, and chances are, I'm going to change to satisfy everybody involved and do what's best for the citizens of East Naples. But I am in support of the amendment. I know anything I said today's not going to change your mind, but I had three minutes. I don't get a chance to say hi enough. Hello, have a happy holiday. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I got one question. Whereabouts was this fire station that you're talking about? MR. CANNON: Bayshore and Jeepers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Bayshore and Jeepers. MR. CANNON: Piece of commercial property that we owned for 12 years. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. CANNON: Had no idea once we started the process that we had to go through the conditional use process. And by the way, I forgot to mention -- I mentioned last time we were here. You're our partners in that, so you got to share 35 percent of that cost. Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Next speaker would be lA. Rautio, after that, Margaret Hanson. MS. RAUTIO: Good evening. Citizen J.A. Rautio. I'm here to make a couple of comments. I changed my mind several times listening to your discussions. The first one I wanted to do is clarify that one of the reasons we're here is not because when we went before the Planning Commission, the staff had a discussion, the Planning Commission had a discussion and they asked that we create some very specific Page 41 December 7, 2006 development criteria by which you could create a neighborhood type fire station or EMS station that would fit into a neighborhood. That was one of the options. That's what we did in a collaborative effort. That's why we're here tonight and that's what you see in front of you in the Land Development Code and the summary that Laura Donaldson put together. That's my first point. Second point is, I'm sure you all know that I'm very passionate about the fire services and EMS. I served five years as a fire commissioner. I'm a firefighter's daughter. I'm a fire chiefs daughter. I understand what this is all about and what it does to families, but I also understand what it takes to provide service. And just recently I completed a first responder course for medical training, and that was done and certified under your medical director. It ties into this very complicated issue with locations of fire stations and EMS stations and having trained medical personnel ready to respond. I'm certified now and trained to provide initial medical assistance to an ill or injured person before the EMS paramedics arrive on scene. Now, why is that important? The 10 minutes that you saw up there is critical. I've been trained, as the 15 other people just recently were, to realize that the first four minutes are critical. I'll give you a couple of situations, and obviously I'm a little irritated and emotional at the moment, and I admit that. First one is, I'm responsible now if I come upon a car accident. There could be traumatic injuries there. I've been trained enough to help prevent further injuries such as spinal cord injuries or stop bleeding, that type of thing, and I'm responsible, as long as it's a safe situation for me, I can go and I can help. I'm going to be there helping four minutes, five minutes, six minutes -- hopefully it won't take that long for an EMS truck or an ALS truck from a fire department to get there. Page 42 December 7, 2006 What happens if I'm at a cocktail party or in a grocery store and somebody drops with a heart attack? Well, I'm just a regular citizen who's been trained to help, and one of the reasons, I could start the CPR and try to help save this person before the paramedics, the really well-trained people get there. Ten minutes is entirely too long. As the one lady found out, she probably thought it was 30 instead of seven minutes for her daughter. But when we graduated, Dr. Tober congratulated all of us that spent our own time and our own money to become first responders to help the system work, and we need to have fire stations and EMS trucks close, because I could be helping somebody, as part of the system that Dr. Tober talks about, but I need to have people get there because I can help increase the survival rate of a patient, an injured person or an ill person, but we need the trained people there, and we need them to come from stations that are strategically located in the servIce areas. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MS. RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. A question on the public meeting process for staff. Am I wrong, or does this public meeting process mirror ours exactly with a sign that has to be put on the site, the fact that the meeting's going to take place, the advertising that has to take place; am I correct? MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, I'd like to answer that. Catherine Fabacher. It mirrors our process in the notification requirements and the times, but the point I think that the other commissioners have been trying to make is that in a conditional use process, the conditions and concerns of the neighbors and the local people are taken into consideration and the permit is conditioned by you all based on those comments. At this point, the comments would be taken but nobody could condition the project. And that would be-- Page 43 December 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand exactly what you're saying. I'm wrong, but tell me if -- I may be wrong on this. But tell me if I -- all we're doing on this process is we're substituting the elected fire officials for the Collier County Commission; is that correct? MS. FABACHER: No, because what you have -- what you do is binding. You can put binding conditions. Now, they've set up a set of preconditions they'll agree to, but if some neighbor comes up said listen, I have so many children and they want something changed to modify because of their concerns because their children are all over the place, they can say -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. MS. FABACHER: They can say -- the applicants or the fire and EMS can say, well, we'll try to do something about it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I don't mean to argue with you. You're probably absolutely correct the way you're coming from, but what I'm saying is, the final decision, if this was passed the way it is, would be made by the fire department commissioners. They would make the -- they would vote it up or they would vote it down after they listened to the public; am I wrong? MS. F ABACHER: I don't know what their process is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it can't be much different than ours. It's been probably 10 years since I've been to a fire commission meeting, but if I remember correctly, they follow the Roberts Rules of Order and Parliamentary Procedures as far as the votes go and how they reach a given conclusion. So there is a governmental element that would enter into this to make that final decision. It wouldn't be the Collier County Commission, but it would be the commissioners of that fire district who are duly elected by the people who live in that area; am I wrong? MS. FABACHER: I think Joe wants to -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Joe, do you-- Page 44 December 7,2006 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, to answer your question, the fire commissioner's vote on the budgetary aspects of whether the project moves forward or not. That's the only vote they would take. This authorizes it automatically as an authorized use by right. The neighborhood information meeting that's described here is very similar to what the NIM -- the neighborhood information meeting that we are -- we require any applicant to do prior to even coming to you as part of any type of rezoning process. So that is -- it is a neighborhood information meeting that is conducted by the applicant. And as Catherine pointed out, it is -- it is a noticing meeting, a meeting where the -- when we discuss this in setting up some of the rules where they would provide an opportunity to take input from the residents and they would attempt to apply that, whatever those requirements or special considerations may be, as they further refine the site plan or site development process in this -- in this __ at least in the final design process, but there is no binding vote. The use is already authorized. You tonight -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand that. MR. SCHMITT: You already authorized it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that. What I'm going to do is -- I hear the answers, but it's still falling a little bit short. Maybe they put too much into it. Commissioner Henning's next, and he's been a former fire commissioner, and possibly he might be able to shed some light on this that -- to help me and the rest of my commissioners understand where a fire commission differs from a county commission. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't see what the point is. You need a super majority to make it pass and you don't have the supermajority. But to answer your question, like it's been stated, a fire commissioner serves the district, and they're going to do whatever Page 45 December 7,2006 they need to do to serve the district. If the commissioners do their job, just like we do, and a neighbor has a concern on their operation, I think they're going to take care of it. Bottom line is, we're all here to serve the public. Now, just because two of my colleagues have a disagreement on this amendment, they want to serve the public how they feel necessary. And I just want to say that we need to build EMS stations and sheriff substations. The two commissioners feel that it's in the best interest for the public to have those informational meetings and report back to the Board of Commissioners. I don't see anything wrong with that. What has happened through this process is Joe Schmitt has committed to make the conditional use shorter and get through the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners. And I know that each one -- each and every one of these commissioners up here, my colleagues, respect the fire districts and want to work with the fire districts. And I apologize, I think it was my charge to direct staff to see how we can shorten this process to make it an essential service. But at the end of the day, I think we have shortened it up, and I hope that we have shortened up the monies you need to spend to go through this process. But we are very supportive of everything that the fire departments do and all our emergency services responders. I think we need to move on. We have a lot of things to do. And I don't know, County Attorney, what we need to do at this point besides finish up with the public speakers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yep. MR. KLATZKOW: We have a number left, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Let's continue on. MS. FABACHER: All right. Ms. Hanson, and then Joe Hessling. Yeah, I'm sorry, Margaret Hanson. MS. HANSON: Margaret Hanson, people know me as Peggy, Page 46 December 7, 2006 however, fire commissioner for the North Naples Fire and Rescue District. I just want to tell all of you that I know we're on the same page obviously. Weare. We all want the safety and we want a fast response. I just feel if there's a way that we can speed up the process, I'm in favor of that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Hessling? MR. HESSLING: Commissioner, I'll defer my time to Ms. Donaldson, if necessary. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Mr. John German, Germane, German. And then John Domenie. MR. GERMAN: Good evening, Commissioners. John German, assistant fire chief, North Naples Fire Department, for the record. I urge you to consider this amendment to the Land Development Code. It's going to be -- there's nothing bad about it. It allows for input from the public, and it allows to expedite the process. The savings of taxpayers' money is something that is of a concern also. There is a six to 12-month delay, and I appreciate that you saying you're going to speed up the process. But a six and 12-month delay, not the engineering cost to come back with revisions, but the cost of construction in general, as you know, is going up every day in Collier County. It does open up and make accessible residential estates-type property to the more rural fire districts. And I think more than the urbanized districts like North Naples and East Naples, it will greatly enhance their ability to plan in the future for future stations out there. It's unfortunate that the -- all of the dots on Chief Page's board that represent 10-minute or more calls, that those people couldn't come in here and speak to you, because I don't think anyone of them wouldn't say that they would prefer that there was a fire station located a little bit closer than the one that is presently in their neighborhood. Page 47 December 7, 2006 So, again, I appreciate your time, and I certainly urge you to accept this amendment. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, sir. MS. FABACHER: Okay. We have Mr. Domenie and then Jim Burke. Is Mr. Domenie here? (No response.) MS. FABACHER: Okay. Jim Burke? (N 0 response.) MS. FABACHER: Karen Acquard. MS. ACQUARD: Acquard. MS. FABACHER: Acquard, thank you. And then Mr. Sollecito will be next. MS. ACQUARD: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Karen Acquard. Most of you are familiar with me and associate me with the Estates Civic Association or as a member of an advisory board or committee for the county; however, for the last 15 years, my husband and I have been volunteers with Big Corkscrew Island Fire and Rescue. And I tend -- I can see things on both sides and I can understand, and I'm going to have to say right now I'm pretty angry at a couple of commissioners because of what you have done to those of us in the Estates. You have your essential services and they are FP &L, water transfer plants, cable and so on, and they can build wherever they want. As a result, we have an FP &L substation, a rather large one, right smack in the middle of a neighborhood, but we can't have a fire station? You have people out in the extended areas of the Estates that are over five miles from the closest fire station. This can mean the difference as to whether or not they get homeowner's insurance or pay an extremely large premium for that pleasure of having it because they are over five miles from a fire station; however, this is all residential Page 48 December 7, 2006 area, so of course it has to come under conditional use. You're making it difficult to build a fire station or an EMS station out in the Estates but -- because you want your thumb on everything. Well, please put your thumb on FP &L and don't let them build another substation out in the middle of one of our neighborhoods. I'd like to compare some of the differences. That FP&L station, your water transfer plant, your cable, that is not going to make a darn bit of difference whether it's at point A or if it's at a mile or a mile and a half away at point B, but it is going to make a difference with a fire station whether it's at point A or a mile and (sic) a mile and a half away at point B, same with EMS. That mile means the difference as to how much a house burns, how long a person's trapped inside a car, whether a child has permanent brain damage from a seizure or you die from a heart attack. Where a fire station and an EM (sic) station goes is carefully calculated by population and distance between response time, and response time is a primary. There is a magic four minutes, as was mentioned earlier, and they try to get there in that period of time. But if they can't build a fire station in that reasonable time, we have more problems. A fire department is not going to build in the center of a neighborhood down a side street. It's essential that they have immediate access to a primary artery. But you're refusing them the ability to look for land that is zoned residential. They need to look for agriculture or -- and there really isn't any commercial out there -- for land that they can use that's in a residential area, but you're letting FP&L put a substation there. And I got to tell you, there's a lot of us that resent that. If you want to put your thumb on something, please put it on the utilities that it doesn't make that much difference if it's sitting in between two houses or on a piece of ago land. