Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/22/2008 S (LDC Amendments) January 22, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, January 22,2008 LDC AMENDMENTS - CYCLE 2 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 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Donna Fiala Jim Coletta Fred Coyle Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Administrator of CDES Susan Istenes, Zoning Director Catherine Fabacher, LDC Coordinator Page ] COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ LDC AGENDA January 22, 2008 9:00 a.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, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, 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 Page 1 January 22, 2008 CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE 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 Page 2 January 22, 2008 January 22, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the meeting of the Board of Commissioners to order. This is the second cycle of 2007 Land Development Codes. This is a continued (sic) of the first hearing for the second cycle. Would you all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, Catherine Fabacher has a suggested schedule. We'll do the open signs first, outdoor seating, you know, wet slips, and so on and so forth. Does anybody have any objections to going on with that suggested list? (No verbal response.) OPEN HOUSE SIGNS CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Catherine, the first item is open sIgns. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioner. That is going to be on page 35 in your book, summary sheet page E. Just a brief little rundown. This is to help the real estate industry in a sense that before they weren't allowed to really post any signs along the right-of-way to give directions to open houses. So this has been really well vetted through all of the committees and the Planning Commission, and it's come down to be one sign in front of the house, the subject property, and then they can have up to two down the road to give you direction, but they're all restricted in size and they're restricted in the hours that they can be posted; only from -- I think it's nine to five during a supervised open house, meaning there have to be people there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ten to five. MS. FABACHER: Sorry. Thank you, Commissioner. Three-day weekend, all right. Page 2 January 22, 2008 I believe -- and if you want, we have some public speakers. Do you have any questions on this? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody have any questions? I just have one concern. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I mean, it says 10-foot off the right-of-way, but not all county roadways, neighborhood roadways, or collectors or arterial -- well, most of the -- well, I think all the arterials -- is not owned by the county. It's an actual easement. And I just have concerns about allowing for the county to allow signs on their property which is only an easement. So maybe we can address that. And let's go to the speakers. MS. FABACHER: Okay. First speaker we have is Mr. William Poteet. MR. POTEET: Good morning, Commissioners. My name, for the record, is William Poteet. I'm here on behalf of the Naples Area Board of Realtors. And comments will be very, very short. I'm just here to thank our staff, Joe Schmitt and his staff over at community development, Michelle Arnold over at zoning, in which we worked hand in hand with in order to develop this. They told us their concerns, we told them our concerns, and we were able to work out something that we think is going to be beneficial, not just for the people in my industry, but for the citizens in Collier County who have 12,000 houses and condominiums on the market right now that want to be shown. And I'd like to thank Catherine Fabacher for all the work she put into it, and also the planning board who really took this thing -- you know, they took it apart and made all sorts of little changes here and there to clean it up, and I think it's a really good document today. So thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? Page 3 January 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I agree with your observation about the 10 feet. You know, 10 feet off the highway or road is going to be in somebody's front yard, or somebody's business. But since it has been vetted through all the appropriate agencies, I'm not going to complain about it. It just seemed a little strange to me. There has to be some -- some distance from the road to keep it from interfering with the line of sight for signs, traffic signs and other things. So I had the same concern, but since it's been vetted by all the appropriate people and they seem to be in agreement, I'm not going to debate it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You know, I think this is a good amendment for everybody in the community, but on another amendment down the line here, we have where you have to get permission to put a political sign on somebody's property. And, you know, Bill, I would hope you would consider maybe putting in these regulations to have a -- some type of written permission for -- from somebody on their property to put these signs. But other than that, that's my only concern. Okay, Susan. I'm sorry. MS. ISTENES: May I, just for clarification, Mr. Chairman? Susan Istenes, Zoning Director. I'm reading on page 37, item five, and it does say that they have to be in the right-of-way. So if the 10 feet ends up in somebody's yard, then that would be outside of the right-of-way and they wouldn't be permitted; however, you're right, if they did get somebody's permission, I suppose that would be acceptable. The idea is that they are located in the right-of-way though. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So your staff and code enforcement would consider open signs as long as they had written permission from the owner? Page 4 January 22, 2008 MS. ISTENES: Yes. I mean, I find it -- again, this is -- it has to be 10 feet from the edge of pavement, and unless the right-of-way has been maximized, I doubt it's going to be in somebody's yard. And I think -- I don't think they would -- I think they would want to put it as close to the road as possible for visibility purposes. But to answer your question, yes, I mean, if it ended up in somebody's yard and they got permission, it meets the intent of the code. That would be acceptable. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Well, in front of my house it would be property -- it's an easement, so -- okay. Well, that's great. I guess we have no concerns. Okay. Shall we go to the next item? OUTDOOR SERVING AREA AMENDMENT MS. F ABACHER: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. We're going to do outdoor serving, and I have a little presentation on that, outdoor serving areas for you real quick. I think I'm going to go over there. MS. ISTENES: What page is that, Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. That's on page 27 in your booklet, and sheet D on your summary sheet. It, you know, carries the comments. Commissioners, we've been working on this for two cycles now, and as a result of some of the things I think you know that have happened with these problems with these outdoor serving areas, what I wanted to do briefly was to go through the -- we actually came up with three independent amendments that are kind of morphed together, but they've all kind -- you know, as we went along through the various advisory boards and the Planning Commission, they've all changed a little bit. But I just wanted to give you a brief overview of the different approaches, then we'll compare them. Page 5 January 22, 2008 The first one we had was an outdoor seating amendment for 25 seats or more. This established -- this required everybody to -- with outdoor serving seating areas of 25 seats or more, to require an annual permit from zoning and land development review. All permits expired at the same time, and the permit applications, all of them, would be heard by the Board of County Commissioners at your regularly scheduled meetings in October. The applicant would have to notify all property owners with 25,000 -- I'm sorry -- 2,500 feet of the subject site, and then the applicants would also have to post signs, and then renewals and transfers would be heard the same way. Now, this would be annual. Second one we looked at was the outdoor serving areas, which meant if you had an outdoor seating area but you weren't serving food or drinks out there, then you wouldn't need to get a permit. This one would be a one-time permit from zoning. And then all of the existing outdoor area -- serving areas that are already in operation would have to come in and get one by May 31 st or they would be in -- given a Notice of Violation. Now, this permit has to work -- this idea has to work really closely with the noise ordinance, because I think you know they're revising the noise ordinance to give it a little more teeth and to be able to enforce these things. So planning -- zoning would not be issuing something for noise. This is purely for outdoor serving areas where food and drinks are served. But doesn't matter whether you had entertainment or not, this is a one-time permit. And if there were no findings of violation, meaning if the establishment had no violation history before the -- of the noise ordinance only through -- code keeps these records. I mean, if they had a violation for dumpster or weeds, we wouldn't count that. But if they had a finding of violation of the noise ordinance, then it would have to come back through the Planning Commission and then the BZA. That was the original version of it. Page 6 January 22, 2008 And then the applicant had to notify all property owners through -- within 500 or 1,000, whether they were in areas designated urban or not, and this would have gone through the conditional use process, which, you know, is rather lengthy and rather expensive. Third one we had worked in conjunction with the Site Development Plan reviews. This gave staff the discretion to determine anytime any use would appear to be incompatible. And what they would do then is -- this one was worked through the County Attorney's Office. A negotiation process began. If the -- the sword on this was -- we could withhold the SDP until we agreed to work something out on the outdoor serving. And if they -- we failed to work out a negotiation between staff and the applicant, then the negotiation -- then the matter would go to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission would have the ability to determine if the use was allowed, and they could recommend mitigation measures to use to make it work out. If the planning recommendation was not agreed to by the applicant or staff, then it would go to the Board of County Commissioners. Additionally, this third amendment established separation requirements with performance standards for noise, meaning if you were 1,500 feet away, then you had to be sure you had a sound attenuation device that did not exceed 55 dBA, you know, decibels, A-weighted decibels through that sound barrier. Okay. So just looking at them across the board, applicability. Amendment one was the outdoor seating with 25 seats. The -- number two was outdoor serving areas with, at that time, entertainment and amplified sound. I got ahead of myself because obviously the third one we've changed. And then the third proposal was, all uses deemed incompatible (sic) during -- that's applied to all uses that could be deemed non-compatibility by the zoning staff. Frequency of permitting, annual versus -- which is -- you're more Page 7 January 22, 2008 onerous to businesses than a -- or one-time, or as needed under the discretion of the zoning staff when they looked at outdoor serving areas on an SDP. The public hearings for the permits under the first one would be just the Board of County Commissioners, and I think that would be covered under the $300 fee, Susan? MS. ISTENES: (Nods head.) MS. F ABACHER: So that would be reasonable. But then, again, that was an annual one, $300 annually to the applicant. The conditional use, the second one, would be anytime you had to go before the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeal through the conditional use, that's $4,000 right there, plus the cost of advertisement, so that one looked a little expensive. And then the third one was a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the board, and that would -- I don't think we'd have a fee for that. We looked at the impact to staff. And as far as recovering -- in these times recovering the resources from all the work, the -- in number one, which would be the annual fee for zoning and land development review, staff hours and preparation, the hearing materials, the review, and the appearances before the board for staff. As you know, when we come before you, we've got to write the executive summaries, the staff reports, a lot of time. That would not be covered. Under amendment number two, where you used the conditional use, we would be covered, but then, what I said, again, it's $4,000 to the applicant, plus the advertising will run about $2,500, so that's really costly. And then in the third one, the same thing. We wouldn't -- we wouldn't quite cover our fees if we had lengthy negotiations, but that's kind of what we do now. So I think I just talked about the fees. Now, the permitting criteria. When we went through the Page 8 <--.