Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/24/2008 S (LDC Amendments) September 24, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMISSION Naples, Florida September 24, 2008 LDC AMENDMENTS - CYCLE 1 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Fred Coyle Frank Halas (absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Director Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ~ LDC AGENDA Septem ber 24, 2008 5:05 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING Tom Henning, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 3 Donna Fiala, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2 (Absent) Fred W. Coyle, BCC Commissioner, District 4 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENT A TION 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. Page 1 September 24,2008 ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Amendments discussed and action taken: 3.02.09 - Approved 4/0 4.07.02 - Approved 4/0 6.02.05 - Approved 4/0 6.02.06 - Approved 4/0 6.02.07 - Approved 4/0 6.02.08 - Approved 4/0 10.02.07 - Approved 4/0 2.03.01 - Approved 4/0 4.02.01 - Send back to DSAC for cost analysis 4.05.06 - Approved 4/0 4.05.08 - Approved 4/0 4.06.03 - Approved 4/0 4.06.04 - Approved w/c1arification for CO - 4/0 4.06.05 - Withdrawn by staff 5.06.02 - Approved 4/0 5.06.04 - Approved w/changes 10.02.03 - Approved 10.02.04 - Approved 10.02.05 - Approved Discussion: Estates side-yard setbacks - Motion to deny - Approved 4/0 Page 2 September 24, 2008 3. ADJOURN Continued to the October 7, 2008 BCC Meeting at 9:00 a.m. in the Board of County Commissioners' Chambers - Approved 4/0 Page 3 September 24, 2008 September 24, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: You have a live hot mic. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Welcome to the Board of County Commissioners Land Development Code Amendment Cycle 1 for 2008. And the date is September 24th, 2008. Would you all rise for the pledge of allegiance, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Ms. Fabacher, you put everything in order for us? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The board has a -- MS. F ABACHER: A checklist that we're going to work from. That checklist covers every amendment that's in the yellow book which have all passed the planning commission. So the ones we'll be discussing have gone through and passed the planning commission. And then we're going to have book two for you for your next set of public hearings later on next month, and that will be more of the environmental stuff. So the best is yet to come. This is the easy stuff. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The first one is industrial zonIng. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, before we start, can I make sure that we put on the record that this has been legally advertised, and that this is our public hearing. This meets our commitment for the evening hearing to deal with -- MS. FABACHER: First public hearing. MR. SCHMITT: First public hearing for land use type items. And your book, as Catherine pointed out, and we also have a checklist in front. The two that we have to hear tonight are the first two on the agenda. And at your privilege and certainly at your lead, we'll follow and do as many as you wish. We have three meetings following this meeting tonight. We have one on the 7th. Actually -- MS. FABACHER: The next one is on Tuesday, September 30th. Page 2 September 24, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: The 30th of September is -- and that's at 9:00. We have a meeting October 7th at 9:00, 9:00 till noon. And then we have another meeting, meeting four, 9:00 to 5:00 on October 30th. So we have three meetings following this. Weare still processing LDC amendments through the planning commission. Due to their schedule, their workload, certainly your workload as well, we understand -- we understand that we certainly have enough time to deal with this in a very methodical and certainly at a pace that meets your needs. We can walk through these. Many of these are EAR-based amendments. We provided the EAR language in the tab that's behind your book, if you want to address or look at any of the EAR language that was -- of course we had the evaluation appraisal report, then we had the follow-on evaluational appraisal report GMP amendments. Those are what are provided in your book. And now we have the land development regulations that will be implementing many of those GMP amendments. And like I said, tonight we're going to go through those, the two that specifically deal with land use. Any others that you wish to proceed with, we will again follow your lead. We will continue any others we do not finish till the subsequent meetings. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one. You said that the next one is at 9:00. On this book that we received anyway it said 8:30. MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, thank you for finding that. The County Attorney just pointed that out. I'm sorry, I'm working on planning commission and BCC at the same time. It is actually 9:00. Thank you for asking. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. Just so we know when to be here. MS. FABACHER: No, perfect, thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: My boss would yell at me if I wasn't Page 3 September 24, 2008 here on time. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's do the two required. MS. FABACHER: Okay, we're going to have -- the first one is going to be with -- Mike DeRuntz and David Weeks are here from comprehensive planning. And it's a GMP amendment. I'm going to let Mike go ahead and present it. It's on Page 1 in your yellow book. MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, my name is Mike DeRuntz. I'm Principal Planner with the Department of Comprehensive Planning. Our first amendment is of Section 2.03.04, industrial zoning district. And the purpose of this amendment is to bring it -- the LDC into conformance with the approved 2004 EAR-based amendments. In effect what we are adding is recreational vehicles as a conditional use in industrial and business park zoning districts. And specifically for the Immokalee Regional Airport. As you can see in the -- on Page 2, 3 and 4, the additional language that was added for the accessory uses as it relates to this recreational -- yeah, recreational racing at this -- at the airport in Immokalee, and identifying that a recreational vehicle use is a conditional use at the Immokalee Regional Airport. If you -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Move to approve. MR. DeRUNTZ: -- have any questions, I'll be happy to address those. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any question? This is the first hearing on this one? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any commissioners have any questions on them? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion then. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it's -- MR. KLATZKOW: No motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, there's no motion-- Page 4 September 24, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no motion? CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- we're just hearing it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Forget that phone call. MS. F ABACHER: Okay, thank you, Commissioners. You want to hear the next one then? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the overlay district is just a correction of the map of 402.37, right -- 73. MS. F ABACHER: No, sir, it adds a couple prohibited uses. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. F ABACHER: Right. Well, I guess you could call it a map correction. But you wouldn't have to hear a map correction twice. But it changes a use, so yes, we have to hear it twice. We can't vote on it tonight. But everything else on this checklist you could vote on tonight and we can send it to Tallahassee. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Everything in the remaining? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make a motion we send it all to Tallahassee. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have questions on some of it. MS. FABACHER: All right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And when you say we could send it all, you don't mean those that are in gray that you said -- MS. FABACHER: Correct, I do not. I mean the ones that are clear, that are white. They have passed the planning commission. So they are -- that's why you're hearing them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There was one that was in white, but it said that it was denied. That was -- MS. FABACHER: Right, it passed in one way or another. It's been heard. They voted to recommend denial. Page 5 September 24, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So we would still send it up there? MS. F ABACHER: No, you would hear it. That's just their recommendation to you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: What -- if you don't mind, it actually depends on my colleagues is you want to go down through this and address concerns and comments of their advisory boards and make a decision, or do you want to hear this another day? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to have to get it done sooner or later, so I'd prefer to go ahead and do as much as we can today. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wouldn't want to delay it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: And the only suggestion I would have is it takes four votes to approve, so your votes tonight would have to be unanImous. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All right? MS. FABACHER: Maybe I can help. The next one is the one we talked about before. That's the Golden Gate downtown commercial center overlay. That's on Page 5 in your book. And you'll see that we're adding some prohibited uses. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm fine with that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're good with that? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next one? MS. FABACHER: Okay, next one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Neighborhood -- MS. F ABACHER: Turn the pages here. Yeah, mobile homes. The regulation for mobile homes, Section 3.02.09, regulations for mobile homes and recreational vehicles. Page 6 September 24, 2008 And this one is adding that no mobile home that shall be placed in the coastal high hazard area, which you know is a CHHA designated area on our master plan, land use plan. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, you've got a question? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm okay. And Mr. Chairman, it might be good for the people watching this to understand that all of these have already been through many of our advisory committees, the Environmental Advisory Committee, the Development Services Advisory Committee, the Collier County Planning Commission, and in almost every case they have been unanimously approved. So if we're not asking a lot of questions, it's because they have been vetted very, very carefully before they even were brought to us. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Absolutely right, thank you. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Now, I don't know what you want to do, if you want to hear all the rest of these and then make one vote on them all, or vote by each one? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, let's go through-- MS. F ABACHER: Let's hear them? Okay, great. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Actually, let's just vote on one of them at a time. MS. FABACHER: Fine. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the first one was the -- MS. F ABACHER: Would be the regulations for the mobile home and recreational vehicles. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to transmit? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning. MR. KLATZKOW: We're not transmitting. This is a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve. Page 7 September 24, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: Catherine, for the record, would you please read each section, just so it's on the record. Section 3.02.09. MS. F ABACHER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala makes a motion to approve the amendment 3.02.09. Seconded by Commissioner Henning. Discussion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I just want to clarify this here. I can't see what's actually being changed. It says, no mobile home shall be placed in the coastal high hazard area, as depicted on the future land use map or in a floodway except in existing mobile home parks or existing mobile home subdivision, or in land already zoned to allow mobile home development. We don't allow them to go anyplace but there already. Why are we going through this? Is this just to make this agree with everything else that's already in place? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, you don't want to make existing mobile home parks or zoned mobile home parks nonconforming. So they can replace their mobile home, things of that nature, but we're not going to allow anymore. That's what this amendment is. And the board approved this through the EAR-based amendments. So we're just putting it in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine, Mr. Henning. Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did I do okay? MR. DeRUNTZ: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the Page 8 September 24, 2008 motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? Motion clarifies is unanimous. MS. FABACHER: For the record, can I say officially that was Section 3.02.09, regulations for mobile homes and recreational vehicles. Now we're going to move to the next Page 11, which is 4.07.02, design requirements for planned unit developments. And this one is requesting that a neighborhood -- providing a neighborhood -- suitable neighborhood park. I'm on Page 13. Providing a suitable neighborhood park as determined on a case-by-case basis by the Board of County Commissioners. So it's adding to some of the minimum design standards or requirements for PUD's. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to approve the amendments to 4.07.02(E) and (G), the design requirements of PUD's for neighborhood parks. Seconded by Commissioner Coyle. Question: Was there a discussion about impact fee credits if they build in a community, neighborhood park? MS. FABACHER: I can tell you what was discussed through the board. I think maybe Mr. Weeks might want to address it. But my understanding is the impact fees that are paid to the county are for the Page 9 September 24, 2008 regional and the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's right, there is no neighborhood MS. FABACHER: -- community. And the neighborhood would have to be completely supported by the owners of the property, owners surrounding it. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, for the record, this was debated significantly and it's been reduced based on what was originally sent to the planning commission, was very specific in nature and it became extremely contentious as to what was required. This comes to you now basically as a part of the PUD process, and it will be vetted and languaged here in the PUD public hearing. Rather than trying to direct it and citing specifically in the LDC what's required, it will be now done through the zoning process. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and I had a question about that. In some of the PUD's, even though we think it's important for them to have a little park and that meets our requirements, on the county level some of these PUD's don't want a park in there. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. They do not want it because the inherent problem they have, either with insurance or maintaining it or otherwise. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So does this allow them to opt out? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. This will be -- it will be discussed here in the zoning process and it will be part of the public hearing process is really where it's best to be discussed. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. Page 10 September 24,2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-0. MS. F ABACHER: Okay, thank you. Now, the next several that we're going to hear are adjustments to the level of service as mandated by the 2004 EAR-based amendment to the GMP. It's just kind of translating one to the other, which we're happy to discuss. Just they're all like that. It's pretty easy stuff. So first one IS -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve Parks and Recs level of service requirements, 6.02.05. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Next one is potable water facilities level of service requirement 6.02.06. Entertain a motion to approve this amendment. Page 11 September 24, 2008 COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve this amendment. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning. Discussion on the motion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Next amendment is sanitary sewer facilities level of service requirements, Section 6.02.07. Is there a motion to approve this amendment? COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) Page 12 September 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Solid waste facilities level of service requirements, 6.02.08. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to approve the amendment, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Submittal requirements for certificate of public facility adequacy -- boy, these braces are tough. 10.02.07 is the amendment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Commissioner. That was Page 13 September 24, 2008 awesome. Let's see if we can do that again. Now, we're going to skip the affordable housing density bonus right now, because we still have to go through the planning commission on that one, okay. So next I'm going to go to Page 31, and it's the agricultural zoning districts, Section 2.03.01. That's on Page 31. I'm going to go to Page 32, and under conditional uses we're not changing a use, but we're clarifying a use. If you'll look on Page 32, under conditional uses No. 23, use says currently -- cultural, educational or recreational facilities and their related modes of transporting participants. But under our last school board agreement, not the current one, an educational facility is one of the definitions that they use for an actual school. Not the plant itself, but the repair barn for the buses or the bus storage and so forth. So what we had decided was the intent. We'd like you to clarify the intent of this is to say that really it's for cultural, ecological or recreational facilities that provide opportunities for educational experience, ecotourism or agri-tourism. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to approve Agricultural Zoning District Amendment 2.03.01, seconded by Commissioner Coletta. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 14 September 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FABACHER: Okay, excellent. We're on Page 35 now, Section 4.02.01, dimensional standards for principal use and base zoning districts. And what we've done is to clarify that there are some exemptions for inclusions into side yard setbacks. And if you'll look on Page 35, D-9, we want to add unenclosed pool equipment and well pumps. In addition to, we allowed the pad-mounted air conditioners and so forth to really go as far as they want per the residential ones into the setback on the ground. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have questions. MS. F ABACHER: You have questions, good. Because Susan's here to talk about it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Susan, what I get from this is you're allowing those uses in the side yard. What I don't get is what you have to do for the landscaping for those items and which zoning district you have to do those. MS. ISTENES: I'm not quite sure I understand the question. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you could put those in a side yard, as long as it conforms to landscaping requirements. MS. ISTENES: This -- well, in this case we're talking about-- largely about single-family homes. So when you say conform largely with landscape requirements, I guess I'm not quite sure. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So here's -- I thought that's what it was. So you allow fences, walls and hedges subject to 5.03.02, mounting pads and air conditionings and enclosed pool equipment and well pumps that are permitted in required setbacks. The only thing you're doing is allowing pool equipment or well pumps. MS. ISTENES: Correct. Page 15 September 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Subject -- as long as they're landscaped. MS. ISTENES: No. And I don't have 5.03.02 in front of me. But what -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: As long as it complies to 4.06. And 4.06 is the landscaping section. MS. ISTENES: Okay, I understand what you're saying. Yes, I'm sorry, when you said landscaping, I kept looking at 5.03.02. Yeah, that is the condition, correct. So they have to comply with whatever the requirements of 4.06 are, and it depends on the use. So largely for single-family you're not going to have a landscaping requirement. But you may in other cases, if that makes sense. MR. SCHMITT: That said, however, many communities have deed restrictions that require walls and landscaping around all types of equipment. But those are normally -- the community deed restrictions are not in the LDC. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But you have existing subdivisions that are not PUD's. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they have public code. I can tell you, I might have weeds around my air conditioning, but I don't have a hedge to cover it. I have a well pump in my backyard, but it is on the side. I don't have a landscaped hedge around it. MR. SCHMITT: And I do not believe we require one. But we'll check. Bruce, do you know? MS. ISTENES: No, I'm going to pull up muni code. But no, not for -- not to screen those -- MR. SCHMITT: Not to screen. MS. ISTENES: -- type of facilities. Not for your air conditioner Page 16 September 24, 2008 and your well pump and stuff. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But 4.06 covers all the zoning districts and what you have to do. And what I would suggest is let's hear this another time and just narrow down where you want to have that landscaping. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I have to tell you that I think I would vote against this, unless someone can convince me otherwise. You know, it just is bad policy to start using a setback between two homes for placing noisy pool equipment and air conditioners. They ought to be able to keep that within the side yard setbacks. I mean, that's the reason we have setbacks is so that you'll have space between homes. But if you start having pool equipment and well pumps and air conditioners sitting in the side yard setbacks, if the side yard setbacks are seven and a half feet, you've taken up the whole thing. And if both houses do the same thing, there is no side yard setback. And in some cases they can be unsightly, but in almost all cases they are noisy. And if they're seven feet from somebody's bedroom, I don't know that that's the kind of environment you want to create intentionally. Now, I do understand why existing circumstances should be grandfathered, and I don't think we ought to penalize people. And if you're really looking to move forward, I believe you'd get a better result by not letting the setbacks be taken up by equipment such as this. But that's just my personal feeling. MR. SCHMITT: The code already -- and as you noted, it already allows for air conditioners and -- well, pretty much pad mounted air conditioners, and it does allow it already. And most subdivisions already allow the pool equipment. And you're correct, if you have 15 feet between homes, and most subdivisions seven and a half foot setbacks, some have only 10, and Page 1 7 September 24, 2008 that's been problematic and we've discussed that at length at the planning commission because that is -- those setbacks even make it more problematic. But you can go what, two and a half feet, three foot into a setback with your pool equipment or air conditioner. Pretty much by the time you're done, you're only three foot from your property line. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it makes it difficult to maintain the property between -- at the setbacks. And it just creates an opportunity that doesn't lead to a really good result, but I just don't -- I guess my feeling is I don't know why we feel bound to create a new policy just because it has been that way in the past. Why can't we just say everything else is grandfathered, but for houses built from here forward we're going to reduce the kinds of things that can be in the side yard setbacks. MS. ISTENES: Is your suggestion then to take -- to strike these allowances? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm only-- MS. ISTENES: I understand, I'm just trying-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, what I would suggest is we send it back to the advisory committees and ask them that question, why do they really want to clutter up the setbacks with all of these types of things that can be built there, when the setback is designed to be free to create some space between buildings? MR. SCHMITT: And we had that debate even with the generators, emergency generators. Especially after Hurricane Wilma and some others, folks went out and bought the generators. And that was hotly debated on exactly that point. Another piece of noisy equipment in between setbacks. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And I just don't understand why you want to do that. That's my only question. I would never ever want to penalize people where it's already been done, okay? But for going forward, don't you think we Page 18 September 24, 2008 ought to try to eliminate that potential problem? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. The only option, most subdivisions won't allow them to go in the front yard because of the front yard restrictions, of course. So you're normally behind the pool or your pool cage, or they have to put it in an indent of the home to make sure it's not within the setback. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly the right -- you can design for it. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. My house is exactly that way, the pool equipment is indented into the side of the home. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly right. It's more protected, it makes less noise that way. It generally does not deteriorate as much if you build it into the architecture. And it doesn't disturb your neighbor quite as much. And it makes it a lot easier to maintain the setback area between the homes. So I just would like to understand why our advisory committees don't want to address that. That's all. MR. SCHMITT: I'm understanding most of the developers would certainly want to use the setback, because not to do so forces them to design exactly that way. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not only that, but you see, what it does is it let's them build a bigger home on the lot, use every single inch of the lot for the home and then the setback area is for all the ancillary equipment. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not what the setback was designed to do. MR. SCHMITT: We'll take it back with -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, you've got three other commissioners that might feel otherwise. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, of course anyone Page 19 September 24, 2008 Commissioner here can put a stop to anything that's going forward, because there are only four of us. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I feel powerful. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and probably rightfully so. So do I, to a point. No, I understand what you're saying. I have no problem with having somebody look at it. But my assumption is the reason that this has been the accepted way of doing things has to do with the fact that they were trying to put more houses on smaller lots. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Put bigger houses -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, bigger houses on smaller lots. And trying for a density that was probably a little bit more than they should consider. So, you know, if we look at it from a future land use issue, I don't think that's really a problem, you know. Like you said, you can't impose this upon people that's already -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely not. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Under any circumstances. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, you can't do it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I say something? It doesn't say anything about setbacks here. What it does say, that it's allowed in the side yard. We're assuming that we have a tight side yard setback. But it doesn't say anything about, you know, deviating from setbacks. Was the intent of putting it in the setbacks or just in the side yard? MS. ISTENES: Yes, right now pad mounted air conditioners are allowed to encroach into the required yard. Permitted and required yards. The required yard is your setback, essentially. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Yes. And so the thought was pool equipment and well pumps, which are of similar nature to a pad mounted air conditioner, which is already allowed and which we have been Page 20 September 24, 2008 allowing by policy would be clarified here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you know, most pools are in the back. The wells in Golden Gate Estates are in the back. I don't know that we really need those -- well, you say enclosed. As long as they're enclosed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, unenclosed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Unenclosed, I'm sorry. I'm not sure who would really benefit from this. I'm not sure if it's really needed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You mean this changed language? CHAIRMAN HENNING: This one here, allowing enclosed pool equipment and well pumps. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm saying why go there, you know. If the least you want to do is take it out. That's an improvement. But I would also take out the pad mounted air conditioners and not let those be in the side yards either. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, well, I -- see, I don't know if that's really necessary. That's the way everybody does it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not really. CHAIRMAN HENNING: No? Is yours in the side yard or in the front yard? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mine's on the side, but it's built within the footprint of the home so that it does not protrude into the side yard. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I don't know if I've seen very many of those. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's common now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: They must be doing it in the City of Naples. COMMISSIONER COYLE: For new construction. It's not Page 21 September 24, 2008 common for older. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Fabacher? MS. FABACHER: Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. I'm thinking maybe we ought to send it back to DSAC and let them look at the cost of extending and putting that stuff back there and cutting into the slab. I mean, there may be costs associated with it that -- you know, increased costs of building a home. I don't know, you may want to just see what -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So that would be for the air conditioning. MS. FABACHER: For everything you've discussed. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I need to understand why we're putting pool equipment and other things in the side yard. Well pumps. MS. ISTENES: It's not addressed in the code currently. And that's been the problem. Where are they allowed? Ifwe are allowed to put pad mounted air conditioners, which the code currently says, what about pool equipment and well pumps? And so that's why we put it in here, to clarify. Because we have been allowing it by policy with the understanding that they are very similar to pad mounted air conditioners. I mean, it's a piece of mechanical equipment that's associated with your house, and pad mounted air conditioners are allowed on the side. They're not much bigger than a pad mounted air conditioner, and they're a functional piece of equipment, and that's -- so that's why it was added in here. But if you're -- I guess if you're telling me you don't want any of the equipment in, then we would have to strike pad mounted air conditioners and then remove the underlined version that we added for CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I didn't say that. MS. ISTENES: Okay. Just whatever you all decide to do. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think it would be a great idea to Page 22 September 24, 2008 send it to DSAC and get somewhat of a cost analysis. I think your idea is absolutely wonderful. Is that okay? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, fine with me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, let me just clarify one thing. We have talked about required yards. Now, there's a required rear yard setback. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there anything wrong with having pool equipment in the required rear yard setback? I don't know. MS. ISTENES: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I don't know how much the rear yard setback will be. MS. ISTENES: This is -- talks about permitted and required yards, so that would be all required yards. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. So you see, the rear yard setback might be 15, 20 feet. Is that possible? MS. ISTENES: Yes, it's typically larger. I mean, your smallest side yard setbacks are generally about five feet. So you'll have a 10- foot separation between -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So maybe what -- MS. ISTENES: -- single-family. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- you want to do is ask DSAC and the others to be more specific about which yards they're willing to permit this stuff. If it's a rear yard setback and it will encroach no more than let's say three feet or some percentage of the setback, it won't have much effect. If it's a side yard setback and it's going to take up 50 percent of the side yard, then that has an entirely different effect. So I think they need to take that into consideration, be more specific about whether they're talking about rear yard setbacks or side yard setbacks. And they could come up with a decision that says no, Page 23 September 24, 2008 you can't put it in side yard setbacks but you can put it in rear yard setbacks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good. That sounds good with me. MS. FABACHER: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. We have your direction on that. Okay, I'm on Page 37 in our book. It's Section 4.05.06, loading space requirements. Currently if you'll look on Pages 38, 39, apartments, multi-family dwelling facilities, apartments. It's like requiring them to have like a loading dock and little area to unload supplies and things. And it occurred to the people who review the permits that the behavior of people moving into apartment houses is to pull up in front of the door and not go to some loading dock. So they wanted to take that requirement away from apartment houses, because it's just kind of a -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle makes a motion to approve the amendment of side -- loading space requirements in 5.04.06. And seconded by Commissioner Coletta. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. Page 24 September 24, 2008 Now I'm continuing on to Section 4.05.08, bicycle parking requirements. It begins on Page 41 in your books. I'm looking at Page 42. This is a -- staff has asked this to go back in, because this is another victim of recodification. When it went from the one LDC to the next, it lost the applicability who these requirements applied to. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve the bicycle parking requirements in 4.05.08 by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Coletta. And Commissioner Fiala has a question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I notice that here there was a comment, location of bicycle parking in the vehicular use area is dangerous. Were the words changed after that so that -- MS. F ABACHER: It was just a comment that someone made that they had seen it located before in vehicular use areas and that there -- it doesn't state exactly where -- you can't put in a vehicular use area county required bike racks. People might put their own there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. So that -- okay, thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: And some questions came up about design and everything, and we were like, well, we don't really have time to rewrite bicycle rack regulations, but we have to make them apply. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a footnote here, and I never got to it, to study -- look at the old code 2.3.16.1. I never have. Are we assured that this is the same language that was in -- MS. FABACHER: Well, it's on Page 41 for you, Commissioner. It's in the highlighted in the gray. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's on what? MS. F ABACHER: Page 41 in your book. That's the exact word Page 25 September 24, 2008 in that section. MS. ISTENES: Catherine, may I? I understand your question, and I want to clarify. Because I think we got hung up on this at the planning commission. Did we either revise it or clarify it in the reasoning? Because -- was this the one where we said we were putting it back and then there was a change? And I'm not sure that the change was substantive, I think it was more of a clarification. But I don't want to -- I just want to make sure if we're saying it's the same, it's the same and not -- MS. FABACHER: No, it's the same. MS. ISTENES: Okay. MS. FABACHER: The problem was is DSAC and different committees wanted to get into redesigning bike racks and finding new regulations and staff just said no, we have too much work to do right now to be redesigning bike racks. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm going to do the old Reagen thing, is trust and verify. So I trust. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FABACHER: Okay, Commissioners, the next section of amendments is for our landscaping. And we have Bruce McNall, who is going to present them to you. They begin on Page 43 in your book. And this is the amendment to Section 4.06.03, landscaping requirements for vehicular use areas and rights-of-way. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. Page 26 September 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to approve the amendment 4.06.03, landscaping requirements in vehicular use areas and right-of-ways. Second by Commissioner Fiala. Bruce, basically you're inserting the map that was in the previous code? Is that -- MR. McNALL: Everything you see on these pages is the original code except for what struck through. And then the double underlined where we referenced the FDOT design manual for type D and type F curbing. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, so -- discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next one is -- MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, I'll read it for you. Section 4.06.05, general landscaping requirements. This covers irrigation system requirements -- oh, I'm sorry, I skipped ahead. I'm sorry, we're on the organic mulch, right? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MS. FABACHER: Sorry. That's on Page 51. I'm jumping ahead of myself. Currently the county allows you to have up to 25 percent of the mulch on your county required landscaping be cypress. This would not allow you to use cypress on county required landscaping. What you do in your own backyard or areas outside of county required Page 27 September 24, 2008 landscaping, you can still use cypress would be the -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Question on that. So if it requires to have two trees per lot then that landscaping would have to be non-cypress mulch. MR. McNALL: Boy, that's a good question. Typically yeah, there's the two tree requirement for single-family lots. However, there's no mulch requirement. There's a canopy tree requirement. So for single-family I would say that they could use whatever mulch they wanted. This was just for code required landscapes. And it's only for 25 percent. So it's a conservation measure, really, to save our cypress forest. And it only applies to code minimum landscape requirements: Commercial, industrial and multi-family. Single-family would be exempt from that requirement. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you show me where it says that? MR. McNALL: The only requirement for single-family is two canopy trees per an average sized single-family lot. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. So in multi-family where you have a triplex or something like that, is there a required landscaping and then it says you have to have mulch in it? MR. McNALL: Correct. Correct. It has to have -- every landscape plan has to have a plant list that includes mulch for every plant bed and for every tree ring for all the required landscape material, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve by Commissioner Fiala, and second by Commissioner Coletta to -- and that is to approve 4.06.05.C.6 point nothing. Going back to the old code. Excluding cypress mulch, allowing county required landscape. Page 28 September 24, 2008 I still question about it not being required in single-family. But if there's no exemption in this. MR. McNALL: No, sir; not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's no exemption in this? MR. McNALL: For? CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm saying there's a requirement for -- MR. McNALL: For trees. MS. ISTENES: Do you want us to add that to clarify it? It doesn't hurt to -- I think what Bruce is saying is where you're required to have a landscape plan, which would be your multi - family/commercial/industrial. MR. McNALL: Correct. MS. ISTENES: You're going to show on your plan that you're meeting the certified mulch requirement. But for single-family we're not required to have a landscape plan, but your minimum requirement is for two trees. It doesn't apply. But I don't know that it's entirely clear, and we could certainly just make that clear and hereby adding, you know, except for single -- individual single-family homes or something to that -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Show me -- okay, 4.06.05, show me where it says landscaping plan. Is that in -- is that in 4.06? MR. McNALL: That's in the general development requirements. I think that's in Section 10 under general development requirements. And then that references the 4.06 landscape code section. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You know, there's other people that enforces code, and my take it (sic) that, you know, that landscaping, that there is cypress mulch. I mean, I don't know how you're going to enforce this anyways. How is somebody -- MR. McNALL: It's enforced through plan review. When we review it and when the project or when the landscape is certified and inspected by our engineering inspector and they're issued a CO, he's going to verify at that time that, you know, that there's no cypress Page 29 September 24,2008 mulch. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I understand that. But the problem is they're going to put mulch down every year. MR. McNALL: Correct. This is just for C.O. I mean, this doesn't police that requirement. However, I suppose the code could -- code enforcement could cite property that they found to be noncompliant. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I trust Mr. Schmitt is going to train those code enforcement officers between cypress mulch and recycled mulch. MR. SCHMITT: What we're going to do is remove much of the behavioral type of codes from the LDC, which that would be. I mean, that's ongoing -- a lot of those types of things belong in the code of laws and ordinances. What this is referring to is strictly for C.O. But I understand exactly what you're saying. We would have to train somebody. But that is only done at the inspection process. This is not for upkeep and maintenance, or operations and maintenance. This is just at the inspection process. Part of our 800 series inspections. CHAIRMAN HENNING: If somebody would put on the record that this is only for C.O. purposes, I'm fine with that. MR. SCHMITT: And it is not meant to be a continuing requirement. I mean, if you -- I can't stop you, nor would I want to intend to, unless you give us direction otherwise, telling you what kind of mulch you have to buy and what you can put down. But all this is nothing more than a -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Feel good proposal. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Will you remember this 10 years that this is only for C.O. purposes? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I won't remember it. You've got to put it in there. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I write it down for you and you'll remember it? Page 30 September 24, 2008 COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. You've got to put it in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You've got to put it in the ordinance. MR. SCHMITT: We'll put words for your final acceptance inspection, or words to that effect, at C.O. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, some people use cypress mulch because they believe it reduces the number of insects around their home. So you try to prohibit them from using cypress mulch and they use another kind. It does attract more insects. They're going to use more insecticide, more insecticide's going to wash into the watershed and you're going to have unanticipated consequences. This is a ridiculous rule. But since it has no practical effect, it doesn't accomplish anything, I guess I don't care. But if you want to write it and publish it and spend -- and kill trees to make the paper to print it on, I guess it's okay, as long as you don't kill a cypress tree. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you know, I have a cypress tree in the back of my yard that bees -- I mean, I didn't ask them to come, I wasn't beekeeping -- made a -- they got into it and it's dying. It's actually dying. I was going to use that for cypress mulch. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't do that now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I can, because -- you know, unless I get a permit and I need a CO. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there an amendment to the motion to include language that this would only be applied to CO's? COMMISSIONER FIALA: If that's what you would like to have in there, I think it's a good proposal, I will include it in my motion. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give it a second with one quick question. My understanding is that the use of cypress mulch is okay for homeowners. Page 31 September 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you better start chopping that thing up. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Write it in so it's clear. That's all. CHAIRMAN HENNING: W e'lllet Mother Nature take care of that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: She probably will, too. Yeah, we should clarify it. MR. SCHMITT: We will clarify it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, Commissioners, now we're going to move to Section 4.06.05, general landscaping requirements. And it's new irrigation system alternative allowances. I'm going to let Bruce handle this one. MR. McNALL: Thank you, Catherine. Yeah, this amendment is promoting water conservation through low pressure drip irrigation systems which are also exempt from South Florida Water Management restrictions when they impose the restrictions during draught times. So I think it's just the right thing to do as far as trying to conserve our natural resources, most important being water. The other system -- the only other -- as well as these drip systems. Each one is on a dedicated zone so that, in other words, you Page 32 September 24, 2008 can shut off the spray zone, which is the most costly and the most inefficient, and keep these two drip zones on all the time. They're exempt from the restrictions. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we going to require the county to retrofit all of our landscape irrigation systems? MR. McNALL: This is just from today forward when this gets adopted. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, so all future landscaping performed by the county -- MR. McNALL: Code required. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- will adhere to this code. MR. McNALL: Correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta -- or Fiala? I'm sorry . COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I was looking at him. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I was wondering how this is going to work. I don't have much experience in this except with Davis Boulevard. I remember when we first were landscaping Davis Boulevard and we did the first section. Then we were doing the second section and the state changed their rules and said it had to be drip irrigation. So we had to change all of our plant life that we were going to use because drip irrigation doesn't work on those type of plants or grasses, and everything had to be changed around. Lo and behold, a year into it the state said, oops, that didn't work also, go back to the other one. You remember that, huh, Susan? And go back to the other one, because this one wasn't a good plan, especially when they break under the ground and you can't find them and it really causes a problem. Who is proposing this amendment? MR. McNALL: This is -- again, this is for code minimum required landscaping. This doesn't have anything to do with Page 33 September 24, 2008 right-of-way landscaping, which I think you're referencing, anything within the right-of-way. I think that's taken care of by transportation. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't understand that. Ifwe're going to make laws for the taxpayers, why don't we apply those laws to government? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Actually it should be more stringent for government, less stringent for taxpayers. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's who you work for, right? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's -- certainly, I've got it figured. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I might be able to solve a problem here. Commissioner Coletta, go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. The reason we're doing is this is why? MR. McNALL: Water conservation. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And even though we established the fact during the last drought that we had plenty of water and there was not a shortage and we had plenty of transmission to be able to move the water to wherever it was needed to be. We managed to get everybody to cut back on a water source that was not running out, and then we charged them extra for the water they didn't use. Now, question -- that was more of a statement than a question. Let's go to the question now. This drip irrigation. And I'll be honest with you, I gave up on irrigating years ago. I live in the Estates and I have all native Florida grasses and they work out great. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And he lives on a lime rock road. CHAIRMAN HENNING: With landscaping. COMMISSIONER COYLE: With landscaping. Page 34 September 24, 2008 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Landscaping lime rock road, yes. But in any case, let's go back to the question. Is it considerably more to have to put in a drop irrigation system than it is for a conventional spray type irrigation system? MR. McNALL: It's -- initially it's a little more expensive, because each zone is dedicated. The trees are on bubblers and the shrubs are on a drip line, which is all underground. Turf is the only one that has the conventional rotor and the spray. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the reason I'm asking this is because my experience with drip irrigation consists of Commissioners Fiala's statement a moment ago, with the fact that over there on Davis Boulevard they made you put drip in, it failed, they had all sorts of problems. They then made you go back to the conventional irrigation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Not only that but you couldn't use Bahia grass with the full irrigation, but you have -- but you only use Floratam, which survives beautifully in our weather. But once you start into the drip irrigation, now you can't use Floratam anymore, because it doesn't -- Floratam grows on the top and Bahia has the routes. So you could only -- you're now restricted to what grasses you can use. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also, too, you know, you have something that maybe not is quite as dependable as the spray type. My whole thing is it may be normal to put in drip irrigation, but if it doesn't really serve a purpose, it's going to help mankind, especially in this particular area. Shouldn't it be a voluntary thing rather than mandatory? I guess that's also -- MR. McNALL: Keep in mind, this is also a green building, a credit or a point towards green building, which is -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That gives you so much off-- MR. McNALL: Yeah. And it's just a water conservation Page 35 September 24, 2008 measure. You know, I think it's just -- it's the right thing to do. It's, you know, to conserve our natural resources. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is this the final hearing on this item or we've got it coming back one more time? MR. SCHMITT: We'll bring it back. MR. McNALL: It's been approved by everything. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm not that excited about it, to be honest with you. I don't know how my fellow commissioners feel. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I've had experience with drip irrigation. It works fairly well. For grass you get spray heads so you spray the grass just like you do any other time. You don't have as broad a coverage generally with the lower pressure drip irrigation, but you can get spray from it. You'll just have to put in more spray heads, and that's one of the reasons it's more expensive to install. It's also more easily damaged, so you'll have more repair costs probably while people are cutting their lawns and trimming their bushes. So there's an upside and a downside to this thing. And once again, the amount of money that you save in water will probably be taken up in maintenance and repair. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And once again, it's a -- but we're going to make it instead of an option we're going to make it mandatory . COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. McNALL: Keep in mind, Commissioners, that conventional spray and rotor systems only deliver 60 percent of the water that they use to the roots of the plant. The rest of it is atomized or thrown onto the roadway. You've driven through it. That -- you know, that's part of the reason that it's just a much more efficient means of delivering water to the plant of material -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would say that if you required Page 36 ",,---,-,._"" ""'''__~''_~O'''.....'.W'~.o>.,' _,_~.~,.~.,,_...,_~'._,~__"~.."~ "'~""_~_"~""""''''''_'',,"_ff__~''''''~ ~ September 24, 2008 them to be installed in our medians that it would be more effective. MR. McNALL: They are. And let me also say that we're using reused water in the medians, which is a little dirtier, and it will clog up some of the emitters. And there is a higher maintenance factor when it comes to using reused water on low pressure drip systems. However, the industry is making advances every day and they're coming out with better equipment and better emitters that are going to deliver the water without having high maintenance costs involved. So, you know, that's also something that you might want to consider. I just wanted to mention that to you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: As long as you're targeting green building, right? MR. McNALL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It doesn't say that in here. Could you put that for those that are building green for points that this is the system that they must use? MR. McNALL: Sure. Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, if you say it's for green building point awards, you're essentially making it voluntary. MR. SCHMITT: It would be optional. Because if you're doing a lead type building, they would do that through the building process and it would be points, and we -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's include those words in here and make it clear. MR. SCHMITT: What you're basically asking is that we bring this back as optional, with language than indicates it's optional for -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have to bring it back? Why can't you just make it that way now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can. MR. SCHMITT: I think we still have to bring it back for change in the language. Page 37 September 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's -- a lot of things needs to be changed in here. One thing: All new residential and commercial, all trees and shrubs and turf areas shall be assigned a dedicated zone so that each plant material type can be irrigated independently. MR. McNALL: Independently, correct. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, going to your citation of3. -- or 373, Statute 373-288, the purpose of this was for landscaping irrigation and Xeriscape design. Xeriscape design doesn't need water. It may need water for establishment, but after that they don't need water. That was the whole purpose of the code -- or the statute. But this would say that I would have to irrigate Xeriscaping (sic). And in fact it says landscaping irrigation design shall be based upon the irrigation code defined in the Florida Building Code volume Appendix F. And it says that local governments shall use the standards and guidelines under that. They don't call these bubblers, they call them micro-irrigation systems. MR. McNALL: Another term. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But it's telling me through the Florida statutes that we shall use the standards and guidelines. So it would be kind of confusing once you put it in there that it -- for one thing, it doesn't have the same thing. What it should be is what the statute says for green buildings. And if they use Xeriscaping, I don't know why you would want to irrigate it. MR. McNALL: Well, Commissioner, you always have to irrigate a Xeriscape landscape at the beginning, until the plant material is established. And what this does is if you put this plant material on dedicated zones, you can shut the zone off after the plant material has been established. They do that all the time in preserve areas, to establish native preserve vegetation. So it's just one way of regulating. I mean, Page 38 September 24, 2008 you know, being able to turn it off after the plant material's become established and save water, I mean, that's the whole concept here. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, why would you spend a whole bunch of money designing something to irrigate it that you're only going to irrigate it short time when you can take care of it with water? I mean 1-- , MR. McNALL: Temporary irrigation system's pretty much the same cost if it comes to just dedicated bubblers for large land -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you have to go by the Florida Building Code. And if you design to put it in there, it has to go by the Florida Building Code, not what we say. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner, this whole thing is making me uncomfortable. I don't think -- I think we ought to either skip it entirely or send it back to the drawing board. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Skip it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, there's a lot of inconsistencies here and contradictions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, we're going to -- MS. ISTENES: Would you like us to withdraw it then? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Withdraw it. That's a kind word. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Bruce. Okay, Commissioners, now we're going to delve into the realm of signage. On Page 55, Section 5.06.02, permitted signs. And two changes in here. It didn't -- on Page 57, under five, you'll see four feet in height. It says directional or identification signs no greater than four square feet in size and four feet in height. Because we didn't have the sign -- you know, permitting people didn't have a height restriction, so they needed one, or they could have 20- foot high signs anyway. The next one is on Page 58 -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just have one question. MS. FABACHER: Okay, all right. Page 39 September 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, yeah, it's on 58, so please go ahead. MS. FABACHER: Yeah, that's where I'm going. Okay, the code does not address signage currently for nonresidential uses such as churches or schools, which are allowed within residential districts. All right, where you let the church and the school go in a residential as a by right, you know, permitted use, not a conditional. But we didn't have anything to talk about what kind of signage they should have. So what this does on the bottom of Page 8 (sic) is it says for nonresidential uses within residential zoning districts, and as applicable to residential designated portions of PUD zoned property. Such signs shall follow the requirements for signs within nonresidential districts -- meaning the commercial sign requirements -- shall be followed with the following exceptions. If you're going to have an illuminated sign, you can't have one facing a residential use, unless you're separated from the residential use by an arterial or collector road. In other words, we don't want somebody's sign shining in someone's house. Not that we don't want, but we won't think it's a good idea. And then the other exception would be commercial signage, applying it globally to any conditional use within residential and agricultural districts. You see it means it applies to what's already permitted there by right. But conditional use, so we're not giving them blanket approval. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I answered my own question. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. You're really making it easy on me tonight. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commercial Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The signs. When you say-- we're talking about residential. So in other words, if you have on one side of the street residential and the other side of the street is Page 40 September 24, 2008 commercial, then this doesn't apply, it's residential on both sides of the street we're talking about? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir, it's completely in a residential district, zoning district. And it's all residential uses, with possibly a school or a church that's allowed there by right but it's not really -- it's not commercial, but it's not really residential and it does need a sign. So we hadn't covered that possibility. This doesn't have to do with commercial at all. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Personally I think the rest of our sign ordinance is extremely restrictive and it's a deterrent for business. But I don't have problems with this part, as long as it doesn't impact anyone that has in good faith moved into a commercial area just because residential is across the street. MS. FABACHER: It would in no way affect that. If they have commercial zoning, they have all their commercial signage rights. But incidentally, since you mentioned the sign code, we will be bringing a modified sign code back for your approval sometime soon. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're going to put neon back on the buildings, right? MS. FABACHER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, good. I like that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions on the amendment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve the amendment of 5.06.02, sign permits. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) THE WITNESS: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying Page 41 September 24, 2008 aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Next one is 5.06.04, site standards for -- MS. FABACHER: Specific situations. Now that I have my water, I can read it. Thank you for your help. This one is -- we do allow currently -- we are modifying current things that we allow, an off-premise directional sign to point you to a certain nonresidential use. And what we're really changing is on Page 62 under V. This is a clarification. It says, the sign shall -- it used to say, the sign shall only be located within 1,000 feet from the intersection of the arterial roadway and the property serving the building, structure and use. And because some of them didn't have arterial roadways, it got so complicated to try and figure out that now staff proposes the language just say the sign shall be located no more than 1,000 feet from the property serving the building or use. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve 5.06 -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- .04, sign standards for specific situations. Motion by Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. Page 42 ,.,--,_.-,~,.....---,-_._"-,._.,_.._,,--..~.._-,-_'_".'~-,-,._-,,- -'" " September 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- second by Commissioner Coyle. Discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Commissioner. Now I'm on -- we're on Page 63, and this is Section 8.03.08. Well, it's appeals, but it's under the planning commission rules in the LDC. Currently when they recodified the LDC back in 04-41, you'll recall the recodification? Since then we've had kind of two code books. They had taken a lot of information out of that book and didn't put it into the current LDC because they planned to make an administrative code. That's why the appeals were left out. Our next proj ect with our contract, we have to review the LDC, is to take all the administrative code stuff and separate it out. But my point is temporarily someone has asked that the appeal provisions be put back into the LDC right now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle the amendment to the planning commission's -- let me get to the right page. Section 8.03.08. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coletta. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, just for clarification, that Page 43 September 24, 2008 really is for boat docks. That's the only authority they have to make final approval, and it deals with if they deny boat dock extension, they have the right to appeal to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that's why they want it added back? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. We've already had one come to you and we believe we have another one coming shortly that was denied by the planning commission. And this allows -- this then codifies the procedure for bringing a petition to you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was in the old code. MR. SCHMITT: It was in the old code. CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FABACHER: All right, thank you, Commissioners. And now the best part of the evening. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Transportation. MS. FABACHER: No, engineering. Mr. Chrzanowski is here, and his begins on Page 91. COMMISSIONER COYLE: What happened to 67? MS. F ABACHER: Well, we're going to hear transportation on the 30th. MR. SCHMITT: Some of those have to go back to the planning commission, Commissioners. They were some wording changes. MS. FABACHER: Some of their -- they wanted to hear all their Page 44 ------,._-_.._-~-'~...._"_..".'""....-,.- ....--.'.......------.- September 24,2008 amendments at the one meeting, so -- But we're on Page 91. And I'm going to let Stan explain. He has three amendment requests before you tonight. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good evening, commissioners. The reason I'm here is at the present time in Collier County if you get a site development plan approval or a plan and plat approval, you have so much time after the approval to start construction, and then you have so much time to complete the construction once you've started construction. Because of the economic downturn, we want to extend those times. I can be a lot more verbose if you want, but that about sums up the three amendments. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just have one question. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have one. CHAIRMAN HENNING: How much of inspection fees are in a site plan? Say I come in for an SDP. Doesn't that include -- when you're charged for it, doesn't that include inspections? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We charge for the inspection upfront, yes. CHAIRMAN HENNING: So let's say that I want to -- you're taking it out. Can I still get my fees back? I mean, you're going from a one-year extension to a three-year. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Ifwe -- if your permit expired, if we told you that your permit expired, we would have to get you your fee back if we haven't done any inspections. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: But if -- this is to extend the time for you to start, and then once you start then the inspections start and then we don't refund after that. So if you wanted to -- I suppose if you wanted to withdraw your project, we'd have to refund your inspection fee. Page 45 September 24, 2008 MR. SCHMITT: No, it's not a suppose. We do. The applicant -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: We do. MR. SCHMITT: -- would apply for a refund if we -- if you have not started your project, that we do refund the inspection fees. If they withdraw the SDP or if it expires and we've not extended any staff effort towards any of those inspections, they are eligible for a refund. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: And we do refund. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. Wonderful idea. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by -- MS. FABACHER: Commissioner, can we --let me read what we're approving. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Because this is for the SDP extensions. And this is Section 10.02.03, submittal requirements for site development plans. So this would be the SDP extension of the approved SDP. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question. Down at -- DSAC said they wanted to remove due to economic circumstances from the sentence above. And I was just wondering -- now, I think this is great, by the way, that we're trying to help our economy out. I think that's a wonderful thing. Did you remove that sentence, due to economic circumstances? MS. FABACHER: I believe we did. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, just for clarification, the amendment is for 10.02.03 and 9.03.01. Is your motion covering both of those? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the second agrees to that? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Page 46 September 24,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good catch. Very good catch. CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're doing it together. MS. FABACHER: Stan, the next one is -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: 10.02.04 covers the same extension for plats instead of plans. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Same thing on the inspections? MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- same thing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: You refund them if they -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, we refund them if they don't get any inspections and withdraw their permit. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Could you use those refunds for possible bonding for proj ects that need a little bit more bonding money? I know one we have a problem with. There's a motion by Commissioner Fiala to approve 10.04-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it was by Commissioner Coletta and seconded by me. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I apologize. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Page 47 September 24, 2008 Coletta to approve 10.02.04, general requirements for final plats. And the second by Commissioner Fiala. Is there a discussion on the motion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FABACHER: And Stan's last one is on Page 97. It's to amend Section 10.02.05. And that extends -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The construction period. After you started construction, we are extending the amount of time you have to complete construction. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner Coyle to approve the amendment of 10.02.05. MS. FABACHER: 10.02.05, submittal requirements for improvement plans. CHAIRMAN HENNING: And second by Commissioner Coletta. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the discussion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 48 ~-_..-~;"~,..._~-~"~."~~."_....."._,."-".,--,_.....,,,,,,..,,~.,,,..-",,,,,,..,"",,,"--~,.~>-~-- September 24,2008 CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there anymore? MS. FABACHER: There's one more thing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to adjourn. MS. FABACHER: We got direction from you some time ago, someone had come in and requested that the side yard setbacks in the Estates be reduced on 150- foot lots. We had -- and at that time you correctly told us that we didn't have to talk to enough of the people, although they were totally opposed. So we went and spoke with the civic association, and I personally went and made a presentation. And it's very odd, because not only do they not want to reduce them, they want to increase them on even smaller lots, based on fire hazards. What we would say tonight is well, we don't want to just recommend blanketly going ahead and increasing them, because we will put hundreds and hundreds of structures into nonconformity out there. What we're saying is if that wants to be looked at as a possibility, we should do some study about the -- you know, where the canopy is out there, fire mitigation hazards and look into all that without just saying blankly (sic) okay, well, let's just, you know, increase the setbacks now. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? MR. SCHMITT: Catherine, point out that it was a unanimous denial from -- MS. FABACHER: Planning commission. MR. SCHMITT: Your Page LLL, planning commission and the Page 49 September 24, 2008 DSAC all four had recommended recommendations of denial. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would recommend denial also. Once again, too, if there's an interest out there to try to increase the setback distance, then I think we owe it to them to look into the possibilities. Of course you'd have to come up with nonconforming uses to be able to allow for the people that are already there. But it never hurts to see what we can do to improve upon this. But I can tell you, I haven't found anybody that's supported reducing the setback. MS. FABACHER: Correct. And I think that I have met since then, I think the fire -- the volunteer fire departments are working on some sort of plans and wildlife -- wildfire mitigation plans for residential houses. So I think we'll follow their lead and maybe do some education about it and then look at -- once they do this we can look and see where there are possibilities where they may recommend that we really need to do some requirements. We shouldn't make everyone have to do it if there's just a certain wooded area. It would be crazy to make it for everybody. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Some of the biggest concerns, too, is I'll tell you what, these 75- foot lots out there have been one of the biggest curses we've had to bear forever. And you can't take away the right for people to be able to develop them or to live on them. But when you get two 75-foot lots next to each other and with the setback with what it is, you no longer have access to the back to be able to do anything, I mean, much less park a vehicle or a boat or even for fire suppression. It's a real problem. So my motion is for denial. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I'm going to second the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll support it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- you know, the whole intent was -- of this was it was at one time what, 15 feet, Susan? Page 50 September 24, 2008 MS. ISTENES: Ten percent of the lot width for 150-wide lots, so yes, 15 feet. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, right. So that's what the narrow lots have is 10 percent, seven and a half feet. But the other lots, the larger lots that you're paying more taxes on, you have a larger setback. But, you know, I watched the planning commission meeting and I was quite surprised, even an elected official that stood up there and spoke was concerned about emergency vehicles getting back there. You know, two-and-a-quarter lots with 30-foot setbacks you can land the state plane on that. So I'm not sure if the person who was speaking really knew what he was talking about. But the whole intent was trying to get the disparity of, you know, larger lots. But hey, if the public doesn't support it, no sweat there. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, Commissioner Coletta made a comment and it's really sticking with me, and that is since the lots have been reduced to 75 feet, or they can be reduced to 75 feet -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, they can't be. That was something that was -- they were grandfathered in. It was back in the Seventies when they were allowed to divide a two-and-a-half-acre lot. That since has ceased. You can't do it anymore. But these ones that were divided and sold and some were built on, you had to give them a recognition, so they're recognized as legal nonconforming lots. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's been fixed since then. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it hasn't been fixed. They still exist. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, but I meant -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But no more-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- they can't divide them anymore. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, some people divide them through the tax assessor's office. But what happens then is you can't Page 51 ..... r r"" JII "., . ___,,__",__.,"''''''_'~_"_~''''_'''>'"''~~'''''''_'_''"'''_'_''~'_<".,'_."..,.......,.._~",...,-"."..,_.- September 24, 2008 build on either one of them. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. I was just going to help out, but it looks like you don't need any of my help, you took care of it all yourself. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I always need your help. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any further business? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve. MS. FABACHER: Just to say that this meeting needs to be continued -- will be continued. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to continue. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to continue the meeting to -- MS. FABACHER: To September 30th here in this board meeting room at 9:00 a.m. MR. SCHMITT: We want to make sure we discuss the -- you've covered everything tonight. There may not be a meeting for September 30th. We will advise your aides if that meeting is canceled. We have several items that are going to the planning commission on Friday, so they will not be ready for you on the 30th. MS. FABACHER: Joe, we do have transportation-- MR. SCHMITT: We have transportation? Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in here still to do. And then -- MR. SCHMITT: And that will be a rather short meeting. MS. F ABACHER: -- pesticide. So it could be a very short meeting. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Let's do it in October. Why -- you know, why come here -- you know, I'm sure Commissioner Coyle can think of something other to do besides coming in here for a 10 or 15 minute meeting. MR. SCHMITT: We can -- we'll look at that. Because right now you've covered this. We have some items. But you have October 7th and October 30th. And I believe between those two, you can be able Page 52 ----"...--._".--,..~~....._._".,-,..,-'-~,._---.~"-- September 24, 2008 to finish up this cycle. So -- MS. ISTENES: So continue to October 7th? CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle makes a motion to continue this meeting till October 7th. MS. F ABACHER: I believe at 9:00 a.m., wasn't it? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HENNING: 9:00 a.m. in the BCC meeting room right here at 3301 Tamiami Trail. Second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Third floor, don't forget that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Third floor. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed? (N 0 response.) MS. F ABACHER: Thank you, Commissioners. Great job tonight. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:29 p.m. Page 53 ~.",_"..._"",__~_____"__,_,,,,.".~,,,,,,..,.-..,.,.____. 4 September 24, 2008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ToimNN~an ATTEST: DWIGHT EYBROCK CLERK >,. . .,' , IS to 0111" ~ s tonaturtf(on I W .' . . ':- " l'4,l,~ ". . '. .. .<; .. CL j\.::;:~"" These minutes approved by the Board on I 0 l~ ~ , as presented V or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting, Inc. by Cherie' R. Nottingham, CSR. Page 54