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Page 49 December 7, 2006 MS. ACQUARD: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. How many more speakers do we have? MS. FABACHER: We have Mr. Sollecito, Rosalie Rhodes, Jack Pointer. CHAIRMAN HALAS: How many do we have number wise? MS. F ABACHER: Well, I'm not sure because three people signed us for just plain LDC amendments, so I'm not sure. Mr. Goetch? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, what I'm trying to do is have a break here for our court reporter. MS. FABACHER: Oh, okay. Well, we may have six. I'm not sure what these three speakers want to speak on. They didn't identify the amendment. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The -- can you mention their name so we can figure out if it's on -- what item it's on? MS. FABACHER: All right. Mr. -- Colonel Noland? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that on this fire station thing? COL. NOLAN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. That's on the canopies? COL. NOLAN: No, on the LCD (sic) amendment for Collier County, if it's more than six months review. MS. FABACHER: Okay, okay, good. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, we're going to pass that. I mean, that's not a contentious issue. I don't know-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Dave Mulligan, Dave Mulligan? MR. MULLIGAN: It's not on this issue. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Mr. Goetch, G-O-E-- MR. GOETCH: It's not on this issue. MS. FABACHER: All right. Okay, sorry. Page 50 December 7,2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Why don't we take a 10-minute break for our court reporter at this time. And I think we've got -- then we can close the public hearing on this, is that my understanding, or have we got one more? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, there's still more. MS. FABACHER: Three -- we still have three speakers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Let's take a 10-minute break for our court reporter. She's been at this for over an hour and a half, so we'll be back here at 6:48. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I speak after we come back? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, I'm sorry. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're back from recess, and Commissioner Coyle has something he'd like to state before we go on with our next public speaker. Commissioner Coyle? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. Chairman, I -- there were some very strong statements made by Ms. Acquard, and I would like to verify the accuracy of those. And Chief Peterson, you might have to help me with this. But the allegation was made that we are not permitting fire departments and Emergency Medical Services departments to be built in the Estates and that people's lives are in danger because of that. Can you tell me how many facilities have been proposed to be built in the Estates and how many the Collier County Commission has rej ected? CHIEF PETERSON: Currently I don't think you've had any proposals come to you for a while. Rej ection of those sites, I'm not aware of. There's been -- probably the most familiar one is the exercise we went through in station 73 on Collier Boulevard where it took a long process. Page 51 December 7, 2006 If I may, I think in general what was attempted, as Commissioner Henning shared was, it used to be called a short form permit where you walk in the door and you're doing some minor things. Recently you have approved the rural estates overlay -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, Chief, I don't want to get off on a tangent. CHIEF PETERSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's just that Ms. Acquard made some very strong accusations that the Board of County Commissioners is failing to approve Emergency Medical Services and fire departments for people in the Estates and that people are -- lives are in danger as a result of our actions, and she was quite angry about it, and I don't believe that is true. Do you believe that's true? CHIEF PETERSON: I wasn't desirous of taking sides here. Technically your question is, I believe you're correct; however, I think it's the staffing process that's the problem, and that's what was attempting to be addressed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the staff can't take any action on something that hasn't been -- that has not been proposed. So you're telling me that there have been no facilities proposed for the Golden Gate Estates area, consequently there can be no failure on the part of the staff or the Board of County Commissioners to approve something that has not been proposed. CHIEF PETERSON: Currently as of today, we haven't brought any to you. We need to bring some sites to you, and that's -- that's kind of the -- what we're attempting to take care of here to facilitate those future sites, not the -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: But certainly you don't need to delay bringing a proposal to us until you get an LDC provision. You could bring a proposal to us under the current regulations? CHIEF PETERSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So I want to separate -- and Page 52 December 7,2006 I'm not questioning you on this issue. I just want to make sure we get accurate information to the public. So this is not an issue that prohibits public services facilities from being built in the Estates or anyplace else. All we're debating is whether or not it comes through a normal approval process by the Board of County Commissioners in an open advertised meeting where a conditional use process can take place. So that's all I wanted to clarify, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your help, Chief Peterson. The bottom line, I think, is, if there are locations where people believe that fire and EMS stations and sheriffs substations should be built, then please get them to us. Make the proposal. Let's get them in process. I guarantee you that every commissioner here will do everything possible to expedite that process. In fact, I think we do have -- if we don't, we should have -- an expedited process for every one of these facilities. MR. SCHMITT: We committed to that, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: There is no formal, what we'd call fast-track review. That's only for affordable housing and -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, can we make that official? MR. SCHMITT: Certainly. I could bring back an ordinance-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we do that? MR. SCHMITT: -- that would codify basically a fast-track program for -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think if the chairman would permit us to provide guidance to the staff to bring back a fast-track proposal for all of these facilities and encourage the locations to be identified as quickly as possible -- and let's get a fast-track approval process on them and get it moving. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's the answer to what we're Page 53 December 7, 2006 trying to discuss. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You just stole my thunder. I had all this stuff waiting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: He peeked at your notes during break time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You took too long, and I want to get out of here before midnight. So that's all I want to do is correct the record and also to just demonstrate that we're happy to move it along as fast as we possibly can. I think all of us will help expedite the process; just give us some proposals. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, thank you. Next public speaker, please. I'm sorry sir, to -- MR. SO LLECITO: That's quite all right, sir. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is John Sollecito. I am a resident of the Windstar community. I am also a board member of the Windstar Master Association and the chairman of the Safety and Access Control Committee. First of all, as a resident, I am proud to have the East Naples Fire Department and EMS as a neighbor. For those of you who may not be familiar with the proximity of the fire station to Windstar, it is literally at the entrance of our community. Every comment that I have received from our residents have been positive. With the fire department right out our door 24/7 gives us an extra sense of security. I have also noticed less loitering at that intersection since the fire department has been there. The firemen and paramedics always have been courteous, friendly, helpful whenever I have had any contact with them. I have heard from many residents in Windstar, and their contact -- comments have always been positive. Weare proud to call these firemen and paramedics our neighbors. I would urge any community that has the opportunity to have a fire station in their neighborhood to, by all means, support it without Page 54 December 7, 2006 hesitation. Secondly, to make the fire district go through the long drawn-out process of variance approvals prior to commencing construction could add months and sometimes years to the building process. Weare the fire station that took 18 months before a shovel went into the ground, by the way. As a taxpayer, I personally feel, to make a fire district go through process is a waste of my tax dollars. I strongly urge you, the county commissioners, to consider and include in the Land Development Code that EMS and the fire stations be included as essential services. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Next speaker is Ms. Rosalie Rhodes, and then our final speaker will be Jack Pointer. MS. RHODES: Rosalie Rhodes. And I am on the board of directors for Winter Park. Weare the -- we are -- Station 20 is part of our community. This letter is to address the board on the matter of the designation of fire stations. The location of fire stations is an issue of some contention. Most people want the fire stations and EMS located near someone else's home other than theirs. They're afraid of the aesthetics of the building, the noise and, in general, the disturbance of the engInes. I am a resident at Winter Park 8. My location is just behind Station 20. The question should be, not for the location but how good a neighbor is the fire department to our community? The answer is easy. They are an asset to our community. The building is pleasant to look at and blends with the -- with the neighborhood. When we painted our buildings, we chose a color that blended and complement the color chosen by the fire department. They keep the area around their building immaculate. They are neat and always considerate of our community. It is also their community. Page 55 December 7,2006 The different services have meetings and training on a regular schedule and do not ever, ever inconvenience us or disturb us in any way. The men and women are polite and considerate. The drivers are always aware of the residents, the older folk, the children and our pets. They use their sirens only when traffic does not yield to them. F or us, they are quiet. They're an important part of our community. They know who we are, they're there for our special needs in our community, and we chose to become friends. Friends take care of each other and watch over us without actually being in our business. Our privacy is never invaded. Think about how much time it takes to get to anyone of you. If you were having a heart attack, a stroke, every minute is important, for those few minutes that make a difference between life and death, your life or your death. How fast can they get to you and how much traffic must they travel through matters. Your home is on fire, you are counting the seconds. I believe that you are counting and praying until they arrive. How far away they are matters to you only if you are the person in need. Remember, you're counting every second until they arrive. They are not a commercial or industrial or retail business. They are an essential service. Every person in this room will need their services at one or more times in your life. How far away and how long a wait do you want? How important is your family to you, your safety? A fire station -- how can you safely have a fire station in someone else's neighborhoods, other than yours, is better for you (sic )? You will most likely say yes. Everyone wants it someplace else unless it's your life that matters. I chose to move near a fire and rescue station. I know from firsthand experience that their approximate closeness was essential. They helped whether the problem was small or the emergency was life threatening. Because my husband was desperately ill, the best -- this Page 56 December 7, 2006 was the best decision I could have ever have made. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ma'am? It's -- three minutes is up. MS. ROSALIE: Okay. I do have here -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wrap it up. MS. ROSALIE: -- signatures from the residents that have agreed with this letter, and I would like to give this so that you have this on file. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Sure. You can give this to the court reporter. MS. ROSALIE: I thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you, ma'am. MS. FABACHER: Last speaker would be Jack Pointer. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, forgive me. After -- I didn't realize there was another speaker. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I was supposed to be -- you're still waiting to call on me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MS. FABACHER: I don't know if Mr. Pointer's still in the room. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, he is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There he is. MR. POINTER: Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the measure. I waive my time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. Okay. That's our last public speaker? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time we'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. Ijust wanted to wait till all the speakers were finished. But anyway, let me begin by saying, each of the speakers is talking about how desperately Page 57 December 7, 2006 we need the stations yet nobody denies that and nobody ever wants to deny them a place to build. Anyplace they want to build, we've never -- we've never turned against. You know, I realize that the pleas were there, but we haven't stopped anybody from building. Tell us where you want to build them and build them. You know, we want to do that. We want to go ahead and do that. What you're saying really, in essence, is not all of that stuff that grabs at your heart, but what you're saying is, you want the process to be faster. If I strip away all the emotional stuff, I hear, we want the process to be faster and we want it to be cheaper and we want to get the job done. I agree, and I think all of us sitting here agree. So -- and we talked about fast tracking, but I think we should take that one step further. We should be getting our people here, whoever is in charge of making that process happen, along with somebody from -- a few people from fire, like for instance, Greg Spears. I mean, he's great, he's open minded but he's firm and he's dedicated. We ought to get a couple of these people together. We need this, we need this, we need this, we don't need that. Let's get this stuff done so that we don't have a garage held up for a million dollars, we don't have a fire station held up for 18 months. We should get this stuff together, work together, and get it done. And as a side note -- and we should do that now and we should have a time limit set for us. Okay . We're going to get representatives from both. Here's what I need. Fire service has to tell us what they need, you have to tell us what you need from them, and let's get the thing going, and I'm sure we can streamline it. Commission -- whatever -- Chief Peterson said something about they used to have a -- oh, what did he call it? Some kind of a -- use a simple form. Oh, maybe we should go back to using this simple form. Page 58 December 7,2006 I don't know what it is. But I think we ought to get this done and done quickly. And lastly, I want to say, almost on another subject and yet absolutely and totally involved with this, everyone talked about the length of time it takes to get to help people. I heard this time and agaIn. I just got back from Cleveland a short time ago and I was driving down the street and I heard some little -- some little signal start and immediately everybody was over at the side of the road. Not here. We all stay right here and see if we can't beat that EMS truck. And we're sitting at a line -- and at a light. We don't want to move over. I mean, we want this place. We've got the best place. We ought to start being conscientious drivers around here, too. We ought to be moving over. And I don't know how to make that happen, folks, but I think that's -- that should be an effort that we all start right here and continue so that when we see this EMS truck trying to get there, we ought to be -- we ought to be courteous and let them do that. That's enough. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Fiala, that was absolutely wonderful. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wanted to stand up and applaud, but I didn't know if it would be appropriate. But the truth of the matter is, you're absolutely correct, you know, and there's got to be something we can do. I do recognize some things that were said today. And the -- and you picked up on the message and the fact that the question is time and money and they equal results. However, with that said, too, I -- it was a little bit offensive to have the continuous reminder that the Collier County Commission was somehow directly responsible for the lack of fire protection. Page 59 December 7,2006 Now, in spite of the fact that I do support this motion, I do not support that contention that was said over and over again one way or another, and I think that's one of the things that got the rile of some of the commissioners here and the way the issue kept being put across. However, with that said, I do think that the process that's been put together is -- by this change in the ordinance meets the criteria that satisfies my need. I appreciate the fact that we have the needs of the signs, the public notice, and I recognized the fire commissions as a government entity that can make decisions when the time does come; however, I realize this is probably going to be less than successful. I am going to make a motion at this time to approve this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Coletta. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Coletta, and a second by Commissioner Henning in regards to this process. I just would like to say that -- where I stand on this. And I think that we're taking -- the staff is taking an awful lot of blame for not exercising due diligence in getting this done in a hurry, and I think there's more than just staff weighing into this whole proposition. I know that there's been cases where there's been transportation issues, there's been also wetlands issues, there have been Corps of Engineers issues, and those all have to be addressed no matter -- whether we go through with this amendment or we don't go through with this amendment. So to put the blame and say that it's costing taxpayers more money, yes, maybe we need to do more due diligence. And I think Commissioner Fiala made it very clear that -- and also Commissioner Coyle, that if we put this on the fast track, I think that's going to help. But you still have to remember, we have to abide by all of our Land Development Codes and the Growth Management Page 60 December 7, 2006 Plan. That's very essential, okay. And I think if we work in that vein, I believe that we'll get a lot more accomplished than what we're trying to do here. And I'm very concerned that we -- that we do not cut the citizens out of due process. And I feel that we will do everything possible to make sure that we take care of the health, safety and welfare of all the people here in Collier County. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now, I have a question to ask with the motion on the floor. My concern is, by the time we go through the different hearings and everything, it's going to take us a while. I think we could be fast -- we could move ahead faster and get this job done faster if we'd just get our parties to talking and put in a fast-track plan that we don't have now and put together some kind of a simple form to get through, and we could have the job settled before this ever passes an ordinance. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, the conditional use process requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission and then before the Board of County Commissioners. So there's a prescriptive time period that almost at least -- usually there is at least 30 days between the public hearing from the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners. And fast track works both ways. I'm looking over station 73, the entire history -- and I won't get into that but -- when staff has to wait four to six months for resubmittal. So we've got to be -- it's got to be a fast track from both sides. It's similar to what we do with the school system. If, in fact, there is not a resubmittal within a certain period of time, they basically fall out of the fast-track program. But there are -- the conditional use requirements require the public hearings before the Planning Commission, and then the Board of County Commissioners. Are you suggesting we change that and eliminate one of those public hearings? Page 61 December 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm not eliminating anything. What I'm saying is, I bet there's a way to speed it up. You know, we have to -- after one does something, then we have to wait to advertise the other one. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why can't we advertise both at the same time? That might eliminate a whole month, you know. Advertise we're going to have this and then we're going to have this. And you can have the CCPC meet on Thursday and we meet on Tuesday and approve it, and you've just saved yourself a bunch of time. I think a neighborhood meeting is essential. But that can all be done in the process. I think there are many ways to make it a more streamlined -- MR. SCHMITT: We can do that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- process. MR. SCHMITT: It would be a verbal report back to you then -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. MR. SCHMITT: -- what took place at the Planning -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. We never object to anything like that. MR. SCHMITT: It would not be-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: But Commissioner -- MR. SCHMITT: It would not be in the written -- you would not have a written report from the Planning Commission. It would basically be verbal. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other thing, Commissioner, you have to remember that there may be extenuating circumstances in regards to, can they meet the criteria of South Florida Water Management. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, see, and we would never have anything to say about that, whether -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, see, that's part of the process of Page 62 December 7,2006 how things are slowed down because they could say, well -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- we've submitted this item and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that has nothing to do with us, does it, with out ordinance? CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. It doesn't have anything to do with us. But what I'm saying is, so that we're not caught in the web here saying that the process was held up, and it wasn't because of the county, but it was because of some other agencies that need to be involved, okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Just so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. We don't have any control over those agencies. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And I don't know -- you referred to something about station 73, and I'm not quite sure what you were referring to, but it sounded like somebody didn't resubmit their things, and so everything went astray. And if there's a bottleneck, instead of waiting around, we ought to -- we ought to tackle it and get over that bottleneck. MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. It's both teams meeting and going through the process and -- bring them all in. We'll deal with them. We'll get them through the process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll wait until after you've called the question. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any other further discussion? (No response.) Page 63 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Not hearing any, all those in favor of this amendment, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion fails. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, if I could. CHAIRMAN HALAS: 3-2 vote. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is absolutely essential, as a number of the commissioners have said, particularly Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Halas, that we should fast track these things. That just makes sense. I mean, why create problems for essential public services? So let's do that. And I would like to make a motion that really has these two parts, first is the fast track. And the second is a request to the fire districts that they give us a comprehensive plan of the locations where they believe that they need to have facilities and to build upon the good will that they have with the communities to identify specific properties so that we can get these places before the Board of County Commissioners. It seems to me that with the support that the fire districts have, if they bring a proposal to the Board of County Commissioners and there's community support, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to disapprove it, but we are talking about things that haven't happened. We're not talking about disapprovals of anything because there haven't been any . We are talking about delays in approvals that have cost more money, and I think we can solve that with improvement of process. Page 64 December 7, 2006 So my proposal, my motion is, number one, to formally implement a fast-track proposal for all public services -- I think safety -- all safety services, law enforcement, fire and Emergency Medical Services -- and to ask that the fire districts provide us a comprehensive plan of locations, and to the extent they can identify specific properties, and to encourage those proposals to start coming in to us so we can get them approved. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Coletta in regards to fast tracking and the other items that Commissioner Coyle stated in his motion. Is there any discussion? I think Commissioner Henning was next. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Well, the fire departments do submit their plan every year and their needs. And I think it's under chapter 191 or 163 of the Florida statutes. I'm not sure if Mr. Schmitt gets them, but that's the problem. It comes up to the Board of Commissioners, and we fail to get it down to you, we need to fix that. MR. SCHMITT: I have no idea whether they have plans for it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The second problem is, Mr. Schmitt alluded to. It's after his reviewers make some comments and send it back to the engineer or architect, that it takes a while to get back. And I -- you know, we have a problem with that all the way around, and I know that you're working on that through the industry. So it's not just all of the county's fault for approving these or getting them up to us to approve them. But the last thing that I want to say, I just want to tell everybody that Commissioner Coy Ie -- I think it was three years ago -- was, you know, recognizing what happened on September 11 tho He was the Page 65 December 7,2006 one that pushed us to have a freedom memorial on our government site. He is very supportive of the personnel, whether it be firefighters or EMS or policemen. Make no mistake about it. And we're going to continue to work together. Ifwe do have a problem with these conditional uses, please let us know and see how we can shorten the time process. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I just wanted to say the reason I voted as I did is, it wasn't going to make a difference one way or another which way I voted. But what I want to see done is have that thing moving forward right now, not waiting any longer. Tomorrow I want to see Greg calling you and getting that show on the road. And so that's the why I voted. I feel we can do it a lot better. We all know we can do it better, and let's begin. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And just one last point. Commissioner Henning prompted this last thought. And I'm not -- I'm not going to try to make decisions for the fire departments. But I wonder -- this is just a question -- if we can't -- if the fire districts can't agree on a standard design for a j oint fire/EMS and perhaps even sheriffs facility so that we can -- they can reduce the cost of architectural drawings and design, and if we're dealing with essentially the same design every time, the process should be relatively simple. Once you've approved that -- it could even be a couple of different designs if the fire districts wish to do that, and I won't prejudge it. But I've made this same pitch for our libraries. I don't understand why we go through the design processes from scratch on all these things and pay architects and -- lots of money to do this. But if it makes sense -- and I'm not an expert in the area -- but if it makes sense to the fire districts, then perhaps they could -- they could have a standard design and you could approve these things and Page 66 December 7, 2006 you could cut right through the design and architecture and engineering and everything all at once, okay? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. They can standardize the design, absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Standardize the design with different facades. Any more discussion from our Board of County Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll call the question. Again, the motion was made by Commissioner Coyle and seconded by Commissioner Coletta. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, Ms. Devanes has two things on the agenda that we have a number of speakers on. I'm going to make a motion to approve. And she's here. I think it's 10.02.13. ***CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we've got the boat covers next, and I think we've got to cover that item; is that correct? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. And then the speakers for Ms. Devanes are after that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay, if that's all right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then I make a motion to Page 67 December 7,2006 approve the boat covers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there a-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, second the motion. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, but -- sorry, Commissioners, but CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. We've got some speakers. MS. F ABACHER: You had requested, given staff direction on a little bit of rewriting on this, so I wanted to report back to you on that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Please do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which page are we on? MS. FABACHER: Okay. I'm sorry. We're on page 15 -- 14, 15 in your book, and then on page -- the summary sheet, which starts on page 11, but the changes are on 14 and 15. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have letters on my summary sheet. A, B, C, D. MS. FABACHER: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have page numbers. MS. FABACHER: No. It's page C on your summary sheet. CHAIRMAN HALAS: In the green book, Commissioner. Look on page -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't even want to open the green book. I'm looking at summary sheet. Where are we on the -- page C. MS. F ABACHER: We're on page C. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's what I want to know. MS. FABACHER: All right. You'll recall at the meeting on October 25th, the board direction was several things. First, you had asked us, under section F where we say, the maximum number of boathouses or covered structures per site is one, okay, to add boat lift canopIes. But then you requested us to say, well, if you're on the canal, you can have one, and if you're on the bay, you can have two. So for that reason staff kind of left F as it was. And then if you go over to G, Page 68 December 7, 2006 under G it says, no boat lift canopies shall be permitted at sites that contain either a boathouse or a covered structure. I think that addresses your concern. And plus, if people want to know about boat lift canopies, how are they going to know they need to go up here and look in the boathouse section? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Right. MS. FABACHER: So we did that. The building department asked us to change C, the highest -- the way we measured it, we measured it from the top of the nearest seawall or top of bank, which would require a surveyor. Bill Hammond suggested we measure it from the highest point of the canopy to the height of the dock walkway, which is very simple to do, and that would help his people. Then on the colors, last thing -- okay. On number 2, G2, lots with frontage on canal shall be permitted a maximum one boat lift canopy per site. Lots with frontage on bay shall be permitted a maximum of two boat leaf (sic) canopies per site. Then the last thing was the colors. And actually we had discussed -- and I think Mr. Halas was like -- really didn't like white, so we pulled the white out, unless you direct us to put the white in. CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. MS. FABACHER: We left it simple, to be beige -- based on our discussion at the last meeting, beige, and then mid range shades of blue or green, and then we just took out the rest of the -- if that's what it is, why should we say, well, you can't use yellow, you can't -- that's it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Those are the changes you requested, and then that's -- we did -- and then, of course, we had that last one there, number three. If you want to have a boat lift canopy and you want a different color, then you can come before the board like you do with -- I mean the Planning Commission like you do with a dock extension or a boathouse thing and have a public hearing, and then get the boat lift Page 69 December 7, 2006 the way you want it then. This is to be permitted just by right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Otherwise, if you can't meet those specific conditions, then you're going to have to go to the Planning Commission and get it approved. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve 5.03.06. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just one question. I know we had spoken -- last time we had a speaker, and made an orange canopy, which all of us thought, awe, and then he -- and he said he also thought it was going to be awful except it matched the roof of his house exactly and it looked like it was a part of the house. If there's anything like that that -- is that -- is that something that could come up to us? MS. FABACHER: That would come to the Planning Commission -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Planning Commission. MS. FABACHER: --like the boathouse petition and the dock extension petition does right now. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But then if there was some really good reason why it would, I mean, put a green over there with an orange roof, it would probably look awful. MS. FABACHER: Well, I think the Planning Commission can make that decision. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But we've given them that latitude to do that in here. MS. FABACHER: That's exactly my point. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have any public speakers on this? Page 70 December 7, 2006 MR. KLATZKOW: We have eight, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Would you call the public speakers before we -- MS. FABACHER: Ms. B.J. Savard-Boyer. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Henning -- Commissioner Henning, you made the motion and Commissioner Fiala seconded it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I think it was -- I did the first time, I seconded it, and then I think the second time -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, when we called out exactly what the LDC -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, then that was Commissioner Coletta that seconded it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Correct. MS. FABACHER: After Ms. Savard-Boyer, we're going to have Mark Allen. MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is B.J. Savard-Boyer, and I live in the Vanderbilt Beach area. I don't know that I can say anything that hasn't been said before regarding view, regarding safety, aesthetic value to the neighborhood on the use of different colors. And you've done a good job on some good standards, but I think that we need some stronger standards on a few things. Safety of the neighborhood. I think the canopies should be removed by absentee owners. They need to make arrangements before they leave town in case we do have a hurricane that comes up and they're in the north, and down here -- now, I know you're saying that these are supposed to be built according to a standard of wind load or something like that. If that's the case, then they won't come down. But if that's not the case, then there are already canopies up there, then they're going to be down like they were in Wilma. And the in-town owners, you know, they can take care of it in a timely fashion when the hurricanes are forecasted. Page 71 December 7, 2006 I think you're opening yourself up for a headache with shades of green and blue and beige. And I would like to say that I never did mention white. That was somebody else's mention. I think that there are colors out there that you can say -- I don't care if it's navy blue or sky blue or turquoise blue or light blue or whatever. But if somebody comes in here and says, well, I want this blue and somebody else says -- that's a shade of blue. Can't you pick a shade of blue? I mean, I don't see why that's so hard to do, or a shade of green, you know, like a palm frond or anything. But you're going to have more people complaining to you that this is the shade I want, so you're just opening yourself up for something. I guess the other thing that I didn't understand is the two canopies on a bay lot and the one canopy on a canal, but that was your decision. So that's it. I just think we're going to look like a circus tent, but then again -- especially if we have orange and 10 shades of blue, and six shades of green and beige thrown in now and then. Thanks. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Allen, and then we'll have Jeff Garard. MR. ALLEN: My name's Mark Allen, for the record. And Commissioners, my hat is off to you guys. You guys do some horrendous good stuff. Thank you. I went to Mr. Ed Perico. I was 48 years old when this all began. MR. SCHMITT: And you're 49 now. MR. ALLEN: No, no. I turned 54 last month, I turned 54 last month. And I thought I'd done the right thing then and I think I'm doing the right thing now. I would like to continue to have my canopy. I'm not obstructing anyone's view. I'm not harming anyone. If there is something that has happened since the last meeting, is there something I can address? I support this. I appreciate this. Mr. Henning, is there something that's changed in your mind that Page 72 December 7, 2006 would change your opinion, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we just don't have purple polka dotted canvases. And I can't understand that if you can have it in Lee County, why can't you have it in Collier County? But that's fine. MR. ALLEN: Mrs. Fiala, with your constituents, was there -- is there something I can address? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. MR. ALLEN: Mr. Halas, sir? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, I-- MR. ALLEN: By the way, I enjoyed your meeting. Thank you very much for your meeting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What meeting was that, sir? MR. ALLEN: When we met two months ago. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, okay. The concern that I have -- and I was going to bring it up after the vote, and that is, I have some real concerns in regards to the shades that were brought up. And I think that there could be some fallout from all of this, because I believe that when this starts to be -- to come into the community and we see different shades of blue, different shades of green, I think we're going to have some clashes there. So I'm relying on staff to hopefully come up with some type of criteria that can be added to this maybe later so that we don't have the clash. And I'm concerned about that, okay? MR. ALLEN: Yes, sir. And my response to you is, I understand that, but the problem is, that anyone can paint their house any color, and if they want to match it up, you can't control the colors of the houses. So I don't know -- and that's a tough -- it's a tough sell, I understand that, and I understand what you're saying, but I don't know where to go with it. I don't have the answer. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well-- MR. ALLEN: I truly don't, sir. I truly don't. Page 73 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. ALLEN: Mr. Coletta, when we talked it was regarding the covers, the ones that snap on, and I gave you my explanation why I didn't like those, because of the electronics and because of the -- is there anything changed in your mind that I can address here in my three minutes? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't have a problem. I'll be honest with you, I don't care what color it is, and if you want to put neon signs above it all, that's fine by me. MR. ALLEN: No, sir. I'm not asking for that. MS. FABACHER: Nope. That would not be allowed. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can't do that, sir. MR. ALLEN: Mr. Coyle, is there anything, sir, that I can help with? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't ever want to talk about this subj ect again. MR. ALLEN: I'll tell you what, if you go along with this, on my 55th birthday I'll be fishing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have heard as much about colors as I ever wanted to know, and I hope I never have to do it ever, ever agaIn. MR. ALLEN: Yes, sir, and I thank all of you for your time. I know this has been long and it's been lengthy. And I would hope that you approve it for me. I don't -- I think everyone will be happy with it. I've done my time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: One of the concerns that I have -- and it's not in here, but it was brought up this evening and it's been on my mind also, how can we make sure that absentee owners address the issue of making sure that those are down when -- before they leave for the season? Is there any way? MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, you're asking for government to take the responsibility. I think that would be very problematic for Page 74 December 7,2006 us to -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- enter on the property and remove it. But every permit will have that statement that it has to be removed above -- and I believe that -- we didn't put it in the code because it really does not belong in the Land Development Code. But it will be on the permit, at 74 mile per hour wind or above, the canopy cover must be removed. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What I'm saying is the people that are gone for three or four months. MR. SCHMITT: I think that's something that a neighbor, frankly, is going to have to go over and take it down. If-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- we stepped on the property, we have trespassing issues, we have other issues that are -- and we assume a considerable amount of responsibility and potential liability . CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm not saying for us to take it down. I'm just wondering how we can enforce the people to take it down before they leave. MR. SCHMITT: You know, this is like a pool screen-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Give me a call. MR. SCHMITT: -- you know, you either take it down or you go over there and you cut it. Frankly, you'd rather replace the canvas than try and replace the frame. Those people that own them, you can replace the -- well, it's actually vinyl. You just cut it like you do a pool screen. Much easier than replacing the whole screen, as Commissioner Coyle and I and Mr. Mudd and some others, are certainly well aware of. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Next public speaker, please. MR. GARARD: Hello. I'm Jeff Garard. I've been to a few of these meetings, and I just want to let you know that I'm not opposed to this. I appreciate the revisions that you've made, and I think it should Page 75 December 7, 2006 remain that way, and I defer to the next folks. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Next speaker will be Mr. John Purvis, followed by Mr. McCrohan. MR. PURVIS: Good evening. And I'd like to take this time to thank all of the commissioners for their time that they've put in. I know there's a lot of controversy over colors, but I think I've solved that. I was down at Port Royal and I saw a pink house on the beach there, and I thought, what a lovely color for a canopy, nice pink. I'm being facetious. I know it's been tough, and I want to thank you for your time and for all the work that everyone's done to make this happen. I hope the vote is in our favor, and we'll continue. We're -- we have our property. We're proud of our property. We're going to be good stewards of these canopies. We don't want to blow away the whole canopy. We're going to take it down. That's -- I mean, it's common sense, so -- thanks again for all your time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Mr. McCrohan, and then Cheryl Lewandowski. MR. McCROHAN: Thank you, Commissioners. Once again, as we said, it's been a long road. I've been here at all the meetings. I'm sure you recognize me. I am in favor of the canopies. I feel it's a great asset to boat owners. As far as colors, you know, you can't tell people what to do and you hope that people do the right thing. You hope that absentee owners will employ a service like Waterways offers to take down canopies and reinstall them. Unfortunately, a lot of people, they'd rather not slit their screens. They'd rather replace their cage at great expense. Hopefully we'll Page 76 December 7,2006 have owners that are much more responsible than that. And I thank you for all your efforts in this. It's been a long, hard road, and you've done an excellent job, and I thank you and I appreciate everything. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: And then Mr. Boswell after Ms. -- MS. LEWANDOWSKI: Hi. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead. MS. LEWANDOWSKI: I'm just trying to rush, get us out of here. I'm Cheryl Lewandowski, but you probably know that already. I've been up here a few times. And I'll try to make this very short and sweet. I'm here hoping that you will pass the boat lift canopy issue. And I'm sorry, Mr. -- Commissioner Coyle, but I am going to talk about colors just a bit, okay? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, no. Don't do that. MS. LEWANDOWSKI: I think it will be difficult for the county to just have a few different colors because every manufacturer has a different shade of blue and green, and it depends on which manufacturer you end up going with, your canopy color, they'll offer a different shade. And actually I think -- obviously I like color. And I would hate to see everything institutional and all the same color. And that woman brought up a circus, she doesn't want to see a circus out there, but who doesn't love a circus? Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: James Boswell, and then the final speaker will be Bruce Burkhard. MR. BOSWELL: Good evening, Commissioners. My name's Jim Boswell. I'm a resident on 3rd Street. You've seen me up here Page 77 December 7, 2006 before. I hope you got my email at the last meeting with my digital photo showing you the pictures all the way down from my property of all of the boat docks. And you can imagine if I didn't -- if I had any opposition to it, anybody had an opposition, I should have an opposition, and I do not. Mark, did want me to specifically ask, what was the height from the existing seawall to the top of the -- to the top of the boat lift cover from the walkway? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Twelve feet, I believe it was. MS. FABACHER: Yeah, excuse me. Yes. MS. BOSWELL: Twelve feet. Does that answer your question, Mark? Twelve feet. CHAIRMAN HALAS: From the walkway to the top peak -- to the very peak, 12 feet. MS. ALLEN: That will work. MR. BOSWELL: Okay. And I just wanted to thank you for your time and your effort. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is that our last public -- MS. FABACHER: Oh, no, I'm sorry. Mr. Burkhard was our last speaker. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. BURKHARD: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Burkhard. I live at 283 Oak Avenue, and I'd like to speak out in opposing the motion for three really important reasons. Number one, it blocks a view down the canal, not only of the immediately adjacent neighbor, but also the other neighbors further down the canal. Part of the amendment was that it allowed a drop cloth to drop a foot and a half down beyond the base of the cover itself. So not only is the roof and the boat obstructing the view, but we also have a foot and a half of canopy hanging down between the boat and the sky that's acting as a further block to people down the canal. That's one. Page 78 December 7,2006 Number two, due to -- and it's already been addressed -- the numerous closer the undefined nature of the colors, I think we're -- you're really opening yourself up for a whole nest of problems. You're going to have all kinds of people calling in, and it's going to add to a very ununiform, non-standard and, perhaps, ugly addition to the neighborhood. And thirdly, as a few years pass -- and we can see this in some of the boathouses in the neighborhood -- the sun starts beating down and the canopies are going to fade and they're going to deteriorate, just as some of the boathouses have done. And what has happened is, in many instances, these boathouses become slums in the neighborhood, and I'm concerned that the same thing is going to happen with this proliferation of canopies. So for all those three reasons, I'd recommend that you simply remain with the status quo and not adopt this amendment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. That's our last public speaker? MS. FABACHER: That's the last one. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We'll close the public hearing. Are -- there any discussion from each of our commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed, by like sign? Aye. Page 79 December 7,2006 And the motion still carries, I believe, 4-1. The reason I voted no is because of some of the concerns that were brought forth tonight, and those are my concerns that I've had for some time. So the motion carries anyway. Got your boathouses, or your canvas covers. Okay. Next subject. ***MS. FABACHER: All right, Commissioner, we're going to page -- sheet Q in the summary sheets, and we're going to hear section 10.02.13 under P -- I'm sorry, under -- well, it's under PUD procedures. It's on page 113 in your green book. And this is the one with the six-month notice to the county when the properties in a development go over to a homeowners' association. Maryann Devanas, she has quite a few speakers, but I guess she wants to speak. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve 10.02.13. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Maryann, if you'd like to still go through with the presentation, or does -- everybody satisfied with what we've got? MS. DEV ANAS: No, sir. I was here just to answer questions if you had any concerns. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have any public speakers on this one? MS. FABACHER: We have quite a few. I don't know if they want to speak or not, Maryann. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The people here, that are here this evening, do they want to speak against or for? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Vote and approve. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Anybody against it? One guy against it here. COL. NOLAND: No, I want to speak. Page 80 December 7, 2006 MS. FABACHER: All right. What was your name? Come and say your name. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. Are you going to try to talk us out of approving it? COL. NOLAND: Not yet. Good evening. I'm Leonard Noland, and I worked in government counties and associations, and I can tell you that I've just finished reading your 10-year strategic plan, and it's so proactive, it's so for the consumer. The PUD IOU is probably the greatest gift any board could ever give a community. It helps bring the developer and the homeowner together. It helps us understand. Commissioner Fiala, the other day you said, gee, we ought to get that slot filled because there is a consumer out there who needs that advice. I hope that can also be expedited. And I thank you so much for giving us the PUD IOU. And of all those here who sat here all evening, would you put your hands up for approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So everybody's in favor of this, fantastic. Okay. We'll call the question. All those in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (N 0 response.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was a nice easy one. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, great. Thank you very much for being here this evening. (Applause.) ***CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, did you Page 81 December 7, 2006 have one more item that you wanted to bring forward, or is that it? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. I do have a few questions for clarifications. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we leave now, too? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you can. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we take a break while you're doing it? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You guys want to go eat dinner? I'll ask my questions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Order the pizza. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning, go ahead with your questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's --let me flip through it here. On page -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: If it has something to -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It it's a definition, new -- it's about passive recreation. It's section 1.08.02, and it's saying the board COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What page? CHAIRMAN HALAS: What page? MR. SCHMITT: R. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you working out of the book? R. MS. FABACHER: That would be on page -- Commissioners, page 123 in the green book. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's saying here the Board of Commissioners, to remove the provisions for allowing hunting and vehicular access from maintenance. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir, that was the board's direction, just to go ahead with the passive recreation definition and, in a later cycle, to discuss the motorized activity and the hunting. Page 82 December 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Plus, I think the board directed also that a lot of the Collier, Conservation Collier land's language be moved out of the LDC and be put into the ordinance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. FABACHER: I think was your -- so this remaining -- the passive recreation is remaining for compo planning and environmental services, who also need a definition. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And then let me see -- I'll go through this real quick. Okay. My last question is -- is the recodification. It's one of the last things. I don't know which one. It's on the summary. But it's about the definitions of commercial vehicles and equipment. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to know how this is going to be enforced. Because it says, commercial vehicles -- commercial equipment to include landscaping and equipment, lawn mowers, ladders, spools of wire, pool cleaning equipment. Now does that mean for commercially used, or is it going to be applied that I can't -- I can't have a push mower in the back of my yard, or does it mean I agreed to do something with that long pole with the brush at the end of it to clean my pool? MS. DANTINI: Good evening, Commissioners. Sharon Dantini, training coordinator for Collier County code enforcement. No, these are strictly for commercial purposes. You would be able to have, as a private homeowner -- and you use it on your own property, you would be able to have that equipment on your property. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it would not have -- you could have all these on the property according to -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: What page are you on, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm on 217. MS. FABACHER: Sorry, page 217, Commissioners. Page 83 December 7,2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Way in the back. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which letter is that in the summary sheet? MS. FABACHER: Oh, Lord. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's the last letter. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, is it, okay, CC. MS. FABACHER: Correct, CC. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All of it is identified as commercial equipment. Do I need to screen -- as a homeowner using my lawn mower at home, do I need to screen that out of the view of my neighbors? MS. DANTINI: Recreational vehicles have a place where they can be parked on your premises. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they need to be screened, I understand that. MS. DANTINI: Absolutely. But if it's only for your own use, it's not for commercial purposes. Like I'm quite sure that that would be considered more of a recreational type or just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. DANTINI: -- property ownership type of -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me explain to you how the ordinance or the code is written and why it was. It was to -- for people in business bringing their equipment home, that it be screened and sheltered. MS. DANTINI: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But since there is certain language in here, I just want to know how the government is going to enforce it. I want to know whether I need to take my pole that has that scrub brush on it and go hide it, because I use it, but I don't use it on my neighbor's pool or my friend's pool. I keep it there and just use it on my pool. MS. DANTINI: Some of the things that we check when we're Page 84 December 7, 2006 enforcing these types of issues are the licenses, if a person has an occupational license or not. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. DANTINI: If we receive a complaint. We're not going to be out pro actively enforcing this. It's going to come from a complaint more than likely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to -- I want to continue this till I get a good answer because you really don't understand what I'm trying to say. MS. DANTINI: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's fine. MR. SCHMITT: For clarification, you want to know how this definition will be applied to -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Private residences. MR. SCHMITT: -- private residences. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: We will get that for the next meeting. We will have somebody from code explain it as well, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm really glad, because we do have people around our community -- one in every community, I'm sure -- that will find little tiny loopholes and be reporting their neighbors. They'll make a practice of doing that if it isn't really clear. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is this for commercial or not? MR. SCHMITT: I know we would not -- it would not be, but I want to read it because I'm concerned, exactly what Commissioner Henning said, if you read it literally and apply it literally, somebody could say, I gotcha. We will look at that because this is not meant to be -- it's not meant to be written to -- for a single -- or for a homeowner or private resident, but I just want to make sure. And he raises a good concern, and I just want to make sure that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm sure they're applying it the right way. Page 85 December 7, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Yep. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no question. But some day down the road when County Manager Mudd is not here -- MR. SCHMITT: Oh, when those lawyers get at it, it's the ones I've got to worry about. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the last thing is, there was questions at the Planning Commission about page 119, if you -- if you flip it over. MR. SCHMITT: 219? COMMISSIONER FIALA: 219. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 219. Can we --let's see. The 14th we're going to meet. Can we get this straightened out with the Planning Commission? MS. FABACHER: Well, they've directed that we come back and discuss it on the 21 st, which would be after the 14th. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I have some concerns about this because -- and I don't know if they're valid. But on the September 30th LDC it's different from what's in this book, and I don't know who was in between here that made that change. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe there was an email sent out on that, wasn't there -- MS. FABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- that if you could enlighten us all about the email. MS. FABACHER: Okay, sure. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And I think everybody's on the same page, I hope. MS. FABACHER: Originally we were asked to write -- we've been trying for two LDC cycles to write a new definition of lot width because it was left out of the new code from the old code. We've been unsuccessful in doing that and agreeing on the terms of it. And we've come across some regulatory problems where it has hurt us not to have Page 86 December 7,2006 lot width in the code. The -- one of the Planning Commissioners had wanted us to measure the setbacks in the lot width in a new fashion that was different from the procedure that we've been using for 30 years countywide, and it would have meant -- to staff it would have meant that thousands of buildings, mostly residential buildings, would now become legally non-conforming, which means two things: There's a cloud on the title, and two, if over 50 percent of the value of that house should be destroyed by a hurricane or a fire, then that house has to come into compliance -- has to come and conform with the new law that we would have put into effect, which we've been doing one way for 30 years, so -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: And how have we been measuring this setback for 30 years? MS. FABACHER: We've been measuring from -- I think the two illustrations show -- well, the one -- if you look at the one illustration that you have in the back, on page -- page 220. If you look at the illustration on page 220 -- have you all found it? You're not even looking in the book. You don't want to open the book, okay. All right. So-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I remember it all. I read it last night. MS. FABACHER: Well, you form a cord by connecting on a cul-de-sac. It's on a cul-de-sac or any house that's on a curved part of a road, okay? The way that we've been measuring it is you take the two front lot lines, the two foremost points of the lot lines and you connect them with what is called a cord, and then you measure back from the cord, and that is what we've been doing for 30 years. One commissioner wanted us to change that and measure from the actual street right-of-way and swing another arch back, which would have made the front yard bigger but would have put a lot of others that encroach now, they would be legally nonconforming. Page 87 December 7, 2006 So since we so badly needed the definition, staff decided to withdraw the one we were working on and go ahead and put verbatim the terms of the old code back and suggested -- when I spoke to the commission the other day, I said, let us debate this at length at the next cycle because this is putting a lot of property owners in jeopardy of giving them a hardship, I mean, a hard time, because -- I mean, I'm from New Orleans, 150,000 residential structures were damaged by the hurricane. This would mean that someone would have to, if they're seven feet in, say -- to the 25 feet they're supposed to have -- then if we want to come and get a building permit to renovate it or rebuild it or put on a new roof and it's worth more than the appraised value of the house itself, not the land, then they'll be compelled to follow this new rule and chop the front seven feet off of their house or move their house back seven feet, the whole house. But if you chop off the front, then there's going to be changes to partition walls inside and moving plumbing. And, you know, it's a worst-case scenario thing, but it's a lot of burden to put on property owners who, for -- because one person wanted to change the way the county's done something for 30 years. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't understand all this stuff. In fact, I use a yardstick instead of a cord to measure. But if you can forward those minutes to me when the Planning Commission discussed this -- MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I think I would understand it better. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want anybody to say that something was overlooked. MS. FABACHER: Absolutely not. And I -- we did raise the Page 88 December 7, 2006 issue of creating non-conformities with the Planning Commission, but they didn't consider it an issue. In the interest of protecting property owners, which is staffs main mission, we decided to defer in the safe side, put something in to help us now and bring it back and talk about how many people will be in non-conformity. but yes, I'll be happy to forward those minutes to you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question. Why can't we solve this by establishing a grandfathering date for creating nonconforming structures in the event of destruction? F or example, why couldn't we say, as of the date that we put in the new measurement for the front yard setback, that as of that date, all residences that had been measured by the cord method would be deemed conforming structures? And then you would be able to apply a new measurement process from that date forward for all construction that would take place from that date forward. The cord method does, in fact, create some problems. And if there is a better way of doing it, I wouldn't obj ect to going to a new way of measuring it, but I also agree that we shouldn't put a lot of people in jeopardy, but we could do that simply by granting a conforming structure status as of the date of the adoption of the new law. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, staff can look at that during the next cycle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. MS. FABACHER: I don't want to comment on it now, but-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: And if you're going to measure by cord, could you tell us what that means? Page 89 December 7, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Later. MS. FABACHER: At the next meeting I'll have a total explanation for you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think you've got all of our undivided attention on the cord. MS. FABACHER: All right, okay. Shall we now go back to the regular order, or -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, please. MS. FABACHER: Okay. All right. ***Okay. Then I'm going to go back to sheet B. This is a quick one, and it's on page 7 of your green book. And this has been explained at length last time. But I think David Jackson came in case you have any more questions about it. It's the administrative deviation process for the MUP. I think we discussed it at the last October 30th meeting, I believe. If you had any more questions, David's here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions from commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Henning. Hearing no further discussion -- do we have any speakers on this one? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: No speakers, okay. Call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Page 90 December 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. MS. FABACHER: Excellent. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Four. I believe we've got four votes, okay. ***MS. FABACHER: All right. Commissioner, if you'd turn to page D, we're going to begin with the transportation section, and the transportation staff is here. We're going to go to page 17, section 4.04.00, 4.04.02. And this is an amendment that requires interconnection and vehicular pedestrian interconnection between adjacent developments. And you'll recall Nick explained the criteria of the situations where we could not compel you to do it. But Nick's here if you have any questions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Second on that. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions from commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 91 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, Nick. Great presentation. MS. FABACHER: All right. If you'd turn to page E of your summary sheet, and that will be page 19 in the green book. It's another one of Nick's. I think he answered some questions on it for you last -- on the October 25th meeting. Did you have any more questions from -- on this issue? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll second that. There's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta (sic) and seconded by Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. Commissioner Coyle. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Coyle, excuse me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay. You can blame me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's getting late in the day. Any questions from our fellow commissioners here? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries 4-1 (sic). MS. FABACHER: Okay. I'm going to turn to the next page of the summary sheet F, and we're going to go to page 21 in the green Page 92 December 7,2006 book. And this is the section 6.06.02, sidewalk and bike lane requirements. You recall that Trinity Caudill-Scott explained this on October -- or September 20th, I'm sorry. And the board had directed and asked -- there was an issue about the thickness of the -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Top. MS. FABACHER: And if you will turn to page 26, you will see in red the correction that you all asked to have put in. I'll read it, if you'd like. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Put it on the -- yes. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Below it are the preferred standards for pathway construction; however, if the applicant can demonstrate that a lesser cross section will meet the requirements of the county, then upon the approval of the county manager or designee, it may be permi tted. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any question from the fellow commissioners on this? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor, and I'll second this. Motion by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Halas. Any further discussion? Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is -- also states the payment in lieu of? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Yes, it does, just for pathways. That was the only addition as far as payment in lieu, and it also introduces the construction in lieu to where a developer could construct instead of just writing the county a check. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct, on public roadways? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: Yes, they are identified as needed within our comprehensive pathway plan. Page 93 December 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think later on we need to have a discussion about transportation impact fees, building sidewalks on the roadways, and this paying for sidewalks on our roadways. You don't have a choice? MS. CAUDILL-SCOTT: It is my understanding that that's been a directive from the County Manager's Office for the impact fee office to look into the payment in lieu situation a little bit more closely, and they will be coming back with some opinions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. Motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Halas. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No response.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thanks very much, Trinity. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. Was that 4-0 or 5-0? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I didn't vote because I didn't know which one we were voting on. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Well, 4-0's fine. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's all it takes. MS. FABACHER: I just need it for the record. Okay. Thank you, Commissioners. On that same summary sheet, F, section 10.02.02, submittal Page 94 December 7, 2006 requirements for plats, amending text to authorize and increase submittal requirements. This is on page 27 and 28. And I wanted to say that there have been some changes since you last saw it to -- it's usually our custom when we have submittal requirements, we don't always go ahead in the LDC and list them all. They'll usually list it on the application. And apparently they're also referencing the procedures that are carried in resolution 2003-410 that more or less guides the TIS process. So if you have questions, you know, Nick is here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions by commissioners in regards to this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe the motion carries. MS. FABACHER: All right. We're turning to page G on the Page 95 December 7, 2006 summary sheet, and this is another transportation amendment, and it's section 10.02.07, and it's submittal requirements for certificates of public facility adequacy. Nick had briefed you on it on the September 20th meeting. And if you have any further questions -- it's on -- I'm sorry, it's on page 29 in your book. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala. And Commissioner Coletta has a question. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Amend text to require traffic count be provided until a development is 100 percent built out. How often? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Excuse me, sir? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How often does the traffic count -- it is taken every year, is it or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Annually. As required annually by the PUD monitoring system. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And they -- they're obligated to turn those numbers in to transportation. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It sure does. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions by my fellow commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 96 December 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Commissioners, on page H of the summary sheet and in page 31 of your green book, we're going to look at section -- an amendment to section 10.02.07, submittal requirements for certificates of public facility adequacy. Phil Tindall had explained this to you on September 20th. It's really, I think, for the convenience of the customers. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Are there any questions by the commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do we have any public speakers on any of these? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. I only -- except for Mr. Yovanovich, everybody else is staff. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, he doesn't count. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just vote 4-0 on all of them, I'll be okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a motion on this? COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta. No further discussion, I'll call the question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do have a question, I'm sorry. Page 97 December 7,2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That's okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to picking up the certificate for public facility adequacy, we're saying that the applicant may pick up the certificate upon payment of one half -- 50 percent of the estimated transportation impact fees due. Do -- are we giving them a certificate for the entire density upon payment of half of the impact fees? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's depending on that plat application or development order application. But if they were to come in, for example, for a 100-unit plat, upon payment of half the impact fees, they would be vested for the 100-unit plat. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But then they pay the remaining impact fees at -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Building permit. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Question answered? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is, thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor of this motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Let me repeat, the motion was made by Commissioner Henning and seconded by Commissioner Coletta, okay? And that motion carried unanimously. MS. FABACHER: Okay, thank you. Next one on page-- Page 98 December 7,2006 summary sheet page H. Sorry, Nick -- we lost Nick's name, but this is one of his amendments. It's section 10.02.13, PUD procedures. It ties the zoning density to the approved buildout year as defined in the traffic impact study. And that is the one where the applicant, the developer will say, this is where -- when I intend to be built out; is that right, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. MS. FABACHER: Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions by the commission? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Are there any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign. Motion carries unanimously. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners. MS. FABACHER: All right. Commissioners, now the next two items that we have is one on summary sheet I and one on summary sheet J, and they're more or less companion items. Page 99 December 7,2006 You'll recall that you had directed a smart growth board to look at implementing some things for commercial and residential, and I believe that Bob Murray was here to speak with you on the 25th, and there was a lot of discussion on it. And Mike Bosi is here if you have any questions on either one. The first one, of course, is going to be for residential mixed-use PUDs, the second one is for commercial properties as a conditional use. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions by the board? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. MS. FABACHER: Clarification, Commissioner. Did we vote both of these items or just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, that was my motion. MS. FABACHER: Okay, good. Thank you. And I'll give you that later. Okay. The next one, Commissioner, is on summary sheet J, and it's in your green book on page 71. And you'll recall this is the one Page 100 December 7,2006 where we have been trying to help the folks in Copeland for like three years now, and we've -- what we've done is create some new uses, and COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Are there any further questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, call the motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FABACHER: All right. Thank you so much. Now we're moving to sheet -- summary sheet K, and we're on page -- we start at page 77, and there's a number of items here. You'll recall how Stan thrilled us all with his tutorial on NA VD, NGVD and contour lines, and so we have quite a few where we're just inserting, as you recall. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think I was lost because he walked up to the microphone. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can't stand to be enchanted again. Can we approve this and get on with it? We're going to be using both, right? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Page 101 December 7, 2006 MS. F ABACHER: And then may I read into the record? This would be section 3.02.10. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second it. MS. FABACHER: I have a few more numbers to read. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Go ahead. MS. FABACHER: Section 3.03.05, section 3.05.10, section 4.01.01, section 10.02.03, section 10.02.04, section 10.02.05. There you go. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that covers three items, and my motion covers all three items. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I seconded it, and it covered all three items. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle made the motion and Commissioner Coletta seconded. Any further discussion on this subject? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FABACHER: All right, Commissioners. We're back again to page L of the summary sheets and it's another one of Stan's amendments, but I think my understanding -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Stan, leave your jacket off. You'll get hot and sweaty coming up here. Page 102 December 7,2006 MS. FABACHER: Well, my understanding is we did have some speakers on it, and they had raised some concerns, and Stan would like to say what he wants to do here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. We're meeting again, right? CHAIRMAN HALAS: On the 14th. Well, maybe, if we get-- unless we get through this thing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we're meeting on the 14th because I have -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, if you could hold off till the very last, otherwise everybody -- the speakers that were here were discussing different issues, and they'd like to all come back on the 14th. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And I'm happy to do that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning just reminded me that we have another meeting the 14th because he's got some issues. So we will be here the 14th probably -- hopefully for a short duration. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'll be here, too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. To be continued to the 14th. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, and I wanted to tell you guys, don't hurry too much, because I have pizza being brought in. If we adjourn before the pizza gets here, we can't eat it all by ourselves. My husband's bringing it up for all of us. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we'll eat it before we leave. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll have a party. MS. F ABACHER: And Commissioners, staff can help. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right, that's right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Commissioners, we're on page M of the summary, and it's going to be section 4.02.23, and that's in Page 103 December 7, 2006 page 87 of your green book. And if you'll recall, you directed us to proceed on 10/30, and this is to allow free-standing clock towers in activity center six, which is an interchange activity center, meaning a more intensive one, and this was part of the settlement agreement between the county and City Gate, LLC. And I don't think there's a -- you had any problem with it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- 4.02.23, development in activity center number nine, zoning district. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any further discussion on this? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Great, thank you. All right. And the next amendment is on summary sheet M, and it's going to be section 4.06.02, buffer requirements. And Mike Sawyer had addressed -- spoken about this on October 25th, and one question was raised about abutting versus adjacent. And after that meeting with you, we put our heads together and tried to recreate what happened. So Mike is kind of here to explain that for Page 104 December 7,2006 you and answer any other questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mike, would you come up and give us a quick dissertation on this thing. MR. SAWYER: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, Mike Sawyer, senior planner with zoning and land development reVIew. In our last discussion there was some confusion -- I apologize for that -- on the words adjacent and abutting in this. Everywhere else that we refer to buffers, we generally look at adjacent as being the term that we normally use. In this case abutting is the proper term because what we want to have this portion of the code to apply when you actually have a buffer that is abutting a residence; in other words, it is right next door. There isn't anything intervening in between. When you have an adjacent situation, you can have something in between, a street, a lake, of that type -- that type of thing. So in this case, we do want this portion to apply just when you have a community facility, such as a pool, immediately abutting a residential building. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala for the approval of this. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Page 105 December 7,2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. Don't go anywhere, Mike. All right, Commissioners, I'm on page N of the summary sheet, and we'll be in page 93 of the green book, and this will be section 4.06.05. And it is the amendment where Mike is trying to simplify the building foundation planting requirements for all buildings. If you have any questions. I know he gave you a full presentation on it on the 25th. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We already got a second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Are there any questions or concerns on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 106 December 7,2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries, thank you. MR. SAWYER: Thank you, Commissioners. MS. FABACHER: All righty, Commissioners. The next amendment is on page -- summary sheet N, and it's section 5.05.08, exterior building color. I don't know if Commissioner Coyle wanted Mr. Hale to come back and explain this again or -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I understand it thoroughly. Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: And I might just parenthetically say that once we get this done, this may be able to help with the boat canopy issue color. CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is the color charts? MS. FABACHER: This is the color charts. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I enter -- MR. SCHMITT: And, of course, for the record, it will not be implemented until we have the color charts, and Nick's still working on those. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: As far as the actual procedure. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Applying it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Once we approve this, perhaps we should turn it over to the CIA. I think it would be useful for torture -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aren't you the CIA? COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- torturing Al Qaeda, giving us information. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Turn this over to Coyle. MS. F ABACHER: Are you saying send Mr. Hale to Iraq? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's an idea. Page 107 December 7,2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Are there any -- is there any further questions on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I entertain a motion. Do I have a motion for approval on this? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's my turn. I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Motion carries. MS. FABACHER: All right, Commissioners. We're now on page 0 of the summary sheets. Page 10 -- well, never mind the page in the book because you had directed us to withdraw this one. This was the issue with the fence and between the non-residential use. You remember the golf maintenance facility. And I think we're going to look at some more comprehensive stuff and maybe come back with something next cycle. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: So that's withdrawn. Page 108 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Then the last one on that page, 0, is section 8.08.00, and this is the one -- it's on page 105 in your green book, and this is the one that provides some teeth to code enforcement when they issue a stop work order, and I think we kind of showed that it actually saves the applicant money. Currently he has to go to court and get a lawyer, so -- but Sharon Dantini's here if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think this arose from the community on Goodlette Road, and I don't -- I never can remember that name in the community that's been here for -- since the '70s. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Wilderness. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wilderness. MS. FABACHER: Oh, where the trees were-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where during -- yeah, they were cleaning up after the hurricane. And, you know, I don't know how you're going to have fairness in an issue like that to where -- I'm sorry -- to where, a case of a hurricane like that, somebody needs to clean up their property because they have a contractor there. It was hard to get help to remove debris, but the government comes along and issues a stop work order. What happens if they continue working? MS. FABACHER: Well, I'm going to let Ms. Dantini discuss that since she's in code enforcement. MS. DANTINI: Certainly. First of all I'd like to address the reason that we brought this up was because of an eagle issue where they continued to work after we had issued a stop work order. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you move your mike down just a little bit? MS. DANTINI: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All right. Thank you very much. Page 109 December 7, 2006 MS. DANTINI: Okay. The intent -- MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, just for the record, this was at the Audubon PUD where the -- continued to work after being issued a stop work order. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MS. DANTINI: Right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And how would this -- how would this affect him so it wouldn't cost him more money? MS. DANTINI: Absolutely. When we issue a citation, which is what we're proposing in this instance, they have the ability to request a hearing, which is within a two-week period of time with our special master. If you go through the court process where they're required to get an attorney, we're at the mercy of the courts about when they schedule their time frames for us. Not only that, but they can have state fines that accrue, and the longer that this time frame goes on, they can be charged up to $40,000 per day. So it is actually a bigger cost to them by waiting longer and going through the court system. COMMISSIONER HENNING: When has the county taken somebody to court under an ordinance violation? When is the last time that's happened? MS. DANTINI: It's very rare. We actually -- we got an injunction in this particular instance regarding the eagle. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And who heard that case? MS. DANTINI: It never went to that point because the level of disparity for the eagles was downgraded a bit, so we never had to take it further. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it wasn't -- it was a -- it became a non-issue? MS. DANTINI: It became a non-issue. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what happens if Hurricane Jane comes through and does a lot of damage at Wilderness and Page 110 December 7, 2006 somebody comes in and says, stop working, stop cutting these down? What if they don't? What happens? MS. DANTINI: Well, there are actually several options in place at this point in time. We could issue a notice of violation and then eventually go to a citation. Again, that takes a longer period of time. If it's a health, safety issue, irreparable or irreversible, we can issue a citation right away. And, again, they have the option of requesting a hearing before the special master. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. This issue is a stop work order. MS. DANTINI: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So Hurricane Jane comes through and somebody issues a stop work order and they don't stop working. What are you going to do then? MS. DANTINI: We're going to get an injunction at this current time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You go to the courthouse-- MS. DANTINI: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- over here? MS. DANTINI: Yes, we do. And again, it doesn't happen very often because not many people continue to do the work. But that is what we would currently do. We would get an injunction, which is what we did in the eagle instance. If they continued with that violation, then we would, first of all, try to negotiate with them to come up with some type of plan. If they did not do that, then it would go before the courts, and we would ask for certain fines to be assessed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So in order to get an injunction, you've got to go over to the courthouse and get it from a judge? MS. DANTINI: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And he's going to determine whether it's valid or not to -- Page 111 December 7, 2006 MS. DANTINI: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, okay. That's good. CHAIRMAN HALAS: My question to you is, how does this affect if somebody's in violation of the way they're building their house -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's health, safety and welfare. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- say, in new construction? MS. DANTINI: The construction part of it is part of the Florida Building Code, and that is enforced by the building director. We don't enforce the building code. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, let's say, for instance, a person has a setback problem. Isn't that in violation? Wouldn't you be involved in something of that -- code enforcement, in regards to the code of not having the house properly in a setback, whether it's side yard, rear-- or front yard, rear yard, or anything of that nature? MS. DANTINI: It is. Quite honestly, we try to use the stop work order for more emergent type of situations. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see this thing being used. But, you know, it's always nice to have something in your hip pocket if needed. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah, okay. All right. Any other-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I'll call the question on this. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 112 December 7,2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign. (No response.) MS. DANTINI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. I'm going to turn to page P on the summary sheet, and it's page 107 in your amendment book. And you gave direction to proceed on this on 10/30. And this was simply the one -- and I think we had a lengthy discussion about other issues, but essentially this is the one where we're requiring them, as Stan explained, to put not only the old datum, NGVD, but requiring them to put the new datum which matches the FEMA maps and so forth and so on. And -- oh, I'm sorry. That -- but -- all right. I'm getting confused. That's Stan's. But this is the one for the stormwater management for the stormwater department where we need to put the elevations and all this information so that they can model the stormwater flow -- here comes Stan -- the stormwater flow for their NVDES permit. I'm sorry, I -- it's getting late. S tan, bail me out, buddy. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You don't really want me to talk, do you? Because we're going to both -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just let us understand. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- NA VD and NGVD, the stormwater department is going to start doing GPS locations on all structures in Collier County, and they want to make sure that everything that's given to them is in NA VD and NGVD also. MS. FABACHER: But also the -- to run the SWIM model, too. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right, yes. Page 113 December 7,2006 MS. FABACHER: Explain that. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The computer model that they do, the Stormwater Intrusion Model, has to be run, I think, in NA VD, and a lot of the data we have, the datums we have, are NGVD, so they need -- they need both NA VD and NGVD. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. You look confused. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No. It's just that it's a stormwater thing. It's not really our department. But I know what they're trying to do. It's simple enough. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Have a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Stan. All right, Commissioners. We're on page P of the summary sheet, page 111 in your green book. Page 114 December 7,2006 This is another one that was discussed by the building department, and I think Mr. Y ovanovich will bear this out as he recalls the discussion. There were some -- there was a removal of one part of the text which, in a sense, prevented the developer from delaying the start of construction time, and for that reason DSAC and everybody voted against it, so -- or recommended against it. So the building department pulled all that out. So what it honestly says now is, it just gives you more time to finish -- to complete your construction. If you look on 111 there, you see you went from 18 months to two years, and then I believe that it was your direction to -- I think it said i.e., commencement of construction, and your direction was to put in the words, which will be considered the date of commencement of construction, which is the preconstruction conference. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe Commissioner Coyle brought this up, if I remember correctly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We discussed that, and I'm still not sure of the full intent here. It appeared to me that the problem was in finding an appropriately well-defined start date for the start of construction. And staff suggested that the preconstruction conference be considered the date of commencement of construction. MS. F ABACHER: That's exactly correct. That was the direction, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right, that's what the staff suggested? MS. FABACHER: Put that in. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm still not sure I understand why it is necessary to do that, but -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can staff give us some input on this? MS. FABACHER: Rich? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not staff. Page 115 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: He's not staff. MS. F ABACHER: I know, but he definitely knows it inside and out. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but nobody believes him. COMMISSIONER FIALA: He probably helped write it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have your best interests at heart. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure you do, sure you do. MR. SCHMITT: This is the one from Steve Seal. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, the one where it's the timing of the 270 days that we -- sorry. MR. SCHMITT: It's the two-year window, otherwise the plan or plat expires. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to make sure we have an understanding here what's happening before we approve this. MS. FABACHER: Yeah. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, we've had a succession of different time frames about when you submit, and you had 270 days to resubmit, otherwise you get thrown out, and then you have so much time to start construction after we give you your approval letter, and then you had so much time to complete construction after you start construction. And we have added some time to it because people were not completing the construction in time enough, and -- do you have any specific questions? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let me try to pin it down a little bit. Does this in any way interfere in our ability to require that they complete -- it specifically refers to infrastructure improvements. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not necessarily the beginning of construction of a home or a building. It's talking about the construction of infrastructure improvements approved by an SDP or SDP amendment. Page 116 December 7,2006 Does that interfere at all in our ability to require that they -- they do certain transportation infrastructure improvements in accordance with the previously agreed upon schedule? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, it doesn't. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It just says they have to have -- when we give them permission to start, they have to start within a certain amount of time and they have to finish within a certain amount of time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So let's suppose we have required as approval for an SD P, we have required certain transportation improvements, a building of a lane of traffic or improvements to an intersection. Is there a direct link between this particular requirement and the requirement for them to build that transportation improvement? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, but they'd have to have that done -- if we've given them a separate time frame to do that, they would have to have that done within that time frame. If we haven't given them a time frame to do it, they would have to have it done within this time frame, but they'd have to have it done. And generally if it's an improvement out in the main road, we will require that they do that first. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The transportation portion of it; is that correct? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, turn lane. You want the turn lane to be built before the project gets -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: To clarify the record, there is a direct link because that improvement may be part of the plan or plat that's submitted for approval. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's right. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Page 11 7 December 7, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, a developer contribution agreement, how is that tied to the SDP or the SDP amendment? Any way at all? MR. SCHMITT: Normally the DCA is part of the PUD document. There's specific dates assigned. And let me -- it's tied to the dates though. Go ahead, Jeff. MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's -- our typical-- our typical developer contribution agreements don't really touch on and concern these things. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: They're more or less, we're requiring you to do A, B, C in exchange for vesting, and there are date certains that I put into these agreements, and if they don't meet them, they're in breach. And if they're in breach, they don't get their vesting and they can't go forward. MR. SCHMITT: But it may be tied if there's phasing or other type of dates in the PUD. MR. KLATZKOW: Sometimes they're tied to a PUD-- MR. SCHMITT: Sometimes they aren't. MR. KLATZKOW: -- and sometimes they're not. When they're tied to a PUD, you see them at the same time. MR. SCHMITT: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: This next meeting you will be seeing that sort of arrangement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you understand my concern, that as long as I feel comfortable that this particular language will not in any way weaken our enforcement of the completion of certain infrastructure improvements which we consider to be critical? MR. SCHMITT: Not at all. MR. KLATZKOW: Not at all. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Page 118 December 7,2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: And how about -- how about if we have proportionate share? MR. KLATZKOW: There will be a significant agreement with proportionate share with significant dates they'll have to meet -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: -- otherwise they will be in breach and they won't be able to go. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Very good. Rich, did you have something to offer to this? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Nope. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We covered it all? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think you did. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And why was it again that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny? MS. FABACHER: Because of the -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The first wording was -- MS. F ABACHER: -- provision that was put in, it did actually stop the developer's or the builder's ability to delay start of construction. DSAC was opposed to it, Planning Commission, so that the authors in building, Tom Kuck, pulled that whole offensive part out. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, now DSAC, both of them recommended approval. It was just CCPC that did not. MS. FABACHER: Oh, okay. Well, I'm sorry for my memory. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I have it in front of me, otherwise I wouldn't have known either. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The first wording was ambiguous. It was read different ways by different people. And we were reading it one way and we thought we had it right, but other people read it a Page 119 December 7, 2006 different way and the Planning Commission read it a different way -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I was worried about. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- and they thought we were screwing up. And this is the final wording. This one is very simple. We took out the offensive wording. We've put in a very simple change, and we're changing 18 months to two years. MR. SCHMITT: It's very straightforward. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's very straightforward. MR. SCHMITT: Basically it -- see, Commissioners, sometimes a developer will get a plan approved, and then for whatever reason, financing or whatever, may not pick it up, maybe 30, 60, 90 days. Now this is triggered on the notice of commencement. That's when they'll actually come in and talk to Don Nobles and Stan and staff and say, okay, we're going to start pushing dirt. And then -- but otherwise, if they do nothing over a period of time, it basically lapses and they have to come back in and resubmit and bring the proposed development up to newer -- the newer standards, if there are any newer standards. Does that make -- all make sense, or did I give you too much information? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. You know, what I'm concerned with is, how much of a loophole does this lead -- leave in its place, and will it come back to bite us? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, ma'am. We still have projects that come in after a couple of years and haven't started yet, and we tell them, you have to resubmit. They just have to resubmit, that's all. It's not thrown out, they just -- the codes have changed -- well, now only twice, but it used to be they changed four to six times in the two years and things would be different, and you had to resubmit so that they could -- so that staff could re-review the project. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there a motion? Page 120 December 7,2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. I need a motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. But I must say, if we use the same philosophy on PUD IOUs, we wouldn't have a problem that we're having. If you -- if you apply -- you get site plan approval or a permit. The time of the law and the rules that apply to it at that time, if you would apply it to those PUDs instead of applying the new rules, we wouldn't have to hire two more people for Maryann Devanas. But since we're doing what we're doing, I guess we'll just have to forgive. That's my guest commentary. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Henning. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have a second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Opposed, by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did we get four? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. At this time we'll take a 15-minute break. I think we have some munchies here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we just recess till the 14th? We're just about at the end of the book. Page 121 December 7, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, we've got some pie back there to eat. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, I understand. MR. MUDD: Commissioners, you're going to take a 15-minute break. You're pretty much at your nine o'clock set -- the time you set. So I guess the issue is, if you're going to take a break, why don't you just recess? CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll just recess till the 14th. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Everybody agree to that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sounds like a plan. Why don't we recess to the 14th? CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're recessed to the 14th. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Commissioner. I'm sorry. I wanted to state for the record that that is the continuation of our second hearing, that meeting. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Until the -- yes, December the 14th, 2006. MS. FABACHER: At 5:05. CHAIRMAN HALAS: At 5:05. MS. ISTENES: In these chambers. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And it will reconvene in these chambers, yes. MS. FABACHER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Page 122 December 7, 2006 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:38 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~::::;j~~ FRANK HALAS, aIrman ATTEST:, D~iGHTE:!'BROCK, CLERK ~' ~~, '':\:;'.:~ '. '. )........ A t~;sl't{ to a.. f....... s s1gn.t~ 011.. These minutes approv~ by the Board on J leX & to +- presented ~ or as corrected ~ , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 123