Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/21/2005 S September 21, 2005 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONTINUATION MEETING September 21, 2005, Naples, Florida 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 2:00 p.m. in continuation of the August 17, 2005 meeting at the Board of County Commissioners' Board Room, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Robert Vigliotti Donna Reed Caron Kenneth Abernathy Lindy Adelstein Russell Budd (absent) ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, Administrator Community Development Services Catherine Fabacher, Principal Planner David C. Weeks, Planning Manager Susan Murray, Department of Zoning Development Review Page 1 September 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Call the meeting to order. Thank you. We are going to take role call. Mr. Murray? MR. MURRAY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney is not here at this time, is he? MR. MURRAY: He's here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when we gets up here we'll clarify it. Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHIFFER: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? MR. ADELSTEIN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Strain is here. Mr. Abernathy? MR. ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? MR. VIGLIOTTI: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? MS. CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bud is absent. Mr. Midney just walked in. Joe, who from your side is going to be controlling this today, as far as presentations go? MR. SCHMITT: Today we have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know where you want to start. Do you have a preference? MR. SCHMITT: It depends. We have Susan and Catherine here, who are going to be controlling the LDC issues, and I think -- I have no one that has actually submitted a public speaking request. Is anybody -- MS. FABACHER: I have one here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our preference would be to go in order, Page 2 _.,.,.."m'__""'''_''''''''''''.O,,__.__.''M''_'_.__ September 21, 2005 unless you had a reason not to. MR. SCHMITT: We may as well just go in order. Probably the lengthiest issue is going to be the issue regarding the Bayshore gateway and the final overlay. I would expect those two to be the most lengthy in regards to discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're not too far in order, so if we want to start with Item Number -- page^ 1. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Before we get started, can we set an ending time tonight? I have to leave like shortly before 6:00 myself, or are we going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought when we set this up -- by the way, this is a continuation of a meeting that started on August 18th, I believe. Is that right, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. This is a continuation of the first and only public hearing of these LDC amendments by the CCPC. It is the second meeting, and as I mentioned, it is a continuation of the prior meeting, and certainly if you do not conclude matters this evening, you're free to continue them to another meeting date and time and place, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. MR. ABERNATHY: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Would it be possible before each item that -- if we could identify whether it's from the August 10th or August 17th or September 16th or some yet another submittal of these things? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: MR. SCHMITT: Let me turn to Catherine in that, so you all know basically -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you get into that, there's a question on the table from Mr. Vigliotti about the timing of this meeting. At the last one, we discussed we normally stop at 8:00, but I think that maybe around 5 o'clock, if it's okay with this panel, we'll see where we're at and decide what we want to do. Because if we're going Page 3 September 21, 2005 to go until 8:00, we may want a short dinner break. We may just want to stop at 6:00 and re-continue at another time, so that -- does that work for you, Bob? MR. VIGLIOTTI: I have to leave at 6:00. We'll have a quorum, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at 5 o'clock, we'll discuss if we're going to take it 'til 6:00 or take it 'til 8:00, if that's okay. Now, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. I would ask Catherine to go over, just so that the board members know which packet you're working from. There have been -- there actually is only one packet in regards to the LDC items, but there have been several follow on additions, specifically noted with the Bayshore gateway. Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: Catherine Fabacher with land development review. As I indicated to you, we are working from our original packet that was sent out August 10th. I have redone the summary sheet. You should have all received a summary sheet with comments from our last meeting and items that were brought back to DSAC. We also have -- have given everybody the latest August 17th dated Bayshore Drive overlay and gateway triangle overlay in color. They're extra copies over there, and then there was also another amendment packet that was handed out at the last meeting, which was probably the straw that broke the camel's back, and that just has a few revisions to -- we're still working with that. If you don't have that copy, I have that on the table over there. That was the revisions we handed out last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, one thing I noticed, the Land Development Code Amendments Summary Sheet that you e-mailed? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: its 21 pages. Did you provide hard copies to any of the members? Page 4 September 21, 2005 MS. FABACHER: I think it was just e-mail. I do have more hard copies up here if you need -- MR. MURRAY: I would like to verify -- MS. FABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I'm asking, it's kind of hard to print some of these for some of the members. MS. FABACHER: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're probably going to need hard copies of everything that you send out. MR. VIGLIOTTI: I had said 21 pages. I have 20. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got 21. MS. CARON: One is-- MR. WHITE: What that points out obviously is that everybody's printer sees that document slightly different in terms of how it formats, so I would encourage all CCPC and staff members to utilize the section numbers we're referring to. I understand that the summary sheets help us -- keep us generally on task in navigating through this, but the section numbers are key. