Loading...
CCPC Agenda 01/21/2016 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JANUARY 21, 2016 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 2016, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,THIRD FLOOR,3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES,FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—December 17, 2015 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Note: This item has been continued from the December 3, 2015 CCPC meeting, the December 17,2015 CCPC meeting and the January 7,2016 CCPC meeting: A. DOA-PL20140002309: A Resolution amending Resolution Number 95-71 (Development Order no. 95-01), as amended, for the Pelican Marsh Development of Regional Impact ("DRI") located in Sections 25, 27, 34, 35 and 36, Township 48 South, Range 25 East and Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East in Collier County, Florida by providing for: Section One, Amendments to Development Order by adding 32 acres to the DRI; by revising Exhibit"D"and Map"H3"contained in the DRI Development Order to add 32 acres to the DRI 1 and an access point on Livingston Road; and by reducing the reserve by 2 acres; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Conclusions of Law; and Section Four, Effect of Previously Issued Development Orders, Transmittal to Department of Economic Opportunity and Effective Date. [Companion item to Pelican Marsh PUDR-PL2014000221 1] [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,AICP, RLA,Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the December 3, 2015 CCPC meeting, the December 17,2015 CCPC meeting and the January 7,2016 CCPC meeting: B. PUDR-PL20140002211: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2002-71, the Pelican Marsh Planned Unit Development, and amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 32± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to the Pelican Marsh PUD; by amending the Planned Unit Development document and the Master Plan to add R1 district parcels for 75 single family dwelling units; by correcting a scrivener's error in the PUD Master Development Plan to Ordinance No. 2002-71 which omitted 141.6 acres east of Livingston Road; by adding an access point to Livingston Road; by providing development standards for the R1 district; by reducing the reserve by 2 acres; and by providing an effective date. The property to be added to the PUD is located in the northeast quadrant of Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 2,245± acres for the entire Pelican Marsh PUD. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,AICP,RLA, Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the January 7,2016 CCPC meeting: C. PUDZ-PL20150000204: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Abaco Club RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 104 residential dwelling units on property located at the southwest corner of Immokalee Road and Woodcrest Drive in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 15.9+/-acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Daniel J. Smith,AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 December 17,2015 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples,Florida, December 17, 2015 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 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F"of the Government Complex,East Naples, Florida,with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Wafaa F. Assaad Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Karen Homiak Charlette Roman Andrew Solis(absent for roll call) ABSENT: Tom Eastman ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko,Managing Assistant County Attorney Page 1 of 25 December 17,2015 PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Just an announcement to make. We're going to start late today because the cameras that are required to video this meeting are not functioning, so the IT people are in the process of fixing them. Whenever they're fixed,we'll start. If they don't get fixed soon enough,maybe we'll not start. But I just want you to know so--we'll be sitting around waiting for a while. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not on record. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, good. Is it a illegal -- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Move we adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We haven't opened the meeting up, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does the meeting have to be televised? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,apparently it does. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It never was for many years. All of a sudden it has to be? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think when the County Attorney gets here,you can ask him that question, but I'd rather not get into a discussion on the meeting off record until we know it's okay, so... (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray. We're good to go. Good morning,everyone. Welcome to the Thursday,October(sic) 17th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman is absent. Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is present. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Solis is absent. Mrs. Ebert is here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr.Assaad? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And,Ms. Roman? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. The addenda to the agenda. We've had a request for a continuance of the Pelican Marsh changes, which are 9A and 9B. I'll read those off for the record. The continuance has been requested to January 7, 2016. Those two items are DOA-PL20140002309 and PUDR-PL20140002211. If the Planning Commission would like to make a motion to continue those to January 7, 2016. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I ask a question-- (Commissioner Solis entered the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --before the motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I sent an email out to staff--and I guess I'm allowed to say this--about--I have a lot of questions about the number of exotics I saw in the preserve on site at Marsala and the number of Brazilian pepper. It's all on the off-site parcel that's going to be redeveloped,and I have a lot of questions about how this is all going to be handled. And I would like someone from staff to be there that knows about what the rules are to make who take what out of where and when it's going to be done. Page 2 of 25 December 17,2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,when this is actually heard, I would imagine our environmental staff will be attending since the environmental is a big issue. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. But I don't want them to say,well,you know,that's code and whatever. I would like someone here that can answer the questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,staffs so notified. So it's not going to happen till the 7th of January. So at that time please make sure environmental staff is aware of the concern and that they come prepared to respond. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, we also got an email saying that Mr. White can't be here on the 7th,and they still want to continue it further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,you know, I--it was continued once. It's continued twice. There's talk about continuing it further. It's the applicant's case. It's not the opposing party's, and I don't see why the applicant would need to do it if they don't feel it's necessary. Now,they may want to do it to be more--to work closer with the neighborhood if there are some issues there, but at this time I'm not suggesting or I wouldn't suggest that we let opposing parties just arbitrarily set the dates for applicants. They're not the ones paying for the process. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I was just reading the emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I understand. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion,then,to continue this to January 7th? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So moved. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: So moved. I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Wafaa, seconded by Charlette. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And I'm going to abstain from voting because I have a conflict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: (Abstains.) COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0 with one abstention. COMMISSIONER EBERT: For the record,Mr. Solis-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And, for the record,Ms. Ebert just noted. Andy Solis is here today, so... During the addenda to the agenda section of our discussion today, I'd like to ask this board to consider how to handle the remaining new item on the agenda. We have two consent items which we will immediately get into after this discussion, but we have left on the agenda a substantial change to the Collier County Land Development Code under the architectural criteria. Now,that section of the code is a very important section of our code. There's a lot to it. It's very complicated. We could probably spend quite some time on it. I would suggest to this board that we at least get into some discussion on it today,where our concerns are in the first read of it so that staffs aware of what we may need some refinement on and some clarification on but that we do not finalize a vote on it today. I think there's--after we get into it,there may be some responses that we will need more information on. And I also would like to suggest we end the meeting as close to noon today as we can. I think it's a pretty intense subject to carry on for five or six hours. Originally we were going to have Pelican Marsh first, which would have probably taken us till lunch or after,and then I had-- if you noticed on the agenda this Page 3 of 25 December 17,2015 time there was a note that we were going to end at 3 o'clock today because I had not thought it would be productive to try to get into those architectural standards for hours on end. So with that mind, I need to know what this panel thinks about that. And the architectural standards have been presented in a different manner than what we're used to, and I want to talk about that when we get into them. But does that generally work with the idea of this panel? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. I'm fine with it,not making the decisions today. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I think that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right,not making them today. There's going to be more--there's going to be some points made to staff that may require more research on their part and by any of us,and I'd rather see this thoroughly understood before we weigh in on it completely. Okay. With that in mind, I'll move on to the next item on the agenda,which is Planning Commission absences. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here on January 7th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, by the way,the Pelican Marsh one that we just continued may be continued again at that date, but that will be up to the applicant. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So what else would we have? We would have these amendments again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These would be--yeah,these would be continued until they're finished, so what we would try to do is spend a couple of hours each meeting on them, but I would suggest if we get into those that we not get into late afternoons, so we-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do we have anything else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are other items on the agenda. I've seen it,but I'm not sure--Abaco is one of them, and I'm not sure what else is there. So we will have something to deal with on the 7th. Okay. That takes us to approval of minutes. We have--the November 19th minutes have been distributed electronically. Does anybody have any changes or corrections? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a motion to approve with a change to Page 4 near the bottom; where it says "Chairperson Homiak" should say "Chairman Strain." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. There's been a motion made with a stipulation. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Diane. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: (Abstains.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll abstain because I was not at that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion carries 6-0 with one abstention. That takes us to BCC report, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. At the last Board of County Commissioners'meeting they approved the PUD amendment on the summary agenda for Berkshire Lakes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. BELLOWS: And they also heard the appeal of the boat dock extension--the Haldeman boat dock extension, and that was--a settlement agreement was reached, and that was approved by the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Page 4 of 25 December 17,2015 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Am I allowed to talk about that a little, seeing as how I attended that meeting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can talk. It's a public meeting. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Something happened that--they made it sound like we did something wrong in our approval. They--for some--my understanding was what we did was we made a motion to approve,the motion was seconded but not--didn't pass. There was no motion made to deny. There were some modifications made, a second motion was made for approval,and that one passed. Now, somebody made the inference that that was wrong,that we should have killed everything then. I always--and I went home and looked at Robert's Rules of Order,and,you know,because everybody was talking about violation of Robert's Rules. And did we do something wrong? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi,planning and zoning director. I was at the BCC hearing,and the appellant, the individual who--Mr. Pires,who was representing the appellant who was appealing the boat dock decision, made the inference that the motion was incorrectly passed at the Board of County--or at the Planning Commission meeting. And Jeff Klatzkow basically said it was messy. It wasn't as clean as possible, but it was most certainly within the order and within the law. So there was--there was the assertation that it was incorrectly made,but--the County Attorney's Office had opined that it was a little messy,but in the end it was a legal motion that was made by this Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I just didn't like the way that went. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And a second comment I have, I'm fascinated that you can take the professional opinion of three licensed engineers that there is not a problem and you can take a statement by a--by an attorney that there might be a problem and put any weight on that. That just blows my mind. Why do we bother using experts? That's all. MR. BOSI: We'll leave that as it stands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi,did you have anything you wanted to add,or are you okay with what Mike described? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It probably would be better to talk off line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have anything to talk about. I just didn't--you were looking like you wanted to say something. I didn't know if you did. I wanted to make sure you had an opportunity, so--but if-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. The issue was whether or not the public-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mike's not working. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: --comments should have been reopened because we took new evidence, so that was the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Chairman's report. Oh,are there any other BCC report recaps, Ray, or those two items,that's it? MR. BELLOWS: Those two items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report. One important issue for today. Eric Johnson, it's his birthday today. And I think,what,are you 64, 65, Eric? MR.JOHNSON: Funny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,Happy Birthday, and it's good to have you aboard as usual,so. We're going to have you up here in just a minute. ***That brings us to the first consent agenda item,and it's PUDA-PL20150000178. It's the Briarwood PUD, and this has been continued from the December 3rd meeting, and I think we heard it back in November. So with that, I'll ask the Planning Commission if there are any questions,corrections,any issues with your reading of the Briarwood consent item? COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Why is this back to us? Page 5 of 25 December 17,2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have the-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: We approved it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We have a--after we approve any project that has stipulations,they come back in for what's called consent,and it's merely to affirm that staff articulated our stipulations correctly in the final document. Several years ago we found some problems with that process, so that's why we started the consent process. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome. And as far as that,does anybody have any questions,because I've got a couple. Let's start with Page 8 of 9, Fred. The last line of the first--of Deviation No. 1 where the last sentence starts on the third line up from the bottom of the first paragraph. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says,where a hedge is planted along Livingston Road and Radio Road, the placement of these shrubs shall be planted three feet on center in maximum 60-foot lengths and a minimum 30-foot breaks in continuity. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's reversed. Don't we want a minimum 60-foot length and a maximum 30-foot break? We're not trying to eliminate--because the way it reads now,maximum 60-foot lengths,you could put a one-foot hedge,and then it's a minimum 30-foot break,and you'd have a 100-foot break. I think it's the opposite of what we should be saying there. MR. HOOD: I think we can be okay with that. That's not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not a matter of being okay. MR. HOOD: Well,the reason why we did it originally is because the original break on the plan--and sorry, Frederick Hood, for the record,with Davidson Engineering. On the master plan,on Page 3 shows a--sorry. Here we are. The way that we looked at it,we show the break that we had that was in that area along the corner area was about 30 feet, so we took that 30 feet and said we'll make that the break of what we would be able to do. The 60 feet was just us saying, all right,we would have to plant them as a maximum length of 60 feet,and for every 60 feet we would have a 30-foot break,and then we would continue again with the 60-foot if we-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not what this says.This says a maximum 60-foot. So you could put a one-foot plant in there, and it says a minimum of 30-foot break, so you could put a 100-foot break in there, and we've ended up with nothing. MR. HOOD: The intent,as I was just stating,was that we were trying to make it so that it would be 60 feet of planted shrubs,a 30-foot break,and then another 60 feet of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: --planted shrubs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,then it's not a matter of living with it. I think what you intend to do would be you're going to have a minimum of 60 feet and a maximum of 30 feet,right? MR. HOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that needs to be changed. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The middle of the paragraph it talks about it will collectively total double the minimum number of trees. So from staffs perspective--and I notice Dan's here somewhere--how would you interpret that and read it on the plan when it says "collectively total double the minimum number of trees"? MR. SMITH: Daniel Smith, principal planner. For a D buffer,which would be required along here, is trees are every 30 feet. How we would interpret it is based on the length of that buffer, divide by 30 feet,and we're just going to double it at that Page 6 of 25 December 17,2015 time. That's how I would interpret it. So--because trees are what's--are what are required along there;not shrubs but trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the spacing isn't going to be something you'd be looking at. You'll be just counting the number of trunks. MR. SMITH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they would have to be double what would normally be required. MR. SMITH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you could fit three in 90 feet,you'd have to have at least six. MR. SMITH: That's correct. That's how I would interpret it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that's how you understand it so there's no question about it later on. MR. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That--by the way,that issue of the minimum/maximum occurs a couple times in this document, so we're going to have to correct it everywhere. The other item that I'm not clear on how it came about is the issue of the 15-foot setback for the garage-facing portion of the building in order to park a car in front of the building. The way this is written, the-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: What page are you on, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is on Page 5, Item O. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The additional parking spaces for some units apparently can be now collectively placed somewhere else on the property that isn't on the plan currently,apparently. MR. HOOD: No. What we're trying to achieve with Section 0 of 637 is that in front of-- in front of each of the units,we agreed at the last hearing that we would have to have at least one of the parking spaces outside the unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HOOD: So what we did is in the areas that we can have them as 90-degree parking,we were providing 23 feet from the front of the--from the front of the garage to the edge of pavement. For areas that we weren't able to do them perpendicular at 90-degree parking,we were proposing parallel parking in front of the units,and in this instance we were looking at providing 15 feet between the front of the garage to the edge of pavement. When we went back and looked at it and tried to fit that instance into the parallel parking scenario, we realized that on several places on the plan there was not enough distance between the front of the garage to the edge of pavement. So I actually prepared an exhibit showing those distances throughout the plan where we had issues. And I can actually hand those out so you can take a look at them. But there's significant areas that have been impacted that I don't think was the intent of ourselves and/or the Board. If you would let me show these to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Please pass it out. I'd like to see how this would work out. Heidi, if Brad Schiffer tries to give you a speaker slip,he's not allowed to speak. Do you want to explain to us what this is? MR. HOOD: I wanted to make sure that Eric had a chance to pass everything out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: Okay. So on the first page I've highlight in green--thank you, Eric. I've highlighted in green the areas showing the distance between the buildings,because I think that was a concern that we discussed at the last hearing. The shortest distance, if you look to the right side of the plan or the east side of the plan--between Buildings 15 and 12 is the shortest distance of about 46.64 feet. On the second page of the 11 by 17 document shows these highlighted areas throughout the plan of where the 15-foot setback would become problematic from the building to the edge of pavement. Those are highlighted in the red areas. Page 7 of 25 December 17,2015 So there's more than a few,and they are concentrated on Buildings 9, 10, 12, 14,2,and 15, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many units are affected by the areas in red? MR. HOOD: It's about a third of the units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So out of 148,you're looking at whatever--that would be 60-some-odd units? MR. HOOD: Sixty,65 units,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That means your intention by 0 is that where you can't fit the space in front of the unit,you're going to put it in a separate location within the site but just not directly in front of the unit; is that what you're saying? MR. HOOD: No. What I'm saying is is that the 15 feet that we were talking about at the last hearing,we would like that to be pulled back to 10 feet so that we would be able to allow a 10-foot buffer between--excuse me--the building,or not a buffer,but a setback between the building and the parking space, so we would have the area to put a parallel parking space where these--where--these areas where I show in red,we would basically pull those back five feet,and we would have enough area to put a parking space in front and then have another setback area between the building and that parking space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the way--yes, go ahead,Wafaa. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You've got me confused now. Now I'm very confused. MR. HOOD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: When you were talking about the setbacks,you said it's between the front of the building and the edge of the pavement. MR. HOOD: It's the edge of the pavement and the front of the garage. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: It's not the right-of-way? MR. HOOD: No. There's no right-of-way on this project. This is all aisleways. There's no--there are no-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I would call it road easement. MR. HOOD: Private easements. There's no easement. It's just an aisleway. So you have a 24-foot pavement,and then you have a 3-foot valley gutter on each side of that pavement. So you have a total of a 30-foot roadway width. What we're proposing on the 90-degree parking areas is to have the 23 feet from the front of the garage to the edge of pavement. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Not the gutter? MR. HOOD: Not the--so the gutter would include the 23 feet. The edge of--the edge of pavement is the 24 feet. So we would not be able to put any cars or back any cars out into the edge of pavement width, the 24 feet. We would be able to use the 3-foot valley gutter as part of our 23 feet. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: And in the case of the 15-foot setback,the parallel parking,you have--then eventually you have 12 feet between the building and the edge of the curb? MR. HOOD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: You have no landscaping in front of the buildings? MR. HOOD: There is landscaping in--well,you have garages mostly in front of those areas.The areas that have landscape are in the landscape islands that you can see on these--on this exhibit where the--where you have--between the driveways there's landscaped areas there. That's always been the intent. The problem came in when we tried to put in the parallel spaces between the--between these landscaped areas,and certain areas we just didn't have enough space, so if--the extra five feet we actually need. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So why don't you make the building a little narrower? MR. HOOD: That would cause a huge domino effect on the parking--on the building design of the whole project. It's not something that we can't do, but it's something that would be very problematic and would cause huge implications to the PUD master plan. So what we would wind up doing is-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: What is the big problem? Instead of making it so many feet, reduce it by five feet or four feet or something to accommodate comfortable parking. Keep in mind that most of those people are probably elders, and they will have difficulty parking. And you need a little room to do some Page 8 of 25 December 17,2015 landscaping or something so the place doesn't look so stern. So, I mean,the answer is you can't do it because I have to redesign the building. MR. HOOD: That's not the only issue. We would have to redesign. That's a big issue,but the other issue is that we are providing enough building permit or planting/landscaping with this reduction from the 15-foot setback to the 10-foot setback. Also,with that 5-foot reduction that we're asking for,we still have enough room to be able to travel around the vehicles when they park. So the additional five feet I don't think was the intended consequence that we're seeing now. Yes,we could potentially shrink some of these buildings in the areas that,you know, have been highlighted but, again, as I was discussing, I think that that would have an effect on the PUD master plan that potentially would make us have to come back and revise this plan after it has been redone, because that means I have to move --you know, let's say I have to move Building 5 or chop it up and make it look different. I don't know how,you know,engineering or planning staff will look at that to say that that is a departure from what we provided here. This is a very specific plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, let's back up a minute. This is a consent hearing. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're getting into new submittals and new testimony,and I'm not sure that's appropriate for a consent. But I also want to understand,from the basis of the minutes that we voted on last time,where is your basis to suggest that the consent hearing that--the stipulations we provided were different than what was supposed to be subject to that hearing? MR. HOOD: I didn't mean to say that they were different. I'm just saying that we were--I'm trying to discuss what the intent of those were with that 15-foot setback, because there was a question that came from me, I believe,wondering what the actual setback was coming from. Was it supposed to be to the edge of pavement? Was it supposed to be to the back of curb? Was it the intent that this setback be for the areas for parking in front of the buildings,or was it supposed to be for edge of pavement,period? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's take those one at a time. First of all,when PUDs come through and the setback is measured for the parking space, it's measured from the back of curb if curbed, if not,from the edge of pavement. In this case you are curbed so,theoretically,to fit with the other PUDs,the intention, unless you had stated otherwise--and I haven't got the record in front of me to find out if you did or not--it would have been from back of curb. Now,you're saying you intended it to be from back of pavement,which is three feet different. So I'm not sure we're on the same page there. Second of all,the stipulation was for 15 feet. And I don't know if you've brought the minutes with you to show us where that 15 feet was disputed enough to get us down to 10, because 10 is not 15. And if you're trying to change something we stipulated,we can't do that at a consent hearing. That's got to be done--we've got to re-open the hearing up. So we're not on the same page with this stuff. A couple of other things I want to mention.This all started because on the third--second--yeah, third and fourth line it says,additional required parking space may be provided within the individual unit and then a designated off-street parking area within the development. Now,apparently you're not going to do that because that wasn't thoroughly understood, I believe,at our last meeting in which this was discussed, and you don't have anyplace on your plan where you're showing where you're going to have off-street parking for 60 spaces. MR. HOOD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now we're back to how do you fit it in front of the unit? You're suggesting you can parallel park at 10 feet,and we had said 15. I think we also,though, acknowledged that we would accept parallel parking. MR. HOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now your measurement is the difference. Now your measurement for the 10 feet for the parallel parking would come from the asphalt in or from the back of curb? MR. HOOD: From the asphalt--from the asphalt in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're only going to be six feet back from the back of curb with the building? Page 9 of 25 December 17,2015 MR. HOOD: Six feet--I'm sorry. Six feet back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a 3-foot--I mean 7-foot. You have a 3-foot valley gutting. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have seven foot. You'll be seven foot back from the--that's your setback is going to be-- MR. HOOD: So basically you have the 3-foot valley gutter,plus an additional-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Seven. MR. HOOD: --six feet because it's a 9-foot spot,9 by 523. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what size spot you're trying to aim for. MR. HOOD: Parallel parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're trying to fit it in a--so when people pull into a parallel parking, they have a wall at nine feet. They certainly can't make sure their bumper's going to go over that 9-foot edge. So now you're--how do you do your utility,your UEs? You have a 10-foot UE outside the curb around all your roadways to get the utilities you've said--how are you going to put your UEs in? MR. HOOD: This isn't a proposed private or public right-of-way, so we're not looking at putting utility easements throughout the property.This is--it's a development that--actually,the utilities aren't even coming along those areas, I don't believe. I think they're on the back of the buildings on most of the--on most of the cases where they have a line that's coming in. I don't have the engineering plans in front of me right now, but we're not considering doing separate easements at this point right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Fred, I know we talked about parallel parking as an option to the straight-in parking space. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Here we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's kind of where I'm--I understand that,but I don't know how you do that in the footage you're trying for an and the measurement point you're taking. Go ahead, Wafaa. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Well, if you-- if you're not creating easements, how are you going to put the utility lines underground? MR. HOOD: Well,that's something that--again, I don't have those engineering plans in front of me right now. I don't have them, so I can't show you exactly where they're going to go. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: I don't need to know exactly where they go. The question is, if you're not creating a utility easement for water and sewer line that the county can accept or the owner as a station(sic)can accept,how are they going to be maintained and owned and developed? MR. HOOD: They're privately maintained and they're privately owned. The connections from the street,from Radio or from Skelly or from Livingston,we will have easement areas over those connection points. Again, I don't have them in front of me right now. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: That has nothing to do with ownership. MR. HOOD: I understand what you mean about ownership. I just-- I don't have them in front of me right now so I can't answer that question for you, because it's--the SDP hasn't been completely designed yet. I'm not sure how my engineers are going to do that right now. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Back to my point about reducing the size of the building,the depth of the building. If you look at any of your building you find that the outside line of the building shrinks in certain locations. Not all of the garage units have the same depth. MR. HOOD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So you can have more shorter units than deeper units. That will give you the space that you're looking for to accommodate the parking(sic)parking, so-- MR. HOOD: Yeah,we're not-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: It's not-- MR. HOOD: We're not objecting that we can't do it. We're asking that we be allowed to do it. Page 10 of 25 December 17,2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi wanted to interrupt with a comment. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I just wanted to comment. As the chair explained earlier in the meeting to Mr. Assaad,the purpose of consent is to make sure that all your stipulations and changes were made in the document. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So-- MS.ASHTON-CICKO: It was pretty clear at the end when the stips were made that it was 15 feet. So the only way for you to entertain the 10 is if the record reflected that there was a mistake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. And I don't-- COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: So we cannot get into discussions about it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,we can-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, it's 15 unless there was an error in the record,but I don't think there was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he's not--do you have anything in the record that talks about a number less than 15? MR. HOOD: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I also would like to ask Ray something on this matter. When you measure for a 23-foot space for a car to be parked in someone's driveway,do you measure from the asphalt or from the curb? MR. BELLOWS: If there's a sidewalk,you go from the sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. BELLOWS: If there's not a sidewalk,then it's back of curb. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back of curb. All right. So that's another--and this is being requested to measure from the back of asphalt. Would that need to be a deviation? MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe so in this case since we're really looking at something more akin to a commercial project where these are drive aisles and not roadways,and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: --in this case this is a 3-foot type of gutter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not comfortable going to the 10 feet in the manner in which it's been described when we had stipulated 15 feet. I do agree that we also talked about allowing parallel,but your way of measuring parallel to me is not a,necessarily, safest way to do it when you're going to have a wall right at the edge of where the car's going to be maneuvering at an angle off the roadway to get in and out and backing in and out. So at this point I don't agree with the way the document's been written in reflection of the Planning Commission's stipulations from before in two cases, one being Item 0 in regards to the 15-foot and the second being the minimum/maximum we previously talked about. Now,with that in mind, we either can vote to accept this on a consent as consistent with our stipulations,or we can vote that, from consent, it's not consistent with our stipulations. The applicant,on the other hand,could agree to make the changes to make it consistent and then argue your case in front of the Board of County Commissioners to prevent another opening of this hearing all through the Planning Commission again. Which would you prefer? MR. HOOD: The latter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we will look at this with some corrections needed to bring it in line with what the Planning Commission stipulations were intended. I guess we haven't had this happen before, so I'll ask the staff or County Attorney, how do we accomplish that and know it's been accomplished correctly since this project has been so difficult to get corrected to this point anyway? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I think we're down to a very minor change to what was submitted today. So if you stipulate whatever corrections you think are necessary,we can forward an email to each of the planning commissioners to verify that, but then we will proceed and load that document into the packet that goes to the Board of County Commissioners. Page 11 of 25 December 17,2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would suggest that we fix the minimum/maximum language we started with,that on No. 0 we drop the language referencing designated off-street parking area within a development,because they've not shown where that can be done or how it can be done. And also on No. 0, leave the 15-foot required from the edge of pavement for the parallel parking space. And as far as the setback for the building goes,that was only supposed to be for the area of the driveway,the drive from the--for that portion of the building. So where there's a conflict with a 15-foot setback and other parts in a couple corners I noticed;we didn't discuss that. So those three things, I think, should be clarified to bring it in line with our stipulations if the rest of the Planning Commission agrees. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I just remind Fred of one thing? MR. HOOD: Sure thing. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Usually driveways are 20 feet wide. Your driveways all seem to be the same width. So I'm looking at your parallel spaces as being 20 feet wide instead of 23. Make sure they're 23, because you can't fit a car into a 20-foot,okay? MR. HOOD: Yeah. That's definitely understood. We just didn't want to modify this document any more than it had to be. Some of those driveways will have to be-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's going to cut down some of your islands maybe. MR. HOOD: Yeah. Some of those driveways will have to be reconfigured, some of those islands will have to be reconfigured,and we'll have to make sure that those are all done at the time of SDP. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do the Planning Commission members have any other questions on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there is a motion to approve consent subject to the changes that we just articulated with Ray Bellows,we can move forward. Anybody? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That--with those changes as noted. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor,signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: (Abstains.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries-- COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Mr. Chairman, I was not at this hearing,so I abstain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion carries 6-0, one abstention. Thank you. MR. HOOD: Thank you all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***That gets us to our next item up,which is the Rockedge consent item. It's PUDR-PL20150002246. It's known as the Rockedge RPUD. This is a consent item. Have the Planning Commission members reviewed it,and is there any questions or comments on that particular item? (No response.) Page 12 of 25 December 17,2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only comment I've got is concerning the--well,first of all,the staff made the corrections to be consistent with the GMP for the interconnections,and the previous discussion talked about having the ordinances referred to at the time of review of Site Development Plan or subdivision plat. We had talked about building permit. The language that's here says approval of each development order. I think that's sufficient. Whether it's a building permit or whatever,it still covers it that way. So I think from that perspective, I didn't see anything else that needs--we're consistent then. Anybody? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Karen. Seconded-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0 with Charlette abstaining, or were you here for that one? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I was here for that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. MR. SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. ***That brings us to our-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Hot topic today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --next agenda and remaining agenda item. This is 9C. It's the Collier County Land Development Code changes for the architectural standards review section of our code. This has been going on for quite a while with the review staff. It's gone to DSAC. Jeremy Frantz has been the lead individual regarding staff. First of all,Jeremy, I want to thank you for an incredible job you did. I had seen multiple ways of displaying and laying things out,and I thoroughly enjoyed being able to see the old and new versions in the last spreadsheets that you attached and some of the discussion so that everything was concise in a row. We could follow it better. I thought that was very helpful for my review. And for this panel's discussion, I noticed that in the 109 pages of this there are three different methodologies for explaining what's happening. There is a narrative section,which is the first chunk of it, that staff just did it as a typical staff report,there's a middle section that actually takes the sections of the code or the strikethrough and underline,and then there's a final section which are in landscape format.They're the spreadsheet format where staff has compared each change to the language that was there and then with explanations as to what that could or could not mean. And so I don't know where the Planning Commission wants to start in discussing this. But I think Jeremy's going to start off with some presentation. We'll start with that,and then we'll decide on how to tackle this thing after we hear from Jeremy. Hello,Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: Hello. Jeremy Frantz,for the record. I'm a senior planner with the development review division. I'll just briefly touch on a few issues before we begin the review. Page 13 of 25 December 17,2015 This process really began in 2012 when,with the Planning Commission's support,the BCC directed a review of the entirety of Section 5.05.08 in order to propose some changes to the architectural standards. So that resulted in the creation of the Architectural and Site Design Standards Ad Hoc Committee and--by resolution in 2013 with the following task: Quote,to aide and assist the Board in reviewing the current architectural and site design standards contained in the LDC and make recommendations for updates and revisions, end quote. So before we get into the proposed amendment, I'll just touch a little bit on the way that the architectural standards exist today. The standards were adopted in 1996,and the first review--the first comprehensive review of the architectural standards occurred in 2004. This would be the second time that we've looked at them comprehensively. The section establishes building and site design standards intended to--or, sorry, for--establishes standards for most commercial and nonresidential buildings intended to enhance the visual appearance of the community. It does that through numerous design requirements, including facade elements and window requirements,variation in building massing scale,wall planes and wall heights,building design treatments and ornamental and structural architectural elements, roof-line articulation, and roof treatment--other roof treatments, site design,and landscaping requirements as well. So getting back to the committee. The committee is composed of architects,engineers,and industry representatives. They include James Boughton, Rocco Costa, Kathy Curatolo, Dalas Disney, Bradley Schiffer,and Dominick Amico. We have some of them here with us today. During the committee's review,there was also a significant public involvement and comments from landscape architects,engineers, industry representatives,the Immokalee CRA staff,and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. The committee also shared the amendment with architectural engineering and real estate professionals,and the amendment has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Development Services Advisory Committee's Land Development Review Subcommittee and the full DSAC. Staffs involvement in this process has been threefold. We have been there to facilitate committee meetings,we provided some comments on proposed changes,and prepared the amendment request that's before you today. It's important to note that although staff has been involved in this process,the amendment is not a staff-proposed amendment. So at the outset of the committee's review of the architectural standards,they established some goals for their review and revision. You can see this list on Page 2 of the actual amendment request if you'd like to follow along. They include to make architectural standards more user friendly,to reduce the overall number of standards,to provide relief from over-restrictive standards which are imposed only on PUDs,to focus the applicability on the most appropriate areas,and to revise the applicability for redevelopment projects,to refine the applicability for--sorry--to ensure that the standards are focused on big-box stores,to reduce cost to businesses,and to remove civil engineering or site design elements from the architectural standards. So as you review the proposed amendment,you'll see each of those goals represented to varying degrees by their changes. Finally,there's an additional amendment in your packets today that I don't want to pass up.There is--it provides cross-references throughout the LDC to 5.05.08,and it's really representing those revisions and renumbering that's occurring in 5.05.08 as well as trying to improve the coordination of site design standards in other sections of the code with those that are within the architectural standards. So with that, I'll turn it back over to the Planning Commission to determine how you'd like to review the amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: We have staff and committee members available to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for the planning staff--Planning Commission members that are new, we have Brad Schiffer here today. Brad spent a lot of time on this Planning Commission and helped us in Page 14 of 25 December 17,2015 innumerable ways when we were originally getting in--when he was here originally and we got into a lot of architectural issues, so... And one thing that Brad was very careful and conscious of is massing,and that will be a focal point for discussions with him today as well since they're striking all the massing. So we'll have an entertaining discussion, I'm sure. But I need to know where to start. And since we have three sections that basically mirror each other in regards to what they accomplish, is it easiest for this Planning Commission to use the spreadsheets on the last section or the cross-throughs or the narrative? And we--because we don't need to read every page of three different--of having it said three different ways,but I don't know how you-all approached this when you reviewed it. To me,the easiest way would be to use the spreadsheets that start on Page 69 or 70 of the electronic version and walk through those a page at a time,but I don't know if that works for the rest of you based on where you may have made your notes and markups on your paperwork. Anybody? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I used the spreadsheet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So did I, and I--so if--why don't we start there and see how we can work our way through it. And before we go too far,though,there is a couple general statements that I wanted to understand in the very beginning,and this is on Page 2--Page 1 of 1, but it's Page 2 of the packet. In that table that shows the reviewing entities for this,there are only three; DSAC, CCPC,and BCC. I don't believe that DSAC-LDR should be represented on that table. They're a part of DSAC,and I'd rather that that be incorporated when it goes to the Board as one review by DSAC. To be fair to this panel and everybody else,then we would have seven separate columns to review seven different ways. And if there-- MR. FRANTZ: I'll make that change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other general statement I want to make is the beginning of your LDC amendment request,the second paragraph from the bottom, last line it says,this ordinance included--and it's referring to the architectural ordinance. Numerous illustrations which were intended to visually depict the standards; however,this had the unintended consequence of architectural features frequently being designed exactly as illustrated. I don't know who thought that was unintended. I thought it was intended when we adopted those,and I like the idea. So I'd just like to make--that's my first, I guess,disagreement with the way the approach on this may have been. The second one was that on January 9,2014,as discussed on Page 2,the committee members present voted 4-1 to eliminate standards entirely. Now,did those same committee members continue to amend--recommend these amendments to those sections,Jeremy,the same participants? MR. FRANTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on one hand they didn't want them at all, but for some reason they continued to rewrite them, but there their mindset was they didn't want them at all. I mean,that's kind of what's displayed here. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I don't want to speak for the committee,but that's the way it's outlined in the narrative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I don't know if anybody else has any general comments from the first few pages. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I just ask a question because-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: --at the beginning of the presentation you said this wasn't a staff proposal, and that confused me. Whose proposal is this thing? MR. FRANTZ: This is coming from the Architectural and Site Design Standards Ad Hoc Committee. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: From the committee,okay. But staff,obviously,was involved in preparing all this? MR. FRANTZ: Right. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Page 15 of 25 December 17,2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff was-- I think what they're trying to say is they didn't-- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Originate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They didn't say this is their feelings. They said this is what they were told to write up as code. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then that's for the Board to decide if the community--the Board of County Commissioners to decide if the community wants these changes as a whole. I think that's what he was trying to indicate. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And the committee was set up by who why? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeremy, I'll let you answer that. MR. FRANTZ: They were created by the BCC. At the time, in 2012,there were two amendments proposed to the architectural standards,and both the Planning Commission and the Board decided,rather than to address issues piecemeal throughout the architectural standards,that they'd like to take a comprehensive look at the entirety of the standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if we go to those spreadsheets, Page 2 of the spreadsheet starts to get into the actual discussion of the LDC changes. Now, I've been through all the pages,and some of it works and some of it I have concerns about. And it's probably two-thirds of it, I think, I don't have that many concerns about,but a third of it I still do,and that's probably where I'll be focusing today. I don't know about the rest of the panel members and how far you-all got through these documents. But what I'd like to do today is get all of our questions on the table, get the best answers we can. I think there's some further research on a couple items. One in particular that I noticed didn't seem to be addressed is the Dover-Kohl study from 2001. Jeremy, did the--did they review these standards against the policies in the Dover-Kohl document that the Board adopted? MR. FRANTZ: No,not during the committee meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because in that document they specifically refer to parking,parking spaces,the quantity of spaces,additional landscaping when the quantities exceeded,where the parking should be. The massing is a big element in there. They talk about massing extensively. They also get into issues of square footage of buildings. Now,that's already an adopted study that was done by the Board of County Commissioners in 2001, and I would certainly like to know how staff--or if staff will have some time before this comes back to compare the recommendations there to see if they differ--or where they differ from the standards that are offered here today. Is that something staff would be able to do? MR. FRANTZ: We can do that. Maybe we can consider that when we continue this to a date certain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. With that,this is not going to be an exciting discussion,folks, but we need to get it. The first item is on Page 2 of the spreadsheets. It's under purpose and intent. Does anybody have any questions concerning that language? They added some language to talk about bird collisions in regards to glazing materials.That was at the request of the Conservancy,and I think it's a pretty benign request. I don't have a problem with it. Does anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No,because it happens. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'm curious about something. I saw a comment in there that there is no mirrored glass in Collier County but,yet, I can think of two buildings that have monstrous facades of mirrored glass. And when you walk by them,there's always little dead birds on the ground. Is mirrored glass allowed in Collier County? MR. FRANTZ: Sorry. One moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something awry? MR. FRANTZ: We'll have to get back to you to answer that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 16 of 25 December 17,2015 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's a benign question. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it says in there it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi,planning and zoning director. Just related to the comment to the Dover-Kohl study. That is an adopted study, but it is a nonbinding study. I just wanted you to know there's a lot of different suggestions. There's a lot of different areas that are covered within that study. It talks about design community development,how the interconnection between separation of land uses in a play of land uses. It's advisory in its nature. We most certainly can review it against the suggestions so we give a better feedback to the Planning Commission. But I just wanted to let you know that the suggestions within that study are, indeed, suggestions and as kind of like guidelines for good planning principles. And we most certainly can look at that and provide commentary related to some of the suggestions within the proposed amendments against that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that's what I have done,and that's why I raised the question is because some of the suggestions here are not consistent with that plan,and I didn't know if staff had taken that into consideration in regards to how they evaluate it, so... Planning Commission members,we're on the bottom of Page 2,the applicability. Jeremy, as we go through these,do you want to provide a narrative with each one explaining what they are,or does the Planning Commission need that? I am --I know how--I know what I've got to do to get through,but I don't know if that's what you-all want to do. So I'm certainly open ears to any ideas that this panel may have on how to approach this document. Okay. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'd like to hear from Jeremy a little bit,you know,to make sure our conversation is focused. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree, and that's what I was--so what I'd like to do,Jeremy, is could you introduce each separated section that we're going to talk about here,or would you rather have Brad do that? I know you'd probably rather have Brad do that,but-- MR. FRANTZ: Do you want to walk through each section,or do you want an introduction to specific sections only? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,the only-- MR. FRANTZ: I can do either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have--well,we have a series of different changes to different sections of the code. If anybody on this panel has a--not in agreement with any of those sections,we need to know it. For example,on Page 2.B which takes the architectural applicability out of certain sections of our community and only applies it to a less number than currently is applied for, I need to understand that,because at this point I don't know why we would do such a thing. If you're not the right person to ask for that,maybe one of the architects who are here would like to. I'm sure they're anxious to argue. MR. FRANTZ: I think I understand then. Yeah,you want to--if you want to hear from the committee about justifications or intention,that probably would be more appropriate than having stuff describe that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So of the--I'm sorry,gentlemen. Of the three of you that are here, do any of you prefer to respond to our questions? Go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just need to make a note for the record. I believe we have team members of DSAC here,and we have two members of the architectural ad hoc committee. I have not seen anything that noticed this as a meeting of that committee. We've got two or more members here. It has not been noticed. So to the extent that this item could go back to them,this could be construed as a meeting. And so, if they're going to speak, I just have to caution them of the potential violation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means if the-- if all of you could electively speak one uniform tone together,we'd be okay. But if you individually speak, I think we have a problem with the exception of maybe a direct question; is that-- Page 17 of 25 December 17,2015 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, if they're going to--you know, it just depends on how they comment,whether it can be construed as the members communicating amongst themselves. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Dalas and I are on DSAC. So I have no problem leaving, because I've seen this once. I'll sit outside-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, I'm-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: --until you're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter. I just want to make sure--Heidi-- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's five of you here,and I'm an engineer. I'm not an architect. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, if you just observe and don't comment. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's hard for me to do, but I'll try. I'll just go to the bathroom more often. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When this started going through the process,we had an in-house architect named Madeline--and I forgot Madeline's last name. MR. FRANTZ: Bunster. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She was understanding of this section of the code, and she had worked with it quite a bit before she left. Well,unfortunately, she left not too long ago. We've just recently hired somebody brand new, but they would have no experience with this section of the code at this point in time, and so we have a dilemma. We have questions,and we need to understand what some of this means. I can read it. I can interpret it myself,but that may not be the best way to approach it. Staff is not in the position where they have the architectural experience necessary to explain this in detail or the intent of the committee. And so,with that in mind, Heidi,how could we proceed to get an understanding of some of the questions we're going to have from this? I'm assuming the Planning Commission's going to have questions. I do. I mean, I see a lot of this as being a reduction in the standards to a point where we're not going to have the character of the community that we've started with,and I'm concerned about that. So--but not all of it. There's probably two-thirds of it that will work,but there's some big items that need to be questioned,and I don't want to eliminate the committee from being able to explain themselves. So how do--what's the--what's a way we could proceed where we could have better input?Because our staff is too new at this. The new member is not going to be able to help us with this at all. Would we have to readvertise this meeting to acknowledge that other committees are present? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's how we've done it before. So it's been noticed and we've taken minutes,and that's how we've done it before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I can't really answer that question as to once they start speaking,whether that could be deemed a communication,because that would be,really,a question of fact if somebody were to sue on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS.ASHTON-CICKO: So you could stick with just one of the architects answering all the questions and the other one just observing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, at least what I'd like to accomplish is walk through these standards-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Actually,there is a notice that did go out that Mr. McLean has just shown me, so they're going to print it out and make it part of the record,and give it to the clerk. So if that is-- MR. McLEAN: Should I read it into the record? MS.ASHTON-CICKO: No,we'll just make it part of the minutes. But if that did run and,you know,you can verify that this notice was posted in various locations,why don't you just put that on the record and we'll give it to the clerk. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: And this is a notice that the committee was going to meet as well today? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 18 of 25 December 17,2015 COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's good. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And that covers DSAC and the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee? MR. McLEAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now it appears that proper notice has been had. So now we can go back to you guys being able to talk to us. So with that in mind,Jeremy would love to sit down. Who would like to stand up? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Can I ask one question?And this is the first set of these revisions, I think,that have come up since I've been on the Planning Commission. And I see,going through the spreadsheet,that there are--there are staff notes. And this goes back to my earlier question about whose proposal is this. And I'm just--you know, staff is usually who we rely upon for opinions as to everything, and so I'm curious,are there--and I haven't--I don't think I've seen any. Are there any,you know, statements from staff as to whether or not they're in favor of this, I mean, each one of these,or--I've seen notes and things about what staff presented to the committee,but I'm just confused as to what staffs role is in advising us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Jamie, I'm going to ask you to respond to that in a minute, but I do want to make it--the biggest problem we have today is the in-house architect we had who would be,you know,employed as a staff member who would normally be presenting this and normally be here to discuss it left employment with this county not too long ago,and she was the one that was most familiar with it, so we don't have a staff member who's that familiar with architectural criteria of this nature that they could respond to our questions today with the exception of Jeremy's background by writing what he was told to write by the committee. So I don't know--I'm trying to figure out a better way to approach it other than just us interpreting it ourselves and saying yea or nay,we like it or don't like it, and I'm not sure that's the best way to do this. I'd rather understand it before we weigh in on it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The committee is architects. Why not just--why do we need staff? I mean,they're professionals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Stan, I would rather hear from a staff member who would look at it maybe differently than a group of professionals employed in the community. Not saying they looked at it wrong or anything, but I'd like to have the balance of both sides,and we don't have that. We've only still got the committee's presentation,and we don't have a different perspective. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well,doesn't Matt handle that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Matt loves to be called an architect,but he's not. MR. McLEAN: Just for the record,though, Matt McLean. I'm the manager of the development review division. And over the course of the two years that we were engaged in this work with the committee, we actually went through three staff architects, so it wasn't just Madeline. Carolina Valera started the initiative. Tammy Scott was subsequent to Carolina,and then Madeline Bunster,ultimately,was the one to work towards the completion of the document. Madeline's departure of the county was prior to the time when we actually completed the section. So throughout the entire section of our work with the ad hoc committee, we did have our LDC staff members affiliated with all of the public meetings that we held throughout the entire process. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you,Matt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And,Jeremy, did you have anything you wanted to add to respond to Andy's question? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Let me--maybe I can simplify it. So would it be my--would I--let me see if I can simplify it. Can I assume,then,that these proposal--changes to the LDC,these proposed changes,that staff would be recommending approval of these changes? Because that's my question. MR. FRANTZ: In this case the amendment was--or this process was directed by the Board,and we didn't receive specific direction-- staff didn't receive specific direction to provide that same kind of,you know,a recommendation that you would get on, say,a land use petition. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Correct. Page 19 of 25 December 17,2015 MR. FRANTZ: So we--as you noted,we have some staff notes in here. And depending on the particular note,they might just be providing additional clarification, maybe some additional information. There might be some concern that's identified,but we're--we've remained neutral in the narrative. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Okay. Well --and that was what you were directed to do by the Board. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's-- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Who are the staff notes from,you or the architects that were in the process along the way here? MR. FRANTZ: It would be from multiple staff,you know, not--depending on what the particular issue was, maybe not even just the architect but additional staff members who might have some input. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And out of fairness to Jeremy, he had asked me numerous times to make sure that he was not here--to make sure we all knew he was not here to interpret what the committee was intending. He simply is introducing it to us. And with the committee members here, hopefully we can rely on them to give us some clarification. So with that, if we could proceed to the first section as the--what I'll do is I'll ask the group if we have any issues with these,and if we do,then we can ask for clarification from the committee. If we don't, we'll move on to something that we don't have questions about--or that we do have questions about. So the first one, under the applicability provisions. And I don't know who wants to address this,but I have concerns that we're eliminating a segment of our development community that is not going to be subject to these standards,and I don't know why we would want to do that. So I'd certainly need to understand from somebody what the basis of that is. MR. SCHIFFER: Mark, I think what might work--this is Brad Schiffer,for the record. What might work best is, if a couple of us are up here we can hop in on the issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. We're here to try to figure it out, so that's the best way. MR. SCHIFFER: The development community you're talking about is the commercial/industrial zones,correct? Because that's the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,basically what's happening is the change would--nonresidential PUD districts, like mixed use PUDs,research or technology park PUDs, industrial PUDs,and community facility PUDs would no longer be required to have any architectural criteria. MR. SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They wouldn't be part of that applicability clause. MR. SCHIFFER: And it's really focused within those different PUDs. The exterior on the arterial roads and stuff like that,they certainly would. But one of the big complaints we had coming from the engineers was that once you go into these commercial districts,why are we doing some of these standards on these buildings that are purely utilitarian? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well,that brings me to my--a project that I actually saw some of the concern on,and that was the Publix out at Ave Maria. They were required to have multiple facades. It was within their project. They had a design that they wanted to have. And I would understand that kind of application, but at the same time I didn't see a recommendation here to allow standards for PUDs to be written for the PUD instead of applying to the LDCs;whereas, instead of staff regulating the architectural standards within a PUD, like Ave Maria, let them do that themselves. Is that something you contemplated or had discussed? MR. SCHIFFER: And we discussed that. We are assuming a PUD is a highly-reviewed, highly-regulated thing that stands alone on its own; it is its own zoning. So we really weren't concerned that much about something that could happen in a PUD because you're writing those standards. Ave Maria,the design standards for that didn't reference, I don't think, 5.05.08. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But they're subject to it,and that's been a problem. Especially when their core area is so far from the main roads, it has no impact on the general public. So it's issues like that that Page 20 of 25 December 17,2015 you may have-- if you had recommended something that would addressed that kind of issue,that would have taken a big change in the standards probably with not being noticed by the public in general. MR. SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But,anyway, I didn't see that in here. From staffs perspective,Jeremy, in your review of this,would staff have interpreted the remaining application area to be just as Brad said, it would still apply to those areas where staff says it wouldn't apply because those areas would be facing, if they did face,arterial or collector roads? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I think that would be caught under the next section in B.2 as nonresidential buildings that is--if you want to skip to Page 3. In 2.A it states,the project site is abutting an arterial or collector road and is located in a nonindustrial zoning district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I caught that,but it says "abutting," and abutting doesn't mean anything. Abutting means you have a road and an industrial building right next to it,but you put a 1-foot cheater strip in as an easement, and you're not abutting anymore. So I think we don't--I don't like the use--that particular word for some applications like that, because abutting means you've got to be touching, and there's been creative ways to avoid that. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We--there is also--the second sentence in that statement is,this shall include project sites separated from an arterial or collector road by up to 150 feet of right-of-ways or easements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: But you're correct, it would only apply to those PUDs mentioned early in that instance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't we suggest the word "adjacent" and in that location? MR. SCHIFFER: I mean,we really spent too much time on this,you know-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "We"meaning your group or-- MR. SCHIFFER: Our group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just started. MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah,you just started, and we can add to that. The--we went through all the definitions multiple times. And prior to that it just said it was located on the road,and that,we felt,had more problems. We did try to fix the cheater strip with the 150 feet. And "abutting" and "adjacent,"we settled on "abutting." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in B we've limited it to project size located on arterial roads, so you've eliminated collector roads? MR. SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The collector roads are traveled by the public probably as much as arterials in this county, so why would you eliminate the collector records? MR. SCHMITT: When we researched it,there were hardly any collector roads. I mean,that was the--we had a lot of conversation on that,too. We've been together for a long time on this thing. So there was no real need for it. The only place it would cause trouble again is inside some of the industrial areas. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I do have the notice in front of me that we're going to give to the clerk,and it doesn't include the architectural ad hoc committee, so I would recommend sticking with just one of the committee members speaking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on and we're off. And everybody gets to relax except Brad. MR. SCHIFFER: And I can't consult him,right? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I mean,that's already happened. MR. FRANTZ: Before we continue, maybe we could take a five-minute break. I think that maybe we are looking at the wrong version or something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Let's take a break. We'll--let's come back at 10:15 and resume,try to figure out how to approach this. (A brief recess was had.) Page 21 of 25 December 17,2015 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had a--just had a discussion with the architectural committee,and in the process, it--first of all, I don't believe it's been properly advertised; is that the outcome of the discussion that happened during that break? MR. FRANTZ: No. In fact, I'd like to just read into the record really quickly the advertisement that went out just so that we're very clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: On December 9th it was posted that the Planning Commission meeting was being held today, and it says,two or more members of the Board of County Commissioners, Development Services Advisory Committee,the Floodplain Management Planning Committee,and the Architectural and Site Design Standards Ad Hoc Committee may be present and may participate at the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So is that-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There was another notice that ran on a different date, but we do have a notice that did run, and that's what Jeremy's confirming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it's okay? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The committee has clearly told us how much time they spent on this. County staff has had --worn out three staff people on this project so far,and the committee took two years to get here. We were handed this on Friday. And I reviewed it over the weekend as intensely as I could. I read the entire 109 pages,which is actually reading the thing three times. And I've got pages and pages and pages of questions. But I think that it might be better if we all were given more time to resolve and look harder at this and understand it better,maybe interacting with the committee members individually or staff members to try to see how it goes before we proceed too much further today. I think today might not be as productive as it could be if we were better prepared. Part of that problem occurs because of Pelican Marsh. We know that's a somewhat controversial project. There was 1,065 pages to that project. And that being the dominant factor for today was what many of us probably spent our time on. And for that reason, I think we ought to continue this item to a time when staff has done some research regarding the Dover-Kohl study and we've had a little ample time for ourselves to read it. It would be a great read over the holiday, like on Christmas Eve or something like that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: My kids are coming tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do the rest of you feel about that? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Bouts of insomnia,yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will put you to sleep. Any--what do the rest of you feel? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I absolutely feel the same way. I think this is a very detailed spreadsheet,and going through it,the first time I did, it's going to take some time to really get into it,and I would support a motion to continue it to another hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what I'd --I'd like to suggest that when you read it,we do away with all the pages of stuff that is redundant and stick to the spreadsheets in the back that we started working with today. Those spreadsheets seem to be the most concise way and practical way to look at it. So if you focus on that, it will be able to get done in a much more understandable manner. Yes,Charlette. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Yes. I have a question just for clarification. For example, let's just take the first one so that I can get my bearings. When the staff notes present a question like it did on Page 2, Item B,that assisted living facilities are sometimes categorized in two different ways in the county,how will we address that? Because that seems to me something that we'll have to address in addition to what's being proposed for the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll turn to staff members to see if they have--what they would like to see for direction when questions like that are posed. Page 22 of 25 December 17,2015 And, Ray,as far as elements in the LDC that are impacted by how that's interpreted,wouldn't that necessarily mean that staff would have to see-- if they're requesting a clarification and we make the clarification one way or the other,do we know,based on this writeup,how many sections of the code are affected by that? If we say all ALFs,wherever they are,are commercial whether they're in a residential PUD or not, how does that change things? For example,will the RPUD be a CPUD? Will the conditions of that PUD change in the way it's looked at for percentages and other elements? I mean,those kind of-- I think Charlette's question is valid, but we need to know the ramifications if we weigh in on a subject like that before we jump into it. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Or the process, if that's a part of this discussion as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it needs to be, but I think if we see this as a concern,we can instruct staff to prepare an analysis of that so we can address it later in the future. So out of this we can utilize that as a way to look at that in the future. That might be the best way to approach it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And,for the record, Ray Bellows. That's typically what happens with these LDC amendments. They can affect other sections of the code,and we typically try to list those sections that we identify that are--could be affected in that way in other parts of the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So as we go through the spreadsheets that are on the--the last sections of this document we've got--and we'll do this for whenever we continue this to. Those kind of questions, make notes,and then we will separately discuss those and ask staff to either proceed with a review of those or not depending on the notes. Does that work? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, let's talk about a time frame in which we can continue the discussion of these architectural standards. Jeremy,we need a little bit of work from you on the Dover-Kohl. I took a look at that. There aren't a lot of pages that are architectural in nature,but there are some. There's a half a dozen in the middle of the document. I think it starts at Page 100 or something like that. I think it's important you review that against these as well so you could offer that. I know Brad and your committee--I don't know who's in charge of the committee,so I'll just--I know Brad easiest. Rocco,okay. If you've not seen a copy of that Dover-Kohl study,we have it at the county. It's 176 megabytes, so it can't be emailed too easily. But I--next--if I can catch up with you guys, I'll make sure that you get a copy of it on a flash drive or something, so--and then you can see yourself where my concern was and see if it's valid or not. So from that perspective,Jeremy,what would be a time frame that staff could compare that item and we could continue this meeting to? And I would like some time for myself to get together with the architectural committee,however that has to be arranged so that--I have questions on every single page. I don't mean to waste you-all's time with all of my questions when a lot of them I could--they're technical in nature in the sense that I could get a clarification from them and then come back and better understand how to proceed. So I would like some time to get together with them to minimize my time of yours. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: And I was wondering if their contact information would be made available to the individual commissioners. Like, if I had a question and I couldn't go to Jeremy, I don't know the members of the committee as well as you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well,could--Ray,could you make sure we're emailed all their--it's public record. They're on a public committee, on an advisory board. So,yeah,please email all of us all the contact information. One thing you can't do is be a conduit between members. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's not,well,he said this. Can you verify it? Yes, sir, Mr. Assaad. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: A couple things. The gentlemen are here from the committee,and they took the time out of their practice to be here. Is there something that you want to add today? And,of Page 23 of 25 December 17,2015 course, we're very sorry for the inconvenience. But if there's something you want to tell us today before you go that will be helpful to us in reviewing the documents. MR. SCHIFFER: Just one thing, Mark. I think your suggestion is sitting down with us, because situations like "abutting" and "adjacent"will be much more fun to work out one on one with you, I think, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think-- I'm definitely going to do that. I think, if you give--if we could continue this to the first meeting in February,that will give us ample time after the holidays to kind of touch base and figure out how we can approach this either as individually or with a group and finish it up. MR. SCHIFFER: That's the best. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, good. With that in mind--what's the date of the first meeting in February, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The first meeting in February would be the 4th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Andy,would you like to make a motion to continue this to the 4th? COMMISSIONER SOLIS: I'll make a motion to continue this hearing to February 4th. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ROMAN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Charlette. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And I do appreciate the committee and everyone from showing up today. I think we're probably on a better,more productive tact to get this accomplished, so... And two years of work,my God. Thank you. That's a lot of work. With that,are there any members of the public here today that wish to speak on any item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. Old business, I don't think we have any. New business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made to adjourn by Diane. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Stan. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SOLIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER ASSAAD: Aye. Page 24 of 25 December 17,2015 COMMISSIONER ROMAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:24 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ,as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS,COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 25 of 25