-- - ---~..,._--_._.._-,- January 22,2008 Planning Commission for amendment number one, they thought that the criteria was pretty subjective, you know, meaning it couldn't be objective. And we really want objective criteria when we make these decisions that affect people's businesses. Under amendment number two, which was the outdoor serving area, for the most part, the criteria is already established in the LDC. And then for amendment proposal number three, it's best professional judgment of review staff as far as determining ability to enforce. Just to make it brief, this -- all of it kind of -- all of these schemes, with the exception of the third one, but the first two amendment request types, would be, if they had a finding of violation, which is different from a Notice of Violation. A Notice of Violation. First you have the complaint, someone calls in, then code goes out. If they get a reading that exceeds what's required in that area at the time, you know, industrial, commercial, and different hours, then you would get a Notice of Violation and you would have to go to the special magistrate or the board of -- Code Enforcement Board. Then if they -- usually they try to work with them with the first violation. But after that, if they can't work with the applicant, then what they can do is revoke the permit, so they would lose their permit. Number two, same thing. Permit could be suspended. Oh, well, that could be suspended by you, but it would still have to be upon a finding of violation. I mean, you're convicted. We've tried everything we can with you but can't work with you, so your permits pulled. And then on the third one, which was the one where the zoning staff has the discretion to look at non-compatible uses, SDP approval -- that's a pretty good sword -- could be withheld until they came up with some measures to assure us, performance standards to assure that they were going to be able to work it out and not affect the neighbors. Last one was effectiveness of existing. First one, everybody'd have to get one, same. The problem with the third one alone was it Page 9 January 22, 2008 wouldn't handle problem establishments that already exist. This is the site plan review third amendment. So we couldn't apply that to -- that was only going to go forward to new things. Now, we have before you today what we think is the best of all possible worlds. And like I said, we worked two cycles on this. So a lot of input from DSAC, a lot of work from the Planning Commission, staff, and so forth. And in red is kind of the compromise, or like I said earlier, what we morphed into the one in your packet. We tried to pick up the best elements of each one. So under the new one, which we'll call the fourth amendment, which you now have, this permit would apply to all outdoor serving areas with or without entertainment. And like I said, it would have to be operated in conjunction with the noise ordinance, which we're looking at revisions to. We've worked with Michelle Arnold and pretty much are agreeing on what needs to be done there. This is a one-time permit. It's going to go to the Board of County Commissioners only at regular meetings but not just during the month of October. We've lost the conditional use, so we're talking now about $300, a one-time -- or $400. This is the cost, the $300 permit fee. Susan just said that would cover the board hearing. We're also -- we're going to keep part of the SDP review because staff could review and negotiate under the SDP. And what we've really done -- and this is a good thing the Planning Commission did. They cut it way down from any non-compatible uses to just outdoor serving areas. They gave us criteria to look at. When the hours of operation are outside of normal business hours, if we're going to __ let's see. What was it? Whether there would be noise or not, whether they would be getting -- you know, the planning -- I'm sorry. The code enforcement is looking at issuing a permit for live performance music and/or amplified sound. It's been on the books, but now under the new revisions, they will be issuing it actively. So we're going to look at Page ] 0 January 22, 2008 whether they need that, and we'll be able to put additional buffering, we'll be able to -- we can't require any noise things. That's going to have to go under the noise ordinance. And then for the most part, our criteria that we use are already established in the LDC. If you look at the criteria revoking or suspending a permit under the amendment we have before you in your packet, most of the things are already established in the LDC components. If you don't meet the parking, if you don't -- or some of the things. If you violate the noise ordinance, but that goes without saying, but -- see, I can't remember, Susan. MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry. What were -- I was reading. MS. F ABACHER: Just the criteria that you have in the one today. Okay. Ability to enforce. The permit would be suspended by the county manager or designee upon violation of any standard in the LDC or standards having to do with the particular outdoor serving area permit or a finding of violation again of the noise ordinance, and the permit can either be revoked or reinstated only by a hearing from the board. Then also it's going to be -- like I said, it's going to be a one-time permit from us, zoning, for just the serving area, and that would have to be -- everyone would have to get in compliance September 30, 2008, and that's kind of in the same cycle as the occupational licenses, so it wouldn't be much more of a hardship. When we notify them that they need the occupational license, then they could come in for this one-time permit. And so that -- that's it. Ready for any questions. I'm going to move over here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners? Any questions? Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The height of the buffer walls, one of the problems was it was only four feet, and when a building is Page ] ] January 22,2008 taller than that, or even when it isn't, but the sound seems to go over it, you didn't address the height of the buffer walls. MS. FABACHER: Yes, Commissioner. We're hoping to put that in the noise ordinance, making requirements and performance standards that a noise attenuation device needs to be in place if you're within 1,500 feet of any residential use or zoning district, and then there would be performance standards, meaning you'd have to meet the 55 decibels and you'd have to have an acoustical engineer certify before the fact that they'd done a study and so forth. So if it fails, then their permit gets pulled. But we hope to do that through the noise ordinance, because we've decided that really zoning and land development didn't really need to be involved in all that noise aspect when it really was something that code does. So it's all -- I think it's site specific, too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MS. FABACHER: I mean, you know, a six-foot wall, depends on how far away it is or how high it is as far as, you know, noise. You see the ones they put along the road, those huge ones. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep. And the second question, my last question. Although you're going -- it's a one-time permit now and you have measures in place that if they're violating that, it can be pulled, if -- and is that pulled permanently or -- MS. F ABACHER: No, ma'am. That's suspended and then it goes to you for a hearing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Say, for instance, it's a repeat violation. Can we somehow put in there a repeat violator would have to come in annually for a permit? MS. FABACHER: We can do that. Now, you know, they're going to have to go annually for their amplified sound and performance, live performance music. That's an annual permit under the noise, but -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: But sometimes that noise doesn't Page ] 2 January 22,2008 even involve amplified music. It could just be cheering. MS. FABACHER: Yes. MS. ISTENES: Catherine, let me see if! can jump in for a minute. MS. F ABACHER: Sure. Thanks, Susan. MS. ISTENES: I think I understand. In the case where there's been a finding of violation of the noise ordinance, then the permit would have to go before you for approval. So in other words, any permit initially issued administratively could live on forever as long as there was not a finding of violation. Once there becomes a finding of violation, then we no longer can issue it administratively. It then has to go to you for issuance. And you could certainly add conditions of approval. You could reject the permit outright. You could add conditions of approval, if you wish. That could include everything from operational times to limitations on amount of seating outside, for example, or you could opt just not to issue it. So the key -- the trigger is a finding of violation; it no longer becomes an administrative approval process for the permit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. I understand that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissions Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've been looking at this, and there's nothing in here that in any way alleviates the problem we're experiencing in Pebblebrooke, is there? MS. FABACHER: Well, yes. They do have a -- I believe they have a finding of violation, so they won't be able to get this permit administratively. And by September 31 st -- not 31 st -- 30th -- MR. SCHMITT: Catherine, for the record, Joe Schmitt. There is no current violation, at least from a noise ordinance perspective. We've been out there several times. There's no violation. They would still have to come in -- like every other business, Page 13 January 22, 2008 they would have to come in for a permit. Now, based on this criteria, if there's a complaint, then it would have to come before you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's no issue about grandfathering in somebody where we're going to have somebody come back and say, I existed prior to the ordinance and so I'm grandfathered in? MR. SCHMITT: Sir, no, that's -- on page 29 this says, every establishment will have to -- that has outdoor serving area will have to come in before September 30, 2008, and actually apply for this permit. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you -- MR. SCHMITT: It impacts existing businesses as well as new businesses. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you also said that there was no violations down to Pebblebrooke at this time? MR. SCHMITT: According -- in accordance with our current noise ordinance, there is not. We're -- we have a consultant who's already forwarded a first draft of the noise ordinance, which is -- Michelle's here. She can probably talk in more detail of some of the changes, but we're going to be bringing a new noise ordinance up as well. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just to get some level of comfort here on this new noise ordinance. Is it going to be more stringent than the present noise ordinance in regards to bars and outside dining and things of this nature, sports bars? MR. SCHMITT: It's not going to be specific on sports bars but it's going -- yes, to answer your question, it will be more stringent. Michelle, do you want to -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is the new regulations going to be based on A scale or C scale? MR. SCHMITT: Let Michelle answer that. Page ] 4 January 22,2008 MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director. Weare looking at the A scale rating and looking at the various differences between using that rating as opposed to C scale. COMMISSIONER HALAS: C scale. MS. ARNOLD: And what we are proposing to do is to bring that information to the board and you all would make a determination which one you would prefer to utilize, and we'll have the noise specialists come and discuss that with you at the time that we are reviewing that amendment. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned in making sure that we address this booming sound that -- from the bands. And at the present time, under the present ordinances we have, sound ordinances, on the A scale, they fall below the line, but yet it's very, very disturbing to people who live within 500 feet or less of a particular establishment when they have this type of music playing. MS. ARNOLD: We will be looking at all those things with the reVISIOns, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Don't go too far away. I have a -- I want to ask your opinion. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is it -- this ordinance or this amendment, does it really need to apply to industrial-zoned properties? I mean, I think that where we're hearing the problem is either mixed use or abutting adjacent to residential. Do we have an experience where -- to where it is a problem in industrial area? MS. ISTENES: Not to my knowledge but, I mean, you could have industrial abutting residential land uses. MR. SCHMITT: That was the issue -- we just recently had that issue with Lane Park PUD that just came before you. That was an Page ] 5 January 22, 2008 industrial, potentially was -- could have an impact on a nearby residential. That was your concern. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What you -- that's correct, but that was -- that's zoned commercial, right? They rezoned that for commercial and not industrial? MR. SCHMITT: They did rezone that to commercial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So it really doesn't apply to my concerns. And my concern is, do we really need to put this on industrial-zoned property? MS. ARNOLD: I'm not really sure if the amendment is specific to the zoning, but -- MR. SCHMITT: It's not. MS. ARNOLD: -- I think it is intended to apply to any establishment with outdoor seating. CHAIRMAN HENNING: With outdoor seating. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. SCHMITT: With outdoor seating within 20 -- well, within whatever the distance was on this one. I can't recall. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Twenty-five hundred, I think. MR. SCHMITT: Twenty-five hundred feet of a residential. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: So there is -- it's not zoning specific. It's just criteria -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's locational criteria. MR. SCHMITT: It's locational criteria. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, thank you. Then the next question is, Catherine, your presentation, we're asking to put that in the Land Development Code? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. My only concern is, since this is new, wouldn't it be better to put it in an ordinance like -- you know, I'm thinking, as far as application to the board for these permits, is the Page ] 6 January 22, 2008 board the best place to hear that instead of one of our advisory boards? I don't know. And it might be something that we need to try. But I'm thinking, wouldn't it be better to put this in an ordinance instead of a Land Development Code where, if it needs to be tweaked, it's easy to do? That's all. That's my only comment. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's a good point. I'm going back to, there was no violation over at Stevie Tomatoes. With all the complaints -- and we're heard it ourselves __ how could there be no violation there? Which makes me think that then what we're proposing is not going to be very effective if something like that is considered no violation. MS. ARNOLD: I could address -- the language that's in the proposal is speaking to when it goes to one of the bodies, whether it's the CEB -- the Code Enforcement Board, sorry, or the special magistrate, and they make a finding, which is different from when we go out and we conduct a reading and we find a violation. That's, I guess, a less judicial step. It's more on the civil level where you're finding -- making a finding, you tell them that there was a violation and that they need to fix it within so much time, and that's -- that's the difference. The proposal before you has to go to the higher judicial level before it becomes more serious and requires, you know, your review. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, I'd just like to -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mrs. Fabacher? MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. For the record, Catherine Fabacher. I'd just like to state, I did speak with Michelle. They did get -- and Stevie Tomatoes, for example, several notices of violation, meanIng -- MS. ARNOLD: It never went to any code enforcement-- MS. F ABACHER: No, no. MS. ARNOLD: -- board or special magistrate. Page ] 7 January 22,2008 MS. FABACHER: Yeah. No, I understand, I understand. I was just going to clarify. They did get several notices of violation where they did exceed the noise limits and the -- am I correct? And the inspectors were able to get a reading? MS. ARNOLD: We got several complaints. We didn't get several notices of violation. There was probably two findings that we found that violations -- MS. F ABACHER: Exceeded the sound. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MS. F ABACHER: But under your current system, you try to negotiate for the first few notices. But they did -- I'm just asking, they did have the reading, so they could technically go at that point to the special magistrate and get a finding? MS. ARNOLD: With Stevie Tomatoes, one of the things they did was they stopped all the amplified noise. So there is no more -_ you know, they don't have sound to their televisions and there's no music -- well, during the day there's some minor amplified music, but that's not what the complaints are about. So what they did was they corrected it based on what our findings were, and I think that they were attempting to build a wall and some noise barrier as well to further, you know, modify the -- or further address the problems, but they didn't proceed to, you know, add those noise barriers. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So does this mean then that there might be something we need to fix yet because it looks like __ CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think this is trying to address the problems that originated from Stevie Tomatoes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Under the existing laws, the noise ordinance and that, Stevie Tomatoes is not in violation of any of our ordinances. But it is a problem within the community, or Collier County. It is a problem. It's a locational problem -- Page ] 8 January 22, 2008 MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- of a use, you know. And we're not going to debate whether it should be there or not. It's trying to address the problem. Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: Yeah, thank you. I think we still want to work with the businesses and be fair about it, and I think that's what -- code enforcement's process does work with them. The outdoor -- to be able to suspend the outdoor serving permit would be a bigger hammer. That means, don't use the area or it's finable $500 a day. So we still want to work with people. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Fine, okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman? Yeah, this discussion has prompted another question that I need to ask. Is there anything in this proposed modification of the LDC, or if we go with an ordinance, that would address the following circumstance? A restaurant gets a permit to serve food and alcoholic beverages and then they expand their seating into an area that is primarily used for a bar and that is an outside bar, they might occasionally serve some foot with the drinks, but it is not the primary purpose of that expanded outdoor area. Is that permitted? MS. ISTENES: Depends on the zoning district. Bars are permitted in certain zoning districts. COMMISSIONER COYLE: When they -- well, let's take Stevie Tomatoes as an example. When they got their permit to do business there, what did their permit allow? MS. ISTENES: Food and beverage service. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Food and beverage service. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the beverage is an accessory to the -- Page ] 9 January 22,2008 MS. ISTENES: The difficult -- I know where you're getting at, Commissioner, and I think the difficulty is, the set code as it's presently written makes a distinction between bars and food and beverage service as in restaurant. But once you get to food and beverage service, it really doesn't break it down any further. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. ISTENES: And that's the difficulty. In other words, you don't have a separation like I think what you're trying to describe might -- may happen. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yeah. I'm not sure I want a separation. You know, my feeling is that if someone is going to expand their seating into an outdoor area, it should be an expansion of their primary business function, not the creation of what is primarily a bar, and that's what I'm trying to get at. Is there anything here that would prohibit that? MS. ISTENES: No, not as it's written. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it possible to do that? MS. ISTENES: Yeah, sure, it may be. I'm not sure I could give you any specifics right now, but if that's something you want us to look into -- MR. SCHMITT: I know exactly where you're going. It's basically -- and I've got the amended site plan here. It was -- came in an outdoor dining area and an outside bar, which has morphed now, primarily, into an outdoor bar, which we would have to create some criteria that would say, okay, you're going to do that, but it's going to be a dining area. It's not going to be an outdoor party bar or whatever you want to call it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes. MR. SCHMITT: Which is -- and I know exactly where you're going, because that's what happens. This becomes nothing more than an adjunct to -- or almost a separate bar or separate business and just for outdoor serving and outdoor smokers who want to drink outside. Page 20 January 22, 2008 And that's kind of where we are with the current situation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would be interested in trying to prohibit that sort of thing from happening because I think people tend to circumvent the primary purpose of their original business license and they create a situation which is bound to become a nuisance at some point in time. So I would -- Mr. Chairman, I would be -- I like what the staff has done with this so far, but I would like to ask the staff, if there's enough support on the board to do it, to take a look at this question and see if there is a reasonable solution. MR. SCHMITT: I think what we need to do is go back, see if we can -- because when an amendment to a site plan comes in and it's reviewed, it's approved as an accessory to the principal business, and that was what's approved. If it now becomes nothing more than an outdoor bar, I think that's where we have to put the teeth and say, wait a minute. This is not what you came in and asked for, which is primarily an outdoor eating area where people want to sit outside and enjoy somewhat the -- a pleasant evening in Naples, and it's -- that's not, in my estimation -- and I agree with you, Commissioner -- that's not really what I believe the intent was -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. MR. SCHMITT: -- as you can see on this drawing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree. Is there some percentage related to the food and beverage service? MR. SCHMITT: By a license only and its sales. Go ahead, Susan. MS. ISTENES: It's -- yeah. There's a percentage for -- required in the LDC for, 51 percent or more of the sales have to be for food in this case. So -- and it doesn't break it down by area, for example, indoor versus outdoor, whatever. It's collective for the whole business. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess maybe that's my point. Maybe it should be. Page 2] January 22, 2008 MS. ISTENES: Could be. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That criteria should be applied for any expansion of the business. That would keep people from creating a portion of their business, particularly an outdoor seating area, as primarily a bar, which will generate more noise than, I think, a restaurant that serves alcoholic beverages. But if the staff -- if the board would support the recommendation that you take a look at that, I would very much appreciate it. I think it might -- MS. ARNOLD: I think that there's, maybe not necessarily changing the amendment to take a look at that, but if the site plan is approved for that particular use and they're using it for something else, there may be a way for code enforcement to look at it and say that you're not using it -- you're not using the establishment as -- the way it was approved. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. They're going beyond their business license. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And we would work with the County Attorney's Office to make sure that that's something that we could look into and require them to change back into the approval. But I think that's the way that we may address something like that rather than modifying the amendment. MS. ISTENES: I wouldn't suggest modifying this amendment-- MS. ARNOLD: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree. MS. ISTENES: -- but I think your issue gets to a bigger issue, not just with restaurants but, perhaps, with other uses as well because we run into the same problem. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's really the application or the interpretation of it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. Page 22 January 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not, you know, a restaurant staying open till two o'clock in the morning -- I'm thinking of Wendy's where you don't get a drink -- but it's just the application of it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And it's going to be hard to enforce Bedzel. How do you make sure that they're collecting their sales tax separately that way, and it's very, very difficult to deal with. But it's something to look at. And if you can find an easy way to do it, I'd like to see it work. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I think this pretty much addresses the implications of interpretation. I think it's good to work In. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me, too. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think also when they finally bring MR. SCHMITT: Can you speak into your speaker please, Commissioner? Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh. I think when they finally bring forth the noise ordinance, I think we're going to find that this is going to encompass some of the concerns that we've discussed this morning, and I think that's going to address that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we'll have a handle on it, really. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll fight that when it gets here, or I mean we'll not fight it, but -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Discuss it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Debate it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The only concern is, do we really need this in the Land Development Code? So if we can get some __ maybe some direction. Page 23 January 22, 2008 MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, I think it's a good idea. You make a good point. The only thing is, we try with the LDC to have everything that a developer needs to know. Do you want to weigh in? MS. ISTENES: Yes, please. Pages 32 and 33 -- and I just want to make sure you're aware of that, because that will also help what I would call kind of mitigate potential-- or eliminate, hopefully, potential problems. You start on page 32 under J. This section and the one on 33 really should be included in the Land Development Code because it has to do with site plan review and approval and it gives staff the ability under certain conditions to look at outdoor seating area and to require, for example, additional buffering. This is where the staff discretion part of the three alternatives that Catherine presented to you was put in this amendment. And it basically says, if you meet certain criteria, if you're within a certain distance of residential and you have outdoor seating, then the staff is going to be able to have the ability to require buffer walls at a specific height or additional landscaping or some type of mitigation, relocation maybe even. You know, instead of on the side of your property, how about if you put it on the front as long as you can meet all the codes, and that would create a barrier between you and an incompatible use. And so that's where that criteria fell. And then if you see in here, if you can't reach -- during the site plan review process if you can't reach agreement with the petitioner, then you're going to go to the Planning Commission and discuss it with them and try to reach a decision or an agreement with them. And then you're eventually going to go to the board if you don't work it out at the Planning Commission. So this portion really has to do with land development regulations, site development plan processing, and public hearing processes. And I believe this really ought to remain in the LDC. But I Page 24 January 22, 2008 do believe we could probably put the beginning section on page 28, and then we can go through and look at this perhaps in an ordinance, because then there's some performance criteria in there as well, and I think we would be okay and we could just cross-reference between the two. That would be my suggestion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It doesn't matter to me. I'm just asking the question out loud. Commissioner Halas first, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The one part that I like in here is the additional buffering especially in the placement of dumpsters, so I think this really needs to stay in the Land Development Code because there are times when, wherever the placement of the dumpster is located, especially if it's next to residential property, that can cause a problem at two o'clock in the morning when people are throwing -- cleaning up and throwing stuff in the dumpster and slamming doors, so -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, there already is criteria for dumpsters. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, in here it brings it out also that it's, again, brought up to -- it's reiterated in this statement here about sound attenuation for dumpsters and so on. So that's why I've had concerns. I've had some concerns in that area, especially where it backs up to residential and there's been bars or night clubs. MS. ISTENES: I think if we kept that section, like I said, 32, 33, in the LDC and look 28 through, I believe 31 -- probably would be okay to go into the Codes of Laws and Ordinances, and then we -- and again, I want to preface by saying, this is really kind of new territory for us. We worked, as Catherine said, through two cycles very diligently with the boards. And you know what, if it doesn't work or if we need to tweak it, then you've got sections in the Code of Laws and Ordinances. You can do that really easy, because I anticipate you're going to need to do it to see how effective or ineffective it is. Page 25 January 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. This is, I guess, a philosophical question to be answered by the county attorney, but there are benefits, of course, that -- having some of these things in an ordinance. Is it possible to draw up an ordinance that governs these things and then have the provisions of the ordinance repeated in the LDC and/or referenced in the LDC? It would give us the advantage of being able to change it more rapidly and respond to concerns more quickly if we can change the ordinance, and the reference in the LDC would refer to whatever ordinance we had passed. Is that possible? MR. KLATZKOW: I wouldn't want to repeat it, but I would say referencing is entirely possible. My advice is always going to be, if you have a chance to do it by ordinance or chance to do by LDC, do it by ordinance. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, in this case, I think the staffs interest is to make sure that everyone understands what the requirement of the LDC is. Is it -- if you wish to have these provisions in an ordinance, could you accomplish both purposes by referencing it in the LDC, and if necessary, having a copy of the ordinance incorporated in the LDC, or does that defeat the purpose of the separate -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. You want to keep the two separate. I mean, you can reference the LDC back and forth to the Code of Laws, but you do want to keep that separation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what complication would that cause for staff? MS. ISTENES: Actually, I mean, I'm not sure it's --let me put it this way. The more books we have to look at, the more difficult it is, the more time-consuming, the more apt we are to make a mistake, the more apt an applicant is to make a mistake or not understand what the regulations are or spend a lot of money trying to achieve consistency Page 26 January 22, 2008 with them. I think that's what Jeffs kind of alluding to. When you get LDC requirements, you want to kind of keep LDC-related topics, anything to do with governing the development of land in the LDC. MR. KLATZKOW: But this really-- MS. ISTENES: But it's -- it can happen. MR. KLATZKOW: This is a hybrid. It's not really development of land. It's just a permit, and I think you could put it in your Code of Laws and Ordinances as part of the ordinance even. But we can look at that and get back to you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we just give guidance? Community Development needs to manage whatever we're going to pass. So whatever you need to do to manage it and make it effective, bring back some suggestions. You know, I mean, that's the only thing -- I think we all want to accomplish the same thing. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And so your guidance would be helpful. Are you in agreement with that, Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I am. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else, Commissioner -- or Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. I just want to point out for the record, we have been coordinating this amendment with Steve Hart from the Chamber. I know Steve's not here today, but he's been kept informed of this, and certainly we're trying to keep the business -- at least through him -- the business community informed on these pending changes, because it will impact businesses that are currently operating. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Catherine, do you have anything? MS. FABACHER: I just had one little correction to read into the record that -- on page 33, and it would be the top of the page where Page 27 January 22, 2008 you see the bolded term, adjacent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Adjacent, yes. MS. F ABACHER: We -- staff is recommending that -- now that we just remove adjacent. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it would be -- MS. F ABACHER: Serving area, all the impacts on residential zoning district or residential use. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, because it's 25. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Twenty-five hundred. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hundred. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Twenty-five hundred. MS. F ABACHER: We don't want to limit ourselves. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, right. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. The next item is? MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN RE: WET SLIPS MS. FABACHER: Would be the wet slips, Commissioner, the Manatee Protection Plan wet slips. That will be on page 79 in your book, summary sheet M. And I think you'll recall we put some more material in. This was -- this is at your direction, this amendment. And we have Steve Lenberger with Environmental Engineering environmental services, this morning to help us through this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. Excuse me. Stephen Lenberger, Environmental Services Department, now Engineering and Environmental Services Department. This is an amendment to the Manatee Protection Plan of the Land Development Code, and it's basically to remove calculating wet slip densities within shoreline encumbered by conservation easement. Earlier in 2007 we came to the board asking direction, and this is Page 28 January 22, 2008 the direction of the board we received and this is the amendment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. The municipalities use our Manatee Protection Plan, correct? MR. LENBERGER: Say that again. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The City of Naples and Everglades and Marco use the Manatee Protection Plan? MR. LENBERGER: That I don't know. I can't comment on that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think they do, and my only concern is, we are -- we are potentially tying the hands of the municipalities, and should we make that a -- should we make this a conditional use so we don't tie everybody's hands in the future? I know it was board directed, but if you could -- if you could tell me if the municipalities use our Manatee Protection Plan. MR. LENBERGER: I don't know the answer. I'd have to find out. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. If you could tell me that in the future, thank you. And then this would apply to them. MR. LENBERGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if so, should we make this a conditional use instead of a prohibition? And then I guess the overall question is, since we know that we're not making any more shoreline -- unless the projection of greenhouse gases are going to expand, we're not going to expand our shoreline. So do you really want to prohibit -- an outright prohibition instead of a conditional use process? That's a question for the Board of Commissioners. I guess it was only my concern. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Under the state and federal guidelines, what are we required to do? MR. LENBERGER: We're required to -- well, staffhas always Page 29 January 22, 2008 applied excluding shoreline within a conservation easement from calculating wet slip densities, and the Manatee Protection Plan is followed by the state DEP. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So this is more or less mandated and we're following that, or are these rules that we're coming up with far exceeding the guidelines that we're seeing from federal and state? MR. LENBERGER: The state has looked at things a different way. They look at the type of restrictions within conservation easements. Not all conservation easements the counties do restrict docks within -- in preserve areas, but not all conservation easements do (sic). So the state looks at the individual conservation easements to see if it's excluded. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But in some cases the -- whatever we put out there, the state can trump our rules and regulations and require even more stringent requirements, or no? MR. LENBERGER: They can require more stringent, but so can the county. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We can be more stringent than state. We can't be less restrictive. MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? And this is more restrictive. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just wondering. I notice DSAC had recommended denial, but Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously. Do you have any comments on that? Did they have anything to offer? MS. F ABACHER: They didn't -- the DSAC didn't have anything to offer. They just were opposed to the restriction because they want to get as many -- you know, in their own interest to get as many -- calculate as many wet slips off of the lineal footage. Planning Commission, totally behind it. The EAC, totally behind it. I think they figured that if it was a conservation area and putting in Page 30 January 22, 2008 wet slips and then you'd have to cross the conservation area with a boardwalk, you were really impacting a conservation area. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. That's how I feel also, but I just wanted you to put that on the record. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think this is a reasonable restriction. I think it makes sense. As a matter of fact, this is what we've been doing for a long time as far as I know, right? The staff has been interpreting the law this way for a long, long time. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so I think it is consistent with our past practices and it's endorsed by the EAC and the CCPC. So I would be willing to support it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. My question was somewhat answered. But I just want to make sure that this was aired extensively with the Planning Commission in regards to this particular amendment MR. LENBERGER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- to the LDC. MR. LENBERGER: It went through the hearing process and to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. They spent a lot of time on this? MR. LENBERGER: They discussed it for a while, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. I'm in favor of what's been put on here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else before I move on? Page 3 ] January 22, 2008 MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Oh, we have a speaker? MS. FABACHER: Thank you. I'm sorry. We have -- Mr. Timothy Hall is registered to speak. MR. HALL: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Timothy Hall with Turrell, Hall & Associates. We have a -- I have a marine and environmental consulting firm here in the county, and we have some concerns that I'd just like to go over with you. I didn't have the opportunity to go to the Planning Commission hearing. We did put some of these concerns in writing to the staff when this was earlier on in the process. And I guess just going through, one of the questions that Commissioner Henning asked about the other municipalities. They do use the Manatee Protection Plan as it was approved; however, they all, I believe, except -- I'm not sure about Everglades City, but I know Naples and Marco has it actually written into their guiding documents as well. So they don't refer to the Collier County Land Development Code. They actually refer to their own code -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. HALL: -- with regards to that. And then in terms of staff, our firm is -- has been in business for over 20 years. I've been here working on docks since 1997. Until last year, this application of not counting shoreline was never applied to any project that we worked on. And we do have other projects that we've permitted that have shoreline easements. So -- until one specific project that came up last year was the first time this had ever been addressed to my knowledge. The concerns that we have, have to do with just the conservation easement. As Steve said, there are different types of conservation easements that are required through the state and federal permitting process, and one of the questions that we had that's never been really responded to is, is a conservation easement that is being referred to in this language a conservation easement to the county or any Page 32 January 22, 2008 conservation easement whatsoever, whether it be to the water management district, to DEP, to a third party, what type of conservation easement that applies. As he said, the state has three types of passive use easement (sic), which allows for passive uses such as boardwalks and docks. They have standard conservation easements which prohibit any activities actually within the easement footprint. There still are instances where you have docks outside of a standard easement because they're not included in the easement, and the access to the docks also is not in the actual standard easement. It goes through some other area. And there's their proprietary easement which is generally placed along the shoreline, and that prohibits you from expanding on any existing facilities that you may have. That's a mechanism that the state has to say, this is the maximum amount that you can -- that you can have. So there are those three different types of easement. And then with the definition, from my standpoint, what I can see happening now is, if this is the definition, then most future shoreline -- or most future conservation easements are simply going to offset from the shoreline. So you'll have a conservation easement that goes up within, I don't know, six inches, a foot. It's not clarified in here how far up, you know, that would need to be. But if the shoreline is the interface, then you could survey the interface and offset six inches and still be able to count all of that shoreline. So I don't think that this really meets the intent of what the board had in mind or what --what staff may have been working towards. I think that really is most of -- most of my comments. The other question had to do with artificially created shoreline. It says, you can't use artificially created shoreline, but it doesn't specify whether then you need to go back to the shoreline that was there prior to it being created. The way this could be interpreted is if you have a seawall that Page 33 January 22, 2008 was in place and go to replace your seawall so that now your new seawall is a foot further out, which is an exemption under the state standards -- but that's a new artificially created shoreline and you wouldn't be able to count any of that for your docking facility even though you really haven't materially changed anything. So from my standpoint, being a business owner and trying to think about what future clients' issues may be, those are the questions that I had and the problems that we had with the language as it's written. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Lenberger, can you try to attempt to answer the questions about the applicability of this ordinance it would apply to -- MR. LENBERGER: It was my understanding that it would apply to all conservation easements. So if it's covered by a conservation easement, you wouldn't be able to count the shoreline. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And what about a seawall extension? MR. LENBERGER: The exemption he's talking about for the DEP, if you want, we could clarify that in the amendment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Was this -- any of this discussed with the Planning Commission or with DSAC or with the EAC? MR. LENBERGER: The issue just brought up by Tim, no. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would it be possible if we looked at this closely and then maybe took it back through the Planning Commission or the -- in regards to the issues that were brought up? MR. LENBERGER: We can do that if you want. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to push this off to the upcoming cycle? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Either that or see if they can-- well, I guess it's to the point where it's either before us or we send it back to the next cycle. I hate to put it back to the next cycle. Page 34 January 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that's coming up next month. The next cycle is actually -- the first cycle of 2008 is next month? MS. ISTENES: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're not completely through all the advisory boards. MS. ISTENES: No. MR. SCHMITT: We're going to come back to you with a schedule for the next cycle. We haven't locked it in yet. But Catherine, if! recall, it's -- we wouldn't even see this -- the board wouldn't see this till sometime in, what, September? MS. F ABACHER: July. MR. SCHMITT: Is it July? MS. FABACHER: July. This -- no, I'm sorry. The board, you're right, September. Yeah, Planning Commission, July. MS. ISTENES: When are we -- we're starting in March, correct? MS. FABACHER: Well, yes. The back meetings. The deadline is the 18th of April and then -- for the finished amendment, then it goes to -- in May it goes to DSAC and EAC, and it's probably going to go to a couple meetings to -- because there are a lot of environmental issues that we've tried to tackle before that were quite contentious, so COMMISSIONER HALAS: When's the next meeting here for us on this one? MS. F ABACHER: February 5th. MR. SCHMITT: I have no problem in what Tim mentioned in regards to the exemptions. We could clarify that because that -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- was not the intent. You have an artificial shoreline where you're rebuilding a seawall, and that is exempt from the state. We certainly would not attempt to apply this where there's a state exemption. Page 35 January 22,2008 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: We can clarify that fairly easy from that standpoint. It's -- we'll look at that and make sure there's exemption language that identifies when -- and clarifies it so we don't try to apply that in those cases. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're going to apply it -- so if you have a conservation easement by the district or the state to where you have passive uses such as boardwalk, it won't apply to this then? MR. SCHMITT: Well, you still can have access to the shoreline. You still have riparian rights to access to shoreline. What this does is limit the number of boat slips. It's the calculation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. MR. SCHMITT: If -- the problem we may encounter is when a -- the state moves the conservation easement off the shoreline 10 or 12 or 15 feet but yet under our laws we still apply it all the -- this will apply all the way up to the water line because we're attempting to protect the mangroves. So there will be a -- that's where the rub will be. The state will say, go ahead. You can -- you can build there. We're going to say, okay, you can build there, but you're going to be limited because we're not going to count the shoreline, and that's the reason why this came back to you. It goes back to the -- specifically to the diagram on page -- that was included in your packet, the executive summary on attachment B, page 5, that follows two pages after the LDC that just talks about the application of the shoreline calculation and the -- limiting the number of docks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Years ago Rookery Bay was -- there were several docks that was going to be there. I don't know if that's still in the plan. Does it apply -- would this apply to the state? Because it is a jurisdiction within the county. Page 36 January 22, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: Rookery Bay, you talking about the facility on Henderson Creek or -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Shell Island Road. Actually it goes -- MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not on Henderson Creek. It's on-- MR. SCHMITT: It's out in the bay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's out in the bay. MR. SCHMITT: That is a fairly significant boat dock extension. That's a long boat dock extension. There are docks out there. I don't know. I would have to -- in answer to your question, I can't answer it specifically. I've been out there and I know where you're talking about. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But does this apply to state lands, I mean, within the county or other jurisdictions? MR. SCHMITT: I -- go ahead, Steve. MR. LENBERGER: It would apply to the state, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well? MR. SCHMITT: I mean, this basically comes down to, how do you want to count the shoreline. That's what started this many, many months ago, and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I remember the discussion, and staff gave direction to be more conservative on it than it was being counted. But I just have the overall concerns of, since we're not building any more shoreline is, do we really need to do this or just make it a conditional use. That's my only thing. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm very concerned, too. I mean, we have a limited resource out there. And how's this going to affect us in the future when we see opportunities to be able to put in boat ramps or be able to meet the public's need? I don't want to box us in to the point where all of a sudden we Page 37 January 22, 2008 find another two or three years from now that we put a rule and regulation in place that have effectively stopped us from providing a service that the public out there is looking for. MR. HALL: If! might comment on that. The Goodland Boat Park, when it was originally permitted -- again, my firm did the permitting when it was a condominium complex. And the docks and all that required a conservation easement along the shoreline. So under this code now, since you haven't gone through the county process with that, those docks would no longer be -- you would no longer be able to count that shoreline and they would no longer be allowed. That's why the state has that passive use easement when you go through the permitting process, it's not always feasible from a time standpoint, or whatever, to permit the upland and dock development at the same time. But you vet that with them, and they then apply that passive use easement which allows for you to do those docks at a later time. Under this scenario now, that would no longer be a feasible alternative. You have to have the state and federal permits in hand before you can get your county approvals. And those conservation easements are usually a time requirement. Within 30 or 60 days ofthe issuance of those state and federal permits, you're supposed to have those easements filed. And now doing that, you file those easements, and then you can't -- all of a sudden you can't count that shoreline, so it's a real Catch 22. MR. LENBERGER: Staff-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. MR. LENBERGER: Excuse me. If a property -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle wanted to say something, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm okay. Page 38 January 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, this wouldn't have anything to do with boat ramps, would it? If you -- you're talking about docks, but this wouldn't lock us in to where we could find an area that would be available to put a boat ramp in, would it? MR. LENBERGER: No. This amendment -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: -- has no effect on boat ramps. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: That's guided by the Manatee Protection Plan criteria. COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That answered my question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. 1-- MR. HALL: It would affect the docks that you use for staging for the boat ramps. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. MR. HALL: If you wanted to put your boat in the water and then tie up to a dock while you parked your trailer and got onto your boat, it would affect that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But when you tie up, all you do is just tie up to that launch dock that's presently in the water. MR. HALL: But that is a dock. And it would -- it is counted in the Manatee Protection Plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's a key word is dock. I can't support it. I just think that it's too restrictive and there's a lot of unknowns here. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with you and 1-- if we could ever have this written where there would be an exception for public use, then I might be able to be supportive of it. Page 39 January 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I mean, to me, I think the individual property rights is higher than government's rights, but that's just -- MR. HALL: And that was my final comment was, in the reasoning they say that a conservation easement removes or severely limits development rights. And I would agree with that statement; however, I don't believe that the conservation easement limits riparian rights. And riparian rights are your ability to access your property from the water, and the docks make that possible. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. You got to access it. You got to tie your boat up somehow. MR. HALL: Correct. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, if it's your wish, we could meet with Tim and other stakeholders and see if we could come up with some exceptions of language based on what you said before the February 5th meeting, if you want or-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's up to the board. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would. My concern is probably the same as Commissioner Coletta's. As long as it's public, open to the public, then -- and if you've got a problem with that, that's what needs to be addressed, okay? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm fine. Thank you for asking. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great. MR. HALL: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Mr. Hall. Okay. Any more questions for Steve, or are we ready to move on or -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MS. F ABACHER: Do you have something? COMMISSIONER FIALA: We need to make a decision. Are we going to have them meet and then come back on February -- Page 40 January 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I mean, I didn't hear any guidance on that. But I'm just saying I'm not going to support it anyways. I just -- there's a lot of unknowns there, and I do believe that property rights in the Constitution does not say government's property rights. It says, private property rights. Go ahead. Do you want to give guidance? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, my concern is that we're also charged with protecting the environment, and if we're dealing with an area where the waters are protected one way or the other and we have land that butts up to it that also needs to be protected, then I think we're in the right direction here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But you said, as long as it doesn't restrict the public. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. The public -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're the steward ofthe public's property. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. The public means that all -- everybody has access to it, not just certain groups, that everybody has access to it. But that being said, as long as we can find out the definition of -- if it's a launch area and you have a temporary dock there that you use for dropping your boat off and then parking your vehicle, getting into your boat, and then accessing those -- accessing the waters. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would this rule and regulation affect Everglades City and Marco Island? MR. LENBERGER: This Manatee Protection Plan is the county's regulations. I'm not sure the connection to the local municipality. They usually have their own codes. Whether it's just by reference or whether they've adopted a specific provision at a given time, I don't know. Page 4 ] January 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it would affect such places as Goodland and Chokoloskee and areas like that. MR. LENBERGER: Yes, it would, areas that's in the county's jurisdiction. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I do think that somehow we need to get something out to the public, maybe through the information network we have to the different civic associations to make sure that this is out there, realizing that we're considering such action and what the ramifications may be for those communities. That would be my suggestion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the question by Catherine Fabacher, should we meet with Turrell & Associates to go over these concerns? Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I think so. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then I think it needs to be aired again with the AEC or EAC and probably the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It raises another interesting question. If we apply this rule, how is it that Rookery Bay can have any boat docks at all? They are -- they are within a conservation area. The entire area of Rookery Bay is conservation. How can Rookery Bay build boat docks within Rookery Bay? MR. LENBERGER: I don't know the time frame when the docks of Rookery Bay were built. I know some of them have been there a long time prior to the adoption of the Manatee Protection Plan. I've reviewed several development plans for Rookery Bay, and we've applied all the code provisions to them. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I agree, we have some questions that need to be answered, and I'd like to try to get it done as quickly as possible. If it's possible to do that by February, that would Page 42 January 22,2008 be great. If not, maybe we do need to postpone it till the next cycle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Thanks for your time and MR. LENBERGER: You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and understanding. The next issue is? HISTORICAL! ARCHEOLOGICAL BOARD PROVISIONS MS. FABACHER: A Historical Archaeological Board. Commissioner -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: -- that's going to be on page 99 in the book, and sheet E in the summary sheet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Melissa Zone's not here. MS. F ABACHER: Melissa couldn't make it this morning, so I'm going to try and fill in. And ifthere's something I can't answer, then she'll certainly be here on the 5th. Basically what this does is add out -- add back in a lot of information and procedural process that was taken out during recodification. We're not exactly sure why. We think it was meant to go into an administrative code, which we never got. But you'll see that all the -- most of the underline type in black is just straight going back in from what was in the old code. We did do a little work on it, which is indicated by the blue text. Basically -- I'm on page 102 and 103 -- really cut down on the preliminary subdivision plat. As you know, we've really gotten-- nobody's using that much anymore, so -- I'd like to read into the record, too, that we were -- originally it says, the preservation board shall review recommendations derived from the survey and Page 43 January 22, 2008 assessment and recommendations -- and submit their recommendations. It says, to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, but I believe that the Planning Commission's not in that loop. I'm reading that into the record. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. MS. F ABACHER: On the next page -- I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that is the change? You're going to put that back in, right? MS. FABACHER: No. We're taking that out. Now, I don't think that by practice it does that, under the current practice is the way they're handling it now. I think they bought you something on the zoo property. I don't think it went through the Planning Commission. It just comes to the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. FABACHER: For historical designations, it just comes to the board. This is -- this practice that they do now -- and we haven't had this in the code for a while, so we're trying to make it match what goes on. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'm trying to figure out what the code says now because the board -- the Planning Commission shall make recommendations to the county commissioners for -- I'll look at it, and if I have any concerns, I'll email it to you. MS. F ABACHER: Okay, great. And then on the next page, on 103, what we did was really just combine site development and final subdivision plat. It was the same process, just wanted to cut down on the verbiage. And there is a -- on the third to last line where it says, shall be incorporated, we need to put which in front of, which shall be incorporated. And then for the rest of the document, basically we took out development services staff and added county manager or designees in Page 44 January 22, 2008 I. Up in H it says, as defined in article VI, which was the definitions in the old code; however, in the new code, county sponsored projects are not defined, so we took that out. And I think mostly it's just cosmetic changes. Changing most of the time community development services administrator to the county manager or designee on page 107. That's pretty much the rest of the changes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I don't have any questions. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have a question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd just like to know ifthere is anything in this document which, in any way, circumvents the action that the board took with respect to the Naples Zoo and the historical designation of the gardens at the historic -- at the zoo. MS. F ABACHER: You mean, would it be applied retroactively, the new requirements or -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Is there anything here that would have prevented us from making the decision we made at that time? MR. KLATZKOW: No, because I looked at this old ordinance when we went over it. That's when we realized it wasn't in the new code. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. So there's nothing here that would conflict with the action that we took then? MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. MS. F ABACHER: Any more questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't. Nope. MS. FABACHER: Okay, Commissioners, we're-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to take a 10-minute break, and then continue. Page 45 January 22, 2008 MS. FABACHER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Everybody take their seats, please. CAT BUS SIGNAGE AMENDMENT Catherine, I think we're going to the CAT signs. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. All right. Commissioners, we're on the CAT signs. That's on page 41 in your book, page E of your summary sheet, and Michelle Arnold's here to discuss that. Page 41. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, again, Michelle Arnold. This proposed amendment is just to add in signage or recognizing the signage on the CAT buses, the movable signage, and adding it into our LDC to recognize that those are now permissible within the county. We came across this after reviewing the Land Development Code when we were, I guess, challenged or one of our cases that went before the Code Enforcement Board was appealed, and just recognize that that's something that was -- that should have been added once the CAT system came into play. So we're just taking care of that now. Any questions? Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had one, but I -- but it really doesn't pertain to this, but it pertains -- and I shouldn't go off the subject, but I've been curious about the billboards. I know that years ago they were supposed to be eliminated, but we still have so many standing. When are they actually eliminated? MS. ARNOLD: There were -- there was some amortization language in the Land Development Code, and there was letters that were sent by the county several years ago, and I believe the County Attorney's Office was working with us on that, Jennifer Belpedio, to Page 46 January 22, 2008 determine when we could finally get rid of some of these billboards. I think some of the letters that were sent to the owners at the time may not have been very effective. So as the billboards come down, they're not going to be allowed to be replaced. But I don't think we can do much more than that at this point. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, really. Yeah, because they don't seem to be coming down and they seem to get new signs on them all the time. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the signage will change but the structures are the same. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we're stuck with them, in essence? MS. ARNOLD: In essence. MR. KLATZKOW: Next hurricane. And I'm not being facetious because the last hurricane we had knocked down a bunch of them and they will not rebuild. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Something to look forward to. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Thank you. I'm sorry I veered off the subject. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I think we lost our forum. MR. KLATZKOW: No. You can move ahead with three, you just can't vote on these things unless you have four. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right good. FENCE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS MS. F ABACHER: Okay. And Commissioners, our next one is going to be Michelle again, and this is going to be on page 119 in your book, restoring the building permit requirement to put up fences. Page 119, summary sheet R. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. This was in the Land Development Code previously and we're just putting it back. Page 47 January 22, 2008 Commissioner Henning, I think I saw an email that you were questioning the Florida Building Code and where a requirement for permits was included in that. Actually, the -- there isn't something in the Florida Building Code. What is in there is the definition of -- well, in the definitions it considers fences structures, but in the Land Development Code it doesn't consider a fence a structure. So there was that conflict there. So to clarify the permit requirement, that is why we're putting it in the Land Development Code that fences require building permits. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the explanation is, the approved ordinance 02-01 states the Florida Building Code cites it as a structure. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, from what I can -- what I can see from this ordinance and the Florida Building Code, it references fences, requirement around pools where it doesn't have a screen enclosure. MS. ARNOLD: Right. The Florida Building Code does not have a specific reference to fences, general fences, around yards and stuff like that -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. ARNOLD: -- requiring a permit. But we have always required the -- you know, someone obtaining a building permit for fences. And the Land Development Code is the document that, you know, identified that requirement, so we're wanting to put it back in. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But we were told when we were going to the UDC that some of these things don't need to be in there, and we moved a lot of those things from the Land Development Code into the UDC. And you know, as I pointed out in my email, that the fee schedule sets up permits, and there's a lot of things in the fee schedule that's not in our Land Development Code. So if we're going to put all this back into the Land Development Page 48 January 22,2008 Code, I'm fine with that, but maybe a better thing to do is go back to the old Land Development Code where it was all there. MS. ARNOLD: I would love that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know? And I think, you know, that's a discussion at another time. But we spent a lot of money to go to the new code, and we separated a lot of those things. It's not a function of permitting. Land Development Code is a function of what you need to do to put up the fence, like arterial roadways and collectors, it only could be four-foot cyclone fence and it has to be -- has to have landscaping around it. As far as what you do, you enforce certain provisions -- or the Land Development Code as far as enforcement, not applying it -- that's where the planning staff comes in -- but also need to enforce certain provisions within the Code of Laws. And I already think that you have those -- those -- that ability to do so. And somebody that doesn't obtain a permit for reroofing, which is not in our Land Development Code, that's a violation of the board's ordinances because that has to be applied. So I just don't see a need for it personally. But anyways, that's up to the board. But you're saying a fence and a wall is not a structure? You're not changing the definition? MS. ARNOLD: No. We're not changing the definition. We're-- well -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're just -- you just want to put in that it requires a permit? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. So it's clear to the public that it requires a permit. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's fine. Are we going to put in roofing, too, in the Land Development Code? MS. ARNOLD: I believe there's something in the building -- there's nothing in the building code that it requires -- that specifies that they need a permit for that? Page 49 January 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And the building code was referred to in the Land Development Code and we took it out. You've got a -- you've got a fee schedule that requires a whole bunch of permits that's not in the Land Development Code. And by doing this, I would argue that we need to put all those requirements from the fee schedule into the Land Development Code. MS. ARNOLD: Well, it's -- whatever the pleasure of the board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think we need to determine whether you have the right to request and enforce a permit for a fence or a wall. My opinion is, you do. You always had that, whether it's in the Land Development Code or not because it's in the fee schedule. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: The permitting -- under the fee schedule under the Florida Building Code, the only reason for the permit application is to ensure that it meets the criteria for wind load and -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- that type of review -- or structural review basically. The reason it's reviewed -- and I'll defer to Susan for the Land Development Code -- is because we want to ensure that it's-- when it comes in that it has an amend -- associated with a site plan that represents where it's going to be placed on the property so we know that it's being placed on the property correctly. That -- but the permitting requirement is still there in regards to ensuring that it meets the structural requirements. MS. ARNOLD: I'm not sure if we can cite the fee schedule as being violated. I think we would have to cite, you know, a specific code, you know, that someone would be violating. So if somebody erected a fence, we wouldn't be able to say, well -- fee code would only merely say, this is the amount that you had to pay for that particular permit. So we need to have something to kind of make reference to -- for them violating, and that's why we're trying to put it back in the Land Development Code. Page 50 January 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And you don't mind if! send you some correspondence of other things that need to go in the code then, too? MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Build it as we want to. Thanks. I mean, if that's the interpretation, then that's what it is. It needs to be in there. Great. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one comment, if! may. And I'm not too sure if we even want to get into a discussion here about it, we're in the midst of a drought right now and severe watering restrictions. This doesn't in any way address any of those situations. It requires a certain amount of greenery to be placed and also irrigation. It doesn't say anything about landscaping requires no irrigation. It's just something that I wanted to keep alive before this commission. It's going to be an ongoing issue for many years in the future. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're talking about the provisions in the code where you must have landscaping, and you're saying because of the drought -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It addresses it right in here under fences. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, that fences must have -- must have landscaping. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's right. I don't know. I think it's one of those anomalies we're dealing with. Here in one case we're telling people how to conserve water, we've got water management saying you've got to only water once a week, and now we're coming up with requirements and we're keeping them in there that are requiring greenery without any specifications of what it's going to take to keep that greenery alive with water. Page 5] January 22, 2008 That's a little bit more maybe than anyone wants to handle at this time, but I felt a need point it out. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the code says that you must irrigate that and keep it alive, but you're saying -- you're saying with the water restrictions, are we really doing the right thing by making that a requirement; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Quite possible the requirements don't go far enough to require the right kind of plantings that require a minimum amount of water or no water at all. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Well, I know they do native vegetation, but you're saying -- maybe you're saying to allow more types of planting, such as xeriscape. Like a Bougainvillea doesn't like water. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Correct, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And could we use other sources of plants. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also, if I may go one step further, do we need an irrigation system being required if you could put in plants that don't require watering? Because if you have the irrigation in place and you put in plants that require a minimum amount of water, as time goes along, the new property owners, or whoever comes along, could replace those plantings that require an intensive amount of water. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I think you bring up an important point that we need to debate. Because of the conditions, do we need to change our land use requirements. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I think that that's something that needs to be addressed, but also we may want to look at a different type of irrigation system such as a drip system which takes a lot less water to water those plants, and -- because I think if we start treading Page 52 January 22, 2008 in an area -- and I understand where you're coming from. It's a great idea, but I think if we start limiting the amount of landscaping, that there'll be some outcry from the citizens until such time as we are able to educate them to the probabilities that eventually we're going to have to go to xeriscape. But I think if we look at maybe starting off with a drip system of irrigation along those fence roads -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Anything that would get us closer to where we need to be. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Well, I think the discussion is -- needs to take place soon. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we have a -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Landscaping-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- workshop coming up on water, or -- we already had presentations, but Mr. Schmitt, is there a workshop coming forward? MR. SCHMITT: You do have a workshop scheduled to discuss water and water use. Mr. DeLony is the principal in charge of that. If you want to add some discussion on landscaping and irrigation of landscaping, I'll coordinate with Jim and see if we can get that into the agenda. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. We'll do that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep. Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Commissioners-- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Lenberger's back up. PRESERVATION OF NATIVE HABITATS Page 53 January 22, 2008 MS. F ABACHER: -- ready to move on here. We're going to be on page 75 in your book and we're going to talk about preservation of vegetation priorities. Mr. Lenberger is going to help us through that one on page 75. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, again, Stephen Lenberger, Engineering and Environmental Services. This amendment here is to change the order of the criteria which we select for preservation of native habitat, and basically the changes were brought about by the Growth Management Plan changes which took effect in May. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I don't think anybody has any concerns. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: Thank you. INTERIM WATERSHED STANDARDS MS. F ABACHER: All right, Thank you. Thank you, Steve. All right, Commissioners. Now we're going to go to interim watershed standards. That's going to be the first amendment on page 1, and that's on summary sheet C, and we have Robert Wiley, an engineer with Engineering and Environmental Services, to guide us through the interim watershed standards. MR. WILEY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Robert Wiley, with the Engineering Environmental Services Department. Weare looking at some interim watershed management regulations to be placed into the Land Development Code. These will comply with the interim regulations that are already within the Growth Page 54 January 22, 2008 Management Plan. They were adopted as part of the EAR-based amendments. We have taken it through quite a bit of public participation. We've had comments addressed by the Planning Commission, by DSAC. So we're here just to get your direction. We have them in front of you. I'm really here to answer your questions because it's sort of self-explanatory since they're all -- they're not verbatim with what's in the Growth Management Plan Conservation and Coastal Management Element, but the point of clarification was primarily brought about through the Planning Commission to help make them more definable when it comes right down to the regulation of code enforcement. Everything they suggested was excellent. So I just want to make sure you understand it's not word for word verbatim. There are a few minor clarifications to make them much more definitive. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's just an interim plan until it's developed? MR. WILEY: These are interim regulations. They will go into the Land Development Code. They will stay there until the Watershed Management Plans are completed and adopted, and then any regulations coming out of them will be written to supersede these regulations themselves. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was very much impressed with the information that was put forth, and I think there was an awful lot of thought that went into this, and I really want to commend everybody that had input into this, and I think it's the right direction that we're going. MR. WILEY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question. Page 55 January 22,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The entirety of the required 150 percent treatment shall occur within the boundaries of the stormwater treatment area, excluding county required native vegetation preserve, which are not allowed to be incorporated in the stormwater quality treatment system. If we're going to increase that to 150 percent, are we effectively going to make some lots or some building areas in the county totally worthless? Are we going to reduce them down to that level? MR. WILEY: To make them totally worthless, I would not say so. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm sorry. Totally worthless is a terrible phrase to use. MR. WILEY: It would affect the ability to build and develop on them using the current practices in some situations. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. For example, like a quarter-acre lot, would that be a good example, or would it be something like maybe a lot that's 200 feet by 200 feet? I'm trying to -- I'm just -- in my mind I'm trying to find out what the impact is going to be on the property owner. MR. WILEY: The smaller the lots sometimes the requirement becomes a little bit more tight because you have less room to build with. The one thing to keep in mind is that this 150 percent regulation, we are making it for all developments countywide. The water management district is already doing that in most of their applications. So we really duplicated what they were doing but just made it across the board so everyone's on a level playing field. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But now -- just for example so I can better understand what we're talking about. Let's take a lot like Golden Gate City, just an average lot. What would be the impact on someone trying to build an affordable house on that lot? MR. WILEY: If you're talking about a single-family house that's Page 56 January 22, 2008 on an already platted lot, this will not be applicable because in a single- family home they are not required to build their own individual water management system. Now, should someone want to come and address the issue that we have already brought before you though with building a three-acre home on a one-acre lot, you know, the megahomes, then there are regulations that we have which require them, once you exceed a certain percentage of impervious area, to have to address a certain amount of water retention on that lot, and then these would apply. But that is the special situation where they opt to go way beyond what we really would like to see them do anyway. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the average homeowner out there that might build a home with less than 2,000 square feet would not really be impacted to that point? MR. WILEY: As far as 150 percent criteria, that's correct. Now, there are other criteria in these regulations that could potentially impact them, and that deals with where their property's located, where the water table elevation is during the wet season, so they may be within a flowway, they may be within an area that floodplain compensation issues do need to be addressed, but that's not the 150 percent criteria. That's just simply displacement of the water we're talking about. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Between now and when this comes back, would you please schedule a meeting so I can talk to you at great lengths about this. MR. WILEY: I will be glad to meet with you this week. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think this week is pretty well booked solid. MR. WILEY: I'm available at your calendar. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We'll get together on it and we'll figure a good time, but I'd like to sit down at least for half an hour, go over all the examples so that I can see what the impact is Page 57 January 22,2008 going to be for the residents in Collier County. MR. WILEY: I would be glad to, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Wiley. MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, thank you. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS MS. FABACHER: Okay. And I think we'll continue with Mr. Wiley. If you all will turn to page 71 in your book, please. We've put in the date of the new FIRM, the flood insurance rate maps from FEMA, and Mr. Wiley's going to talk about that. That's summary sheet K, page 71. MR. WILEY: This is just a very brief thing we've changed with the new flood insurance rate maps that went into effect in November of '05. While we're making changes to the Land Development Code, it would seem to be appropriate to go ahead and update this particular date. And it's just almost like a scrivener's error, but it's really not. It's bringing it up to date so we don't have someone looking at the LDC and thinking it still applies to the old maps, which they may not know are automatically updated. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Again, thank you, Mr. Wiley. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, Mr. Wiley again, and this is going to be on page 123, summary sheet S, and it's really kind of scrivener's error again as far as drainage facility level of service. Robert, you want to take us through that, please? MR. WILEY: Sure. In this particular amendment to the Land Development Code, what we are addressing is making sure it's very Page 58 January 22, 2008 clear we're talking about drainage easement issues. When we looked at the wording that was brought into the code, it called it capital access. And I'm reading my own definition and don't even know what it's talking about, so we wanted just to clarify it so everybody knows what we mean with capital facilities and capital access. In this case it's drainage easements, so -- and drainage level of service. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Again, thank you. MS. F ABACHER: All right, Commissioners. We're going to vary a little bit because I don't see our next speaker, but I'll be happy to continue on if you'd like to turn to page -- just the small ones -- page 77, and that's summary sheet L, and this is from compo planning. And this has to do with the amortization period for those properties fronting -- remember you'll recall the properties that are residential right now and they have to revert back to single-family residential or commercial. I think this is -- there was a conflict. The GMP had given seven years and we had given 10 years the way it worked out. So we're bring the comp -- the LDC in compliance with the -- you know, with inconsistency with the GMP on this matter. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nope. SIGN CODE MS. FABACHER: Okay. Thank you. Now we'll just turn to page 85, and this is a -- let's see. What page is that on your summary sheet? I don't know. Okay. Page 85, and this has to do with signs exempt. It's actually on page 86. This actually came last cycle. I don't know if you recall it because it's so small. We're just cross-referencing a couple signs into the sign code that were stand alone. And you approved it last cycle, Page 59 January 22, 2008 but unfortunately we had left this little section out of the title, so it wasn't quite legal, so we're just putting it back again. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next one? SANTA BARBARA COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT MS. F ABACHER: Okay. The next one we'll go to page 117, and this has to do with the Santa Barbara Commercial Overlay District. You may recall that last cycle we had, under the G -- under their plan under the GMP they had expanded the district back to be a whole block. It used to be just one set of lots along the road. Now they've gone back and caught the other lots backing to that. So they've increased the area in the map -- fortunately we didn't include it in the book -- but never increased the legal description of the boundaries, so it's just housekeeping on this issue also. Any questions? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nope. No questions. TDR CREDITS MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Let's see. What else? Okay. I'm going to be on page 55. Talking about the definition of a TDR credit, and this one is just a simple correction of the citation. You'll see page 55, it's a parcel obtained through transfer of development rights, and then it cites section 2.03.07, and then we went to D4, because if you've been in section 2.03.07, you know how huge it is, so we got more specific about where to find the TDR. You'd be 40 minutes looking for it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Let's see. All right. And I'm on page Page 60 January 22, 2008 67. And this has to do with the Gateway Triangle mixed-use district. On page 68, it's just housekeeping. Development in the activity center is governed by the underlying zoning district. It's just some housekeeping by David Weeks. Any questions about that? Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it met with the approval of the POLITICAL SIGNAGE MS. F ABACHER: Oh, absolutely everyone. Just a matter of housekeeping. Here we go. Oh, thank goodness. Good timing, Jennifer. Okay. Then we're going to go now to page 83 in your book and we're going to talk about political signs, and Jennifer Belpedio with the County Attorney's Office is here to help with this amendment. It's on page 83. Jennifer, you want to talk about it? MS. BELPEDIO: Good morning. Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant County Attorney. Before you is a version of the amendment, the LDC section 5.06 -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Could you put the mike just a little closer. MS. BELPEDIO: 5.06.04C12. This proposed amendment has a unanimous approval from the CCPC, and the only substantive revision is to allow political signs to be erected beginning at the third of the qualifying period as set forth in Florida Statutes section 99.061. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? What happened to the provisions about getting approval for putting -- placing signs on the residential property? MS. BELPEDIO: Yes, Commissioner. There was a different version that was proposed to the CCPC. That was unanimously Page 6] January 22, 2008 rejected. I believe that -- the reasoning of the CCP (sic) was that the purpose of bringing the amendment forward was ultimately not necessary. Our office had given an opinion that the election concerns that occurred last year could be corrected or evaluated under provisions of our regulations that exist already. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The political sign regulations, or is it just the overall sign regulations? MS. BELPEDIO: Various different regulations. Florida Statutes, Land Development Code, and I believe Code of Laws. Would you like me to elaborate a little bit? CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, you don't have to. This 5.06 is huge, and the information is given to candidates saying that they have to abide by this section, but they're really not -- I don't think they're given that section. And it just becomes a -- problematic when code enforcement goes out there and then everybody here gets calls. And I'm wondering if we should have a -- separate regulations within the code such as, you know, you must get permission. Well, you have to get permission from commercial now. MS. BELPEDIO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: A commercial property owner, but I don't think you have to get permission from a residential property, written permission, right? MS. BELPEDIO: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I think to me that's problematic. And I think individual people -- Commissioner, what we have right now, you have somebody that puts a yard sign in front of your property but it's, you know, within the right-of-way and they're not -- they're not being -- asked permission by the property owner, and I think it should have permission from the property owner, more so than the commercial development. Ms. Belpedio? MS. BELPEDIO: The CCPC did discuss that issue. I did point Page 62 January 22,2008 out to the CCPC that we were just making the LDC consistent in that regard, written permission on commercial and other properties; however, the CCPC opined that written permission shouldn't be required at all and that the provisions were acceptable to them as written. Certainly the BCC makes the final decision, but I just want to make sure you know about their discussion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, you had something? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that anybody that's running for office, if they want to plant a sign on somebody's property, I think one of the first things you have to do is knock on the door and say, hey, can I put one of my signs on your property? And they'll either tell you yes or no. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Well, the way the code is written now, you have to get written permission from a commercial property owner but you don't for a single-family residence. And to me, I'd like to have that permission -- provision in there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: To have it -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Make sure that you get -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Even the property -- private property owner? CHAIRMAN HENNING: If a candidate wants to get -- have -- put a sign in front of somebody's house, you know, a corner lot or something like that, you have to get written permission from that property owner. I mean, there's too many cases out there that -- you know, you see political signs all over. I've gotten phone calls and I'm sure that others have, is, hey, wait a minute. I don't want this sign on -- in front of my property. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. There's a couple things that enter in. Most of the time you don't even ask. The person who Page 63 January 22, 2008 owns the property comes and picks up the sign at one of your events, and they take the sign back and they put it there; however, with that said, we also have a problem with this community where, young kids having a good time, will collect these signs sometimes and put it in the yard of somebody they're not too particularly fond of or down to the school system, in which case it becomes something that's beyond our control as candidates to be able to remedy that situation. I don't think we ever should get to the point on private property that we require written permission. It's going to just complicate the system. I think a person who takes a sign from you has every right to be able to put it on their property. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, and I don't see any reason why you can't get written permission at the time they take the sign, just like you have to have written permission for an endorsement under statute 90, I think it is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course, now this will also apply to all the federal and state races, too, and they hand those sign out like they're candy, by the hundreds. So now we're going to make a situation where you're going to have numerous violations out there and we're going to have code enforcement absolutely going bonkers trying to prove that there's a nexus for that sign being there and a permission slip someplace. I don't think it's a workable deal. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I hear what you're saying. My son lives in the city, and when I went over and visited him, there was a political sign on his front yard. And I said, who's this? He said, I don't know. Somebody just came by and put it there. I said, did they ask you? He said, no, but I don't mind. And I thought, isn't that interesting that they can just put signs out without even consulting with the owner, property owner. MS. BELPEDIO: And certainly any property owner who didn't Page 64 January 22, 2008 want a sign on their property, if that were the case, that property owner could remove the sign. So that's really, I think, how it practically plays out. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I don't see where the others have my same concern, so -- is there any questions on this amendment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nope. Okay. Thank you. MS. BELPEDIO: Thank you. TDR REDEMPTION MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. Our next speaker is going to be Joe Thompson with compo planning, and we're going to look at, on page 57, the definition and the redemption ofTDRs, and Joe's going to explain that for us. Thank you. MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. I didn't realize you guys were moving at such a lightning fast pace this morning, so I'll try and just get here quickly. Basically the most major aspect of this change is just adding the definition for redemption. Right now the code only references transfer when it's actually referring to -- should be referring to redemption, so I just added that to the line with our administrative procedures internally. And other tban that, the rest of the changes are purely administrative in nature. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just clarifying the wording? MR. THOMPSON: Exactly, right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This hasn't done anything to undermine the value ofTDRs? Page 65 January 22,2008 MR. THOMPSON: No, sir. Redemption is just utilizing the development right for development purposes simply, and right now it references transfer, which is actually -- administratively we have an application for transfer, which is the sale of TDR credits, so it's just aligning the procedures. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MR. THOMPSON: Yep. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. THOMPSON: Sure, thank you. STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Joe. All right, Commissioners. Let's see. We have our transportation staff here, so we're ready to proceed on page 47, street system requirements, and we have Nick Casalanguida here and Lisa Taylor. I don't know if she's been introduced in her new position yet. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. For the record, Nick Casalanguida with transportation. And yes, Lisa Taylor, we swiped her from Joe a couple weeks ago, so she's going to be representing transaction in impact fee updates, Land Development Code changes, Growth Management Plan changes, and things of that nature, so we welcome her aboard. The changes that we proposed here are simply recommendations from the Planning Commission. It was discussed with the commission and some of the Planning Commission members. We're trying to reduce a lot of the language that is redundant in PUD language that you see as commitments and just put them in the LDC. So what's recommended in there and underlined, in one, it talks about a right of access. In number two, it talks about access points. And this is language that's in a typical PUD right now and we're trying to make it standard. Page 66 January 22, 2008 In three they talk about sight lane improvements. We want to make one correction in three on page 55 at the bottom. It talks about the transportation division administrator or designee. We've been corrected to say county manager or designee so that there was some flexibility there where that's required. And we also want to add in three, in the first sentence, unless waived by the county manager or designee because we've been informed by a few of the outside folks that there may be times when you can't provide right-of-way, it's off your property, and so the way this is strictly written, you would be required to donate right-of-way to the county that might not be controlled by you and putting in a turn lane. So we wanted that flexibility in there as well, too. That's the only change we're recommending that you see right now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: On what page? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Page 55 in my book, unless it's different from yours. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It is. MS. FABACHER: No, I'm sorry, you are. It's page 47 in our book. There's another book up there for you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Forty-seven is the beginning of it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Forty-nine, I think you're talking about. Number three? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It starts on page 49, number three. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So we want to change that to county manager or designee, and in the first sentence, of still number 3, we want to put, unless waived by the county manager or designee. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It says, if required a turn lane improvement would require the use of existing county right-of-way. Is that the -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Page 67 January 22, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- paragraph you're saying? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're saying -- where are you going to insert that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: At the end of that sentence. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, division administrator or designee. So it would be the county manager or his designee. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Want to change that, but in the first sentence add, unless waived by the county manager or designee. So in other words, they would be required to donate right-of-way back to the county for right-of-way they used for a turn lane. Unless the county feels that that's impossible or can't be done, we'd like, you know, not to paint ourselves in a corner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And this applies to the subdivision six? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. It requires to -- a couple sections in the LDC, but street system requirements. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And does that refer to the subdivision site planning? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would refer to any application that would affect either a public or private road. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioners, we're ready to move on to page 69 in your book. It's delete duplicate entry in the rural fringe mixed use neutral land. If you just look on --let's see. It's page, probably 70. Yes. If you look on page 70, it's just duplicate information, so it's just a housekeeping issue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. Then we can move on to page 87 for Page 68 January 22, 2008 another housekeeping issue. And on page 87 the access management plan maps are referenced. Those were removed several cycles ago, and we missed this little catch here, so more housekeeping. Any questions on that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: None. PUD SUN SETTING PROVISIONS MS. FABACHER: Okay. And now we'll move to page 91, and this has to do with the sunsetting provisions for PUDs, and the text actually begins on page 92 and 93. You will recall that some time ago we had -- originally we had had -- you would sunset after five years if you failed to meet the improvements that you were required. Then I think the -- we decided to change that to three because of the pace of development, that five was too long and we moved it to three. And now, of course, with the market slowing down, we want to re-open it up to five. So the developer doesn't lose any time, we're going to -- instead of formerly we had one three-year, and then you could request two extensions of two years each. Now we're going to one five-year and one extension of two years. So it's the same time period. We're just trying to give them more time to make those completions. Joe may have some comments. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I think it's a great amendment considering the economics. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: The other reason, because we've had many come in for extensions because of the length in -- especially in the federal permitting process, and this -- this will take some of that off of your agenda, basically, at these extensions. And I think we got where we wanted to when we imposed this originally, to try and bring some of these PUDs up to current standards. We've done that over the years, and I think we're there. So Page 69 January 22, 2008 I don't see much other than a benefit here both for staff and for the applicant. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the county commissioners. MR. SCHMITT: And the commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next one. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. And Joe, I think, correct me if! am wrong, we're looking at some other measures to extend SDP approvals and other things to try and help the industry. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. We're going to come back and talk to you about that because there's -- we are seeing developers out there with site plans that they want to extend the life on those as well, approve site plan, site plans that they haven't even started yet. And we're looking at options and we're going to bring that back to you in the next cycle. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, do you have anything? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Next item. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Commissioners, the next item is on page 89, and this is from compo planning. Actually the next is on page 90. And it has to do with -- it says, conformity of the proposed PUD with goals and objectives, policies, and the FLU, F-L-U, the FLU element of the Growth Management Plan, and Comprehensive Planning asked that we put this wording in. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's it, right? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir, that's it. Weare going to bring back -- on the 5th we'll come back to vote. We can vote on these on the 5th. It's an advertised hearing. I think it begins at one o'clock. We Page 70 January 22,2008 have one to five in this room. And at that time also we are going to bring the pink book. We had planned on doing it today, but we had some procedural issues. So you'll recall the pink book is the land use list, taking it away from the table. It's part of your wish, Commissioner, to go back to the old code, just in that section. So we will bring that back to you on the 5th. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. MS. ISTENES: Could I get some clarification. Is that the 5th or 19th? The 5th is the day meeting and the 19th is an evening meeting at 5:05. And I -- my understanding was you were going to do it on the 19th at night and then -- MS. FABACHER: Okay. MS. ISTENES: -- finish up the voting on -- at a regular board meeting. MS. F ABACHER: You're right, Susan. Thank you. Thank you for that. MS. ISTENES: So the pink book will be heard on the 19th at 5:05. MS. F ABACHER: On the 19th. Thank you for that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we're still meeting on 5th. MS. ISTENES: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, correct. MS. FABACHER: We can vote on everything else on the 5th because that will be your second official hearing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to thank staff and also the effort put in by the Planning Commission in addressing all these issues and making sure that all the rough edges were filed off, because obviously it saved us a lot of time today. And think the people that were involved in the whole process need to be commended for the work that they've put into this. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And the real estate open signs, Page 7] January 22, 2008 I think, is appropriate for what we have today. So Mr. Schmitt, thank you very much for that, working with the industry and bringing that forward. MS. F ABACHER: Commissioner, that's all we have. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nothing? We're adjourned. Thank you. MR. KLA TZKOW: Could we get a -- just for ongoing purposes, could we have a motion to adjourn? There's been some discussion as to whether or not under Robert's Rules of Orders, it's required, and I don't want to have anybody question any of the proceedings. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we make that motion anytime during the meeting? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you can. MS. F ABACHER: Actually you can. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. It doesn't require a second, if I recall. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Got to have a vote. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it's got to require a vote. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It requires a vote but not a second, right? MR. KLATZKOW: I think it requires a second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does it? CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. Page 72 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Unanimous. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. ***** January 22,2008 ~~CE/VED E!:J 0 6 2008 ~'(;2.rCIl't ~, , ,--Clinty C , ~ormnisSioners There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:21 p.m. TOM HENNING, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGMTI~~OCK,CLERK ~ ... ., .....o~'.A~ 'jz ~~: r,. '. '" '. .~: . ~. '::' ..' ,: i ) 1';,Attnt,~' a-.,.... , ',~l~~~~~J · These minutes approved by the Board on 02 )d-la/ D~ presented ~ or as corrected ' , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 73