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Patrick, and what I think-- Catherine, what we can do is start on page one, and as you start each presentation, if you could make a note of the version date for each LDC amendment so that we're all reading from the same page, that probably will resolve the issue. MS. FABACHER: I certainly will. Okay. Now, I'm going to be working from the new summary sheet that we received. If you have the correct one, it has 20 pages, and my apologies. I did sent hard copies to everybody but Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Strain, so -- you will get hard copies, also. MR. SCHIFFER: Well, I kind of -- MS. F ABACHER: Yeah. Okay. All right. We're on page one of the summary sheet, and we are in block one, the definition of adjacent, which appears on page one of your packet dated August Page 5 September 21,2005 10th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last time, we had a discussion on this about the verbiage of the waterway being included in this. MS. FABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And actually, it works out that where it's applied in the balance of the code is more concerning than the inclusion of it in this definition, at least from the point of view that I raised last time. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's any other questions from the board. Ron, actually page one and two of the packet. MR. SCHIFFER: Aren't we waiting for a new definition? MS. FABACHER: Well, we looked at it, and we thought that we needed to put more study time into it than we had, that we should look at abutting and adjacent and adjoining in all the definitions and give you a real comprehensive review of it. MR. MURRAY: So you're withdrawing it? MS. FABACHER: Unless you have a recommendation. MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah, use the old definition. MS. FABACHER: Well, that's what will happen. We fall back on the old definition. So we'll withdraw this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we need a separate motion on each one of these? MS. FABACHER: Patrick? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There he is. MR. SCHIFFER: Then we can move them faster. So move. MR. ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You make a motion to withdraw this? MR. SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Any other Page 6 September 21, 2005 discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? This motion by Mr. Schiffer, second by Mr. Adelstein. MS. FABACHER: The next item on page one of your summary sheet and on page three of your August 10th packet is the FAR language, and I believe this is where I am to make my public apology because I represented it as being returned exactly from the old code, and the old code read, the gross floor area of a building clearly designed for a parking facility shall not be included in the floor area ratio calculation. I had put in the your packet, the gross floor area of a building or any portion thereof designed and designated for a parking facility shall not be included in the calculation of floor area ratio, so I'd like to apologize for that error and read into the record that we would like to add the sentence -- add back the end of the sentence from your old code that reads, the gross floor area of a building clearly designed for a parking facility shall not be included in the floor area ratio calculation. MR. ABERNATHY: We are deleting this -- the new sentence? MS. FABACHER: Yes. MR. SCHIFFER: But I'm not -- I like the part, and any portion thereof. In a building that has mixed uses, you would want -- the building is not clearly designed for a parking facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, first of all, this is being presented as a glitch amendment, and I'm concerned that the public thinking it was a glitch amendment as I did at first, that it's part of the old code. The language you see here is not part of the old code, and it would work to radically increase densities throughout the commercial and even residential areas. I went through the websites and pulled up floor area ratios in 19 other definitions. Eighteen of the 19 used gross, including the parking areas, except one. The one that didn't only excluded the parking areas for single family residential. Page 7 ~.._.._--- September 21, 2005 So if you start using -- excluding all those parking areas, your FAR ratio, usable for saleable square feet and leasable square feet is going to escalate, density-wise, on every site. MR. SCHIFFER: Well, we don't use FAR for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got FAR calculations in hotels that are in residential. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray for the record. You have some PUDs that will use FAR for hotels or adult congregate living facilities, as well as the code, so they are used, just not as much as most of your other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't the stewardship area around Ave Maria use them, extensively out there, as well? MS. MURRAY : Yes, they use them out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the intent that this county has worked with what's been in the old code and what's to be followed through in the new code, certainly not eliminating all this parking space and opening it up to more density for commercial without dually advertising it and airing it out in the open, I certainly think that would be fair to do. MR. SCHIFFER: I mean, I like the part that you don't punish somebody for putting up a parking garage. I mean, whether they just put it out on a level area or encourage parking garages. Would the suggestion be just -- we live with the existing wording, or is the existing wording omitted from the new code? MS. FABACHER: The existing wording was omitted from the new code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to put that back in, which does protect the issue you just said, which clearly if it's for a parking facility, it's exempt from FAR, but not every portion of a building is exempt, only if it's a parking facility. MR. SCHIFFER: Standalone parking facility? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Page 8 September 21, 2005 MR. SCHIFFER: I mean, I like the portion. That's my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any discussion among the members? MR. ABERNATHY: Well, I liked the original, but I'm really dismayed by the fact that it was changed under the guise of a glitch amendment of just bringing it forward because it does make a substantial change. It's a whole new, different ball game. MR. SCHIFFER: But in the proposal, doesn't it show underlined words? My impression would be, while you're bringing the whole definition back in and the underlined wording would be new, so I don't think there is any confusion there. I mean -- MS. MURRAY: The confusion was probably in the explanation, and you're right, it wasn't intentional. We just -- I think Catherine being a little new -- MS. FABACHER: Inexperience. Wanted to make it better for you. MS. MURRAY: -- with the terminology, so what is represented as an underline is a change. MR. ABERNATHY: Where did it come from? Why? MS. MURRAY: Actually, we had gotten -- I want to say indirectly input from the development community about the possibility of eliminating the parking structures in the calculation because of their size. They tend to eat up a lot of FAR requirements, if you're including them in the calculation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's exactly what we don't want to do. MR. SCHIFFER: Mark, when you did your little study, what was that that you're referring to? You looked at other zoning ordinances in other communities? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just went to different websites for different areas all over the country. I ran a GO OGLE search on it. Burlington is one of them, Seattle, WCEL, Chatsford, Calgory, Page 9 September 21,2005 Westlake, Fairfax, Brooklyn, Beaverton, all different places, and they did -- came back real quick with 19 of them, and of those 19, they rely on gross square footage, with the exception of the one I spoke about earlier. MR. SCHIFFER: But none of which -- I mean, we live in a flood plain. A lot of our parking structures are not even habitable space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All you're going to do is increase density on these projects. We've got enough problems with density now. I don't know why we want to go there. MR. MURRAY: If it's to be a valid amendment, couldn't it be brought back with the intent to change it, rather than what we're attempting to do here now? Would that make sense? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could be. MS. MURRAY: Well, I think what we'd like to do is -- we need to, I guess, really, is at least keep the old definition, and so if you want to recommend that we just stay with the old one, you know, we'll carry that forward with a recommendation. MR. MURRAY: I would make a motion that we would retain the old wording, and then if the development industry wishes to have it changed, they can subject it to these vetting processes. MR. ABERNATHY: Let me take one last crack at this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a motion. Did you make-- MR. MURRAY: I made a motion. MR. MIDNEY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just get into discussion. MR. ABERNATHY: Discussion of the motion? I notice under reason, the statement, this exclusion, which refers to the parking facility, was part of the LDC prior to recodification. Now, from all I can gather, from what's been said here today, that's just simply not true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. MURRAY: I already clarified that, so I'm not -- again, it Page 10 September 21, 2005 wasn't intentional. I think it was just a little bit of misunderstanding on Catherine's part, and I think, just to kind of follow up on what I said before, Commissioner Schiffer, I think the reason we're seeing more of this being questioned is for the obvious reason of cost of land, and people are trying to maximize their site, so in order to not use a lot of their site for parking, they're building up, obviously, instead of out, and so the parking garages are eating up their square footage. It hasn't really been an issue before, but lately -- MR. MURRAY: That may very well be a good argument and should be subjected to the question, but for the moment, we're being -- we're looking at what this language was intended to cover, which doesn't cover it, or we should go back, as I made my motion, to go back to the original language. MR. SCHIFFER: Let me just say one thing. Our code use very little. I mean, most codes use it for all the commercial. We hardly use it. It's only in some residential. We encourage parking garages in other parts of the code. We allow people extra height to encourage people to put their parking in parking garages, so I don't think this would improve the community, to discourage them. MS. MURRAY: Generally, your commercial zoning districts and your commercial PUDs for the most part aren't going to use FAR. It's more the exception than the rule, so what -- they're going to have the ability to use their site to the extent that they can meet all the land developing code regulations with landscaping, water management, parking, and everything else that's required, and that's going to maximize their site. MR. SCHIFFER: And, Mark, we don't use FAR to create density, so essentially by not allowing this, people will be discouraged from the use of parking garages, which will cause more sprawl across the land with open parking lots, which I think is a negative. We set the density in the PUD in other methods. We don't use FAR like those other codes do. Page 11 September 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they use a net building for calculation of usable square footage, then they've got to put that parking somewhere, so they'll end up putting more of it outside, as well. MR. SCHIFFER: Right. I mean -- and I think we want to evolve the town from the tall condo with the sea of parking. We want to start putting the parking in the parking garages underneath the condos. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the FAR, though, as Susan said, is used a few times in commercial and maybe some PUDs. MR. SCHIFFER: I don't -- it's not used on any of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see the harm in leaving the language like it was advertised to be. I think it's used in the current -- MR. SCHIFFER: Because it will encourage people to use surface parking, versus -- MR. MURRAY: I ask that we call the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion on the floor. Discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor? Anybody opposed? MR. SCHIFFER: Me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion was to replace the language with the old language as it is in the old code. We're on page four. MS. FABACHER: Okay. We're still on summary sheet one, page four, the definitions of lot depth and width measurements. You asked that we bring it back this meeting to clarify lot widths on cuI de sacs and five-sided lots. Unfortunately, we have not had the staff or the resources to put on this in the short time line, so what is your recommendation? Would you like it withdraw it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think this meeting's going to be continued until October for at least one other, that's the Golden Gate master planning review. We're going to have some discussion on that I would assume today, but I know it needs to be continued, as well. MS. FABACHER: All right. Page 12 September 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So would that give the staff more time to come back with language? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That okay with the rest of the panel? MR. SCHIFFER: Remember I volunteered to help. MS. FABACHER: Right, to help. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, if we're ready, we're going to move to page two of the summary sheet, and the definitions of the four types of restaurants which were taken verbatim from the old code. MR. MURRAY: And I have a question, if I may. MS. FABACHER: Yes. MR. MURRAY: We speak of restaurant drive through, then we speak of restaurant fast food, but when we read the definitions, it seems to exclude -- if I go to a Burger King, I can park my car and I can go inside, or I can drive around and I can pick up food. According to my understanding of these definitions, that doesn't seem to be allowable here. MS. F ABACHER: Right. Right. I understand. MR. MURRAY: So they didn't modify it? MS. F ABACHER: We didn't modify for the same reason that I gave on the lot with the depth. We just haven't had time. We worked on other amendments, but -- MS. MURRAY: Well, actually, I think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Doesn't fast food restaurant fill what you just said? MR. MURRAY: Yeah, but if you read this, you find out that it's not covered the way it should be covered to allow for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For what? I'm trying to understand. It says an establishment where food is prepared to be served to customers in a ready-to-consume state for consumption, either within the restaurant building or outside of the building. Isn't that what Burger King does? Page 13 September 21, 2005 MR. MURRAY: Restaurant drive through, a fast food facility with one or more drive through lanes where food is ordered through a speaker phone and menu located in the drive through lane. This type of facility has no indoor seating or food ordering. Now it's a different feature. What do we do for a place like Burger King and McDonald's CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Slow down a little bit. She's trying to-- MR. MURRAY: Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are two definitions on the page. MR. MURRAY: I know. If you look at the next definition of fast food, it doesn't allow for the vehicles, doesn't allow for the drive through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're saying you want a definition for a combination -- MR. MURRAY: It should be there. MS. MURRAY: We're talking about primary or principal uses here, so I guess the best way to explain it is to look at the two different restaurant types. Like if you have Checker's versus a McDonald's. Checker's, you're primarily driving through the pick up. I mean, you're not stopping to park and eat or go inside or walk inside and order, pick up, sit at a table, et cetera. You're pretty much 98 percent of the time driving through the pick up. There may be a few parking stalls where somebody walks up to a window, but everything is outside, the pick up, or there may be one or two seats outside, but that's the primary principal use issue. Now, with a drive through window like on a McDonald's, that's considered more of an accessory type of -- MR. MURRAY: It doesn't say so here, and I can only read and understand what my mind allows me to, so if I understand it, you're saying that that's covered, that would have no problem with anybody MS. MURRAY: Correct. Page 14 September 21, 2005 MR. MURRAY: -- then I'm fine, but it didn't read that way for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's no other discussion, is there any reason we don't want to move this then forward? MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll make a motion. MR. SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, second by Commissioner Schiffer. Now, is there any discussion? MR. MURRAY: Well, do we want to move it forward? MR. SCHIFFER: Aren't we waiting for the staffs response in reply? MS . MURRAY: Well, the conversation that I had in my notes that we talked about last time was -- I think it was Commissioner Strain, asked about in the restaurant drive through definition where it says speakerphone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. MURRAY: And I think he asked for some clarifications, what if you just drove up to a window, would that be the same, and, you know, we indicated yes, and we could certainly clarify that if that's still the planning commission's wishes, but that was my recollection. MR. SCHIFFER: But there was other stuff. For example, B, I noted was not a -- you know, it says it was not a characteristic. MS . MURRAY: Right. You asked that that be taken out. I was just focusing on those first two. Then I think there was a question on B about table service, self service rather than table service, and some clarification, I think, was asked for, like, you know, table service would be a waiter, rather than self service, where, like, you would walk up and order your stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, it's my understanding right now the code doesn't have these definitions in it. So these are being Page 15 September 21, 2005 brought back in. MS. MURRAY: These are the old definitions, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're being brought in to kind of help with the situation right now. I think if we at least bring them in, it's better than not having them at all. If they need to be tweaked, we can always do that in a cycle next year for varying nuances like we're talking about. MR. SCHIFFER: We can bring them in perfectly now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can, but staff has indicated they haven't had time to address the issues we brought up last time. That's why I'm mentioning it. MR. SCHIFFER: But there'll be others, so let's let staff clean it up? MS. MURRAY: Well, I think we didn't understand your complete direction. I had notes about removing E. You said it's not a MR. SCHIFFER: -- characteristic. MS . MURRAY: Yeah. Please eliminate, and that's fine, but the other notes I just have were just clarification, which I don't have a problem with trying to do that now if you want. Whatever the board wants to do. MR. MURRAY: Mark, are we clear that since they were admitted during recodification that the definitions that we have here are those from the original code? MS. FABACHER: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't notice any blatant changes. MR. MURRAY: They are the same? MS. MURRAY: And we've been using them without difficulty for years, so other than when we found out they were missing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a motion made and seconded-- MR. MURRAY: -- to retain them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to retain them, right. All those in Page 16 September 21, 2005 favor? Anybody opposed? That one goes through. MR. SCHIFFER: Just for clari -- that's retained and kind of tweaked a little bit? I mean, you're going to fix them? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think retain-- MS. FABACHER: We'll retain them and you can tweak them for the next cycle if that's your direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just get them back in the code. We're on page seven. MS. FABACHER: Yes, we're on page two of the summary sheet and page seven of your packets, sporting and recreation camps, and that is exactly the same issue. It is brought back verbatim because it was requested by staff because of -- an applicant has come in with this type of project, and we noted that it had been omitted from the table of permitted uses, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry, not permitted, conditional and accessory uses. They'll still have to go through conditional approval process. . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During that process we can pare down any concerns we have. MS. FABACHER: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any comments from the Planning Commission? MR. SCHIFFER: So move. MR. MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Murray. All those -- any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Anybody opposed? MS. FABACHER: Okay. We're going to go-- MR. ADELSTEIN: I have a slight question, actually. It's got sections 2.03.07 and that's the Golden Gate Parkway. On the one we got August 18th, we also have a section 2.03.07, and that's TDR Page 1 7 September 21, 2005 credits. MS. F ABACHER: Oh, well, that's from Special Cycle -- that was from Special Cycle 2A, the TDR credits. MR. ADELSTEIN: The point I'm making is, how do we get the same numbers? We have Section 2.03.07, and you have a Section 2.03.07 on two separate issues. MS. FABACHER: Oh, correct, Commissioner, but there are different numbers like I and Nand L. There are subsections. MR. ADELSTEIN: There's an N and I, then there's one with absolutely nothing else but 2.03.07. I just want to know if it's typographical or where the situation is. MR. WHITE: It may be an omission that in the future we all would be well advised to make sure we're at least giving those capital letter subsections in the amendments. MR. ADELSTEIN: On page seven, the 2.03.07 has no caption number, and page one on August 18th has the same thing, 2.03.07, with no other caption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're jumping ahead, now. We're on page three. MR. ADELSTEIN: Yeah. Well, this was on page one, so I'm just trying to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is the special cycle that we're already finished with, right? This one? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It said page one of the special cycle involving the TDR process is -- shows a discrepancy in the numbers between page seven and today, so let staff look at that and see what the problem is. MR. ADELSTEIN: Right. All I wanted to do is bring it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Let's go back to page three of our summary sheet and page nine of the LDC amendments. MS. FABACHER: Okay. All right. That would be the Page 18 ".'.".---- September 21, 2005 definition of the waterfront yard, and that again was brought back verbatim from the old code, and same -- you asked for more clarification, but we worked on other amendments extensively and didn't have time to go back and revise this one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is the exact language in the old code? MS. FABACHER: This is the exact language. MR. MURRAY: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion -- okay, let's take it a little slower. Mr. Murray, did you that motion? MR. MURRAY: Motion? I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Adelstein. Is there any discussion? MR. ABERNATHY: What is the motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve the language under yard waterfront LDC. MR. ABERNATHY: Not wait for the clarification? MR. SCHIFFER: The issue was over measuring over the access easement, which I'm not sure -- we have situations I know where we have access easements along the waterfront, and we're not measuring from the edge of that access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got to measure to the legal line. This one references property line, bulkhead, shoreline, seawall, or high water mark, whichever is the most restricted. MR. SCHIFFER: Or accesses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't think -- does it list accesses on there? MR. SCHIFFER: Third sentence in. The access is a big concern tome. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Excuse me. I said it was brought back without changes, however, I did change the citation at the end to 40203A, table four, whereas before it referenced the old numbers from Page 19 September 21, 2005 the old code, so I just updated the citation to our new numbering system. MR. ABERNATHY: Well, let me renew my question. Last time we saw this, we said it needs further clarification. Are we now waiving that notation of ours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're either going to waive it-- MS. FABACHER: -- or are we going to bring it back next cycle? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or bring it back next cycle or put this in place so they have something to work with and bring back a correction next cycle. MR. ABERNATHY: Funny way to run a railroad. MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah, and ultimately, they're just throwing work til tomorrow. Why don't we just solve it today while we have it in front of us? I mean, we've got enough to do up here now. MR. MURRAY: Is there plausibility we can solve it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, staffs still going to have to take our comments, come back in summary form for next meeting for us to review what the final draft is, unless we come up with the final language, but I'm not sure by doing so at this meeting, it's going to have the appropriate research. MS. FABACHER: Exactly. Might I suggest that we do work on it in the interim and consult you bye-mail because you know we do download other codes and look at what other codes have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's any question on the panel that we ought to bring it back in October when we continue this meeting. MR. MURRAY: I withdraw my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion's been withdrawn, and we're going to ask to continue it until the next meeting. MR. ABERNATHY: I just have a feeling if we approve these things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 20 September 21, 2005 MR. ABERNATHY: We'll never see it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHIFFER: It's a good feeling, Ken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the next one you're going to be real happy with. Its pages of signed ordinances. MS. FABACHER: Well, actually, no. Let me get my paper here. It's not as -- it's not as bad as you think. You directed us -- at the last meeting we discussed the fact that you directed us to go out, go through and search out and see where -- it was suggested we use the -- search the code and see where these definitions were referenced in the code and if any of them were not referenced in the code. So -- which we have done, and we found that there are three definitions that are not referenced and used in the code, and that would be -- I'm on page 13 of your packet. That would be the top of the page, sign combination, a sign which is made up or two or more signs, inclusive of billboards. That did not appear anywhere in the code, so we may strike that one. It's your preference. The next definition, sign combination, farm, a temporary sign placed in advance of issuance of a certificate of occupancy of a building or structure, indicating the name of the building or structure, the architects, contractors, and other similar information regarding the building or structure. Construction signs do not contain any promotional or sales material. That one did not appear to be referenced in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to talk a little slower. This lady's fingers are just burning up. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. Do you need me to repeat that? COURT REPORTER: No. MR. WHITE: Oh, please don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just read the header. MS. FABACHER: Okay. The last definition that did not appear Page 21 -<---.'..,,--._- September 21, 2005 in the code is on the top of page 14, and that is sign, farm, organization, so -- MR. ABERNATHY: Is anybody claiming that these have been put in here in anticipation of something that's about to happen? MS. FABACHER: No. I met with sign review staff. No. MR. ABERNATHY: So there's no really rational basis for them staying in? MS. FABACHER: Right. At one time, they may have had-- been germain to some of our previous records, you know, regulations, but as you suggested, we ran it on the union code, and these were the only ones that were not referred to in our regulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then to meet the consistency with the idea of a glitch amendment, we have to accept all this except for those three? MS. FABACHER: Right. MR. ADELSTEIN: So moved. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Second. MR. SCHIFFER: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Discussion? MR. SCHIFFER: I'd like to talk about some of these. Some of them are confusing. On page 14, there's a ground sign which is aka monument sign. There's a monument sign, there's a pole sign. I mean, do we need all these definitions, and what do they really mean? MR. MURRAY: Why aren't they part of the code? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a glitch amendment issue on this one. MS. FABACHER: They were all part of the code, and the reason they came back was that the sign -- people in the sign review department have problems with -- they're using a Xerox copy of these from the old one because when applicants come in, there's some-- always some discussion or argument over what constitutes a certain Page 22 September 21,2005 type of sign. Therefore, that's why they asked us to put it back in, so that they could point to it. Instead of a Xeroxed sheet, they could point to it in the code and say, this is what the definition is, and there's no argument because people can interpret a certain type of sign any way they see fit and argue that, so the review staff needs to have the ability to point to our Land Development Code and say, this by law is what the definition is. MR. MURRAY : Well, I'm certainly in favor of clear definitions. Go ahead. MR. SCHIFFER: The concern was that a lot of the definitions were taken out of the code, the reasoning for it, and Patrick would know better than anybody, is because the definitions were actually putting requirements on signs, and it was something that was taken care of in the sign ordinance, not in the definitions -- MS. F ABACHER: Well, we had planned, since this had gone before DSAC and everything as is. They have made up revisions to take that out, but we thought, just to get something in for now, we would present that to you at the next cycle, to remove the operational prOVISIons. MR. SCHIFFER: But has the staff, I mean, reviewed the signed ordinance? In other words, it's hard for me to believe that with the volume of signs we're talking about, it's not in the sign ordinance, that portion of it, so therefore it didn't need to be in the definition. Is that the case, or -- because this is a lot of stuff taken out. I don't think it would have been taken out frivolously. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record. I think you're kind of asking me to know what was in the head of our consultant at the time, and I'm not sure I can really answer that. The intent behind the recodification was not to change any of the regulatory rules. I mean, you know, we talked about that, but I think from what I understand from some of Diana's problems, and I've talked to her Page 23 September 21, 2005 about this, too, is that that is actually kind of what happened when some of these definitions were removed, right or wrong, and I agree our intent also was to remove regulatory provisions out of the definitions, but to kind of solve the issue now, we thought we would just put them back in with a plan later to come back and actually clean them up, and I've talked to Diana about, too, some other changes to the sign code, as well, for government buildings and things like that, so we didn't really plan in our work schedule to do a wholesale review of the definitions, only to just try to stick them in now with a plan later to come back, and that's why they're here before you again. MR. MURRAY: I -- go ahead. MR. SCHIFFER: Well, what the staff is saying is that without these definitions, the sign ordinance part of the LDC is not working? Is that what they're saying? MS. FABACHER: What we're saying is is that there are disputes with all the applicants over what a certain -- what constitutes a certain kind of sign, and so currently they're working with a Xerox copy of the old definitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no harm done, Brad, in putting this in. MR. SCHIFFER: Well, I want to make sure there's no harm done. I mean, I'd hate to have something here conflict with the regulatory language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's why they did the search from our comments last time, in order to discover that. MR. SCHIFFER: And you don't find any grief? MS. FABACHER: No, we did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They found three items that needed to be extracted from this in order to be consistent. MR. SCHIFFER: I thought the search was just to see if the words were used in our regulations. MS. FABACHER: That's what it was. Page 24 ..·..~.'.D_..· R September 21, 2005 MR. WHITE: That's correct. However, what the staff has told you is that based upon their analysis in comparison of those definitions to the operative provisions, that they believe a wholistic, comprehensive review of the definitions and that portion of the LDC is warranted, and that in the interim, solely to allow those discussions by various applicants to be resolved through the addition of the prior definitions, that they believe that is the more appropriate course of action at this time, and if you so direct as a favorable motion on this particular matter, that they bring those things back as this promised to you in the spring, then I think that would resolve the matter. MR. SCHIFFER: I like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the motion that was made was to recommend moving this forward. Mr. Murray, you have another question? MR. MURRAY : Yeah, I have. It may be farfetched, but I thought I remembered that we have a 4- H Club out by the grounds, the fairgrounds, and I just wondered if we wouldn't create a problem if they ever wanted to put up a sign out there. I don't know how significant this is, certainly, and if it wasn't in the code originally, probably it's inappropriate to try and put it in there. MR. SCHIFFER: We have a farm sign that will take care of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've got five pages of signs to pick from. They can find one. MR. MURRAY: Okay. So we're comfortable with that? All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now the motion was made, I'm assuming, to exclude the three definitions that were not part the old code? MR. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Having finally discussed this, all those in favor of the motion? Anybody opposed? MR. WHITE: I'm assuming for clarification purposes, Mr. Page 25 _'_"'"'4""'__,_",-;,_",",,~" September 21, 2005 Chairman, that the form of the motion included direction to staff to bring the matter back as they so indicated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that needs to be a motion. I would assume that was part of it. I know that they were going to -- MS. MURRAY: I'm noting -- and I think maybe what we could do is follow up with you in the memo and one of your packets after this, just outlining everything that we talked about bringing back for next cycle, so you can match it up with your notes, and then we're all on the same page. Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, do you want -- are you saying that should be in the form of a motion? MR. WHITE: No, sir. I'm saying if that's what the form of the motion was. I just wanted it clearly expressed. I'm comfortable with your direction as explained in the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to page four of the summary sheet. MS. FABACHER: Okay. This is the Conservation Collier lands amendment to the essential services provision, and we have -- Alex Sulecki's here, director of the Conservation Collier lands, and we do have a handout for you because we had some input in the interim over some legal issues with the -- some of the oil and gas industry personnel over the fear of losing some of their permitted rights under the existing zoning, underlying zoning districts. So Alex is going to give you an overview, and then I think we'll discuss the changes with you, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's fine. MS. SULECKI: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, my name is Alexander Sulecki. I wish I was a director of something, but I'm not. I'm just the coordinator of the Conservation Collier program. You have in your packets a copy of the proposed LDC amendment for Sections 1.08.02, adding a definition for Conservation Collier lands, and 2.01.03, adding Page 26 September 21, 2005 Conservation Collier lands as an essential service permitted by right in all zoning districts and identifying the minor improvements and conditional us improvements, and I've handed you some minor changes to that, and I'd like to give you an overview and identify what changes were made. As you know, the Conservation Collier program is the county's land acquisition program authorized by voters in a 2002 county-wide referendum. The goals are to acquire, protect, restore and manage environmentally sensitive lands in Collier County for the benefit of present and future generations. One of our primary goals because these lands have been purchased wholly or in part through ad valorem assessments is to provide reasonable public access for citizens to partake and enjoy various outdoor activities in environmentally friendly manner. As we began to buy land and plan for this public access, we realized that under many of the zonings, we could not do so without individually rezoning each property as we purchased it, which was very time consuming and expensive. So after some staff discussions, it was determined that the best way to accomplish our public access goals was to make the changes in the LDC that you see before you. So we've added Conservation Collier specifically as an essential service and defined a minimal provision for public access that would allowed by right, while still going through the permitting process for anything that requires a permit, and these include a walking trail with a section that's in compliance with ADA requirements, a parking area for less than 20 cars, a rest room under 500 square feet in size, an informational kiosk and one ground light. For major improvements, anything more than this, we'll go through a conditional use process, and the changes that you see are to add the word "passive" to describe minimal uses. It's in red, and this may already be in your book because that was a change made by the development services advisory committee. Page 27 September 21,2005 The other changes to correctly identify that hiking trails are a use allowed by right and to add language that applies these allowed uses to conservation easements, as well as fee simple acquired lands, and these were changes that were recommended by the Conservation Collier advisory committee at our last meetings. And then also, we wanted to clarify that this change that we're making neither reduces nor expands current gas and mineral rights as they exist, and that was a suggestion from Barron Collier companies. Mr. Brian MacKenzie, who represents them, is here today and may want to speak with you about that, and that's what I have for you. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. MR. MIDNEY: If we're buying these lands through Conservation Collier, why are we worried about retaining oil and gas exploration rights? Is the county planning on exploring these lands, or are we not buying the mineral rights? MS. SULECKI: I'm going to ask, maybe, Patrick to answer that one, but my quick understanding is that we cannot buy the rights. They are not for sale. So on some properties, these rights exist. There have been agreements made, and that we are simply sticking by those agreements that were made previously. MR. WHITE: Those are the facts. I have no legal opinion about them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When this came up, this situation, a lot of times they can directionally bore from off site, and they need the right to pull the minerals out from under the site, but by directional boring, they still have the right to do that without disturbing the site itself. Brian, I know nothing gets by with oil and gas in Collier County without Brian's comments. MR. MACKENZIE: Actually, it was -- Brian MacKenzie representing Collier Resources Company. When I read the initial Page 28 September 21, 2005 proposed amendment, I was -- my concern actually was less direct than that. My concern was that in areas where we would already be allowed to do this, which is primarily conservation and rural ag, that by installing Conservation Collier lands, we may have changed the zoning and exclude our ability to access our separate mineral estate. What we've changed the language to accommodate here is that -- not just for oil and gas, but for all land uses -- the zoning, the underlying zoning, wherever the Conservation Collier lands are established is not changed. It's not made greater or not made less. And then we just made an affirmative statement about the permitting conditional uses relative to oil and gas over our separate estate. MR. MIDNEY: So you're saying that if the taxpayers buy some land to be used for conservation, that Collier still has, Baron Collier still has the right to drill for oil and gas there because that is not for sale? MR. MACKENZIE: Only if they own the mineral rights. MR. WHITE: If I may interrupt just to help clarify? There is an absolute distinction between the ownership of the oil and the gas mineral rights, which are a property right, and regulatory permission by rules in the LDC or elsewhere to perform either exploration activities, extraction activities, processing activities. So when we're discussing the matter, I'm just hoping we can be all clear about the difference between property rights and the regulations of how you may access and use those property rights. The government is free to regulate how you use those property rights, the same way we do your property rights of ownership, of the fee for residential, commercial, industrial, and so on. MR. MIDNEY: But I thought if you bought something that you were the one that had the rights. MR. WHITE: I think you'd have to look to the scope of each of those contracts. My understanding is, from what Brian is saying and Page 29 September 21, 2005 what I'm hearing from Alex and others is that the intent of the program, the Conservation Collier program, is not to buy those necessarily ownership rights. They may not even be for sale. MS. SULECKI: That's correct. MR. MIDNEY: They're an easement, then? MR. WHITE: They are a species of easement, I believe, yes. They're subsurface rights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? MR. ADELSTEIN: There's a complete difference between the property, ground, and what's under it. You can buy -- I own a piece of property. I sold the mineral rights to XYZ company. They have the mineral rights. I own the land. This is the same thing they're doing. Its two separate purchases, and I think that's the way it would work, absolutely the way it should be. MR. WHITE: In general, when you buy land as fee simple, which is kind of a lawyerly word, you own all of those rights, from the center of the core of the earth out to the ends of the universe. However, here we're only buying, essentially, sounds like surface rights, which include that part of the land, the fee, that is regulated by the Land Development Code as we're proposing today, and is intended to leave unchanged how we otherwise were previously regulating access to, exploration of, development and extraction for the underlying subsurface oil, gas and mineral rights. We didn't want to change any of how that operated before. We simply wanted to facilitate being able to use surface rights that were being acquired by the Conservation Collier lands program, so that they were able to be developed, consistent with the Conservation purpose, allowing passive and other kinds of recreational uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you have something you wanted to add? MS. SULECKI: May I add something quickly to that, which we would buy them if they were for sale, but they are not for sale. That's Page 30 September 21, 2005 on what they call a hundred year event. MR. MURRAY: Hundred year -- right. So an extraordinary event such as Katrina would just basically wipe everything away, if they were below the line to begin with, so the higher we go, the better off we are? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. The higher you go. You at least want -- you have to be above the FEMA flood elevation or you have to flood-proof, or you can't get a building permit. MR. MURRAY: Okay. It seems the decision, then -- I think I understood your decision process was to try and accommodate those who're already established, but maybe the redevelopment should be to a higher level to allow -- if we're going to people -- put people in a flood zone, we want to protect them as best we can and their property. MR. JACKSON: Again, I don't have an argument. This wasn't asked for. To get it passed through the DSAC, we put it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, to get a better rating from FEMA and to get better points, if we required one foot of freeboard -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that give us a better FEMA rating countywide? If we started doing it as a -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes, and that is being proposed at the Board of County Commissioners of one foot above the bas one elevation, what they call one foot of freeboard. That would be in the building department. It would be above and beyond -- it would be part of the building department, building committee issue. We would certainly want to reference it in the LDC, if they want to define it here, but that's a policy decision the Board's going to have to address, and it does add to our overall community rating system, point system, for Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After all that's happened, it seems ironic that we're looking to go backwards instead of forwards. It costs less to go up than it does to go down like this is being proposed unless the Page 102 September 21, 2005 flood prevention -- MR. SCHMITT: Just as a sidebar, the flood ordinance that is going to be heard by the Board on Tuesday was overwhelming rej ected by the DSAC in regards to many of the proposals for improving the overall community rating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The CRA? For? MR. SCHMITT: Development Services Advisory Committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're made up of? I rest my case, and I think the new court reporter is here, and with this point, I'm going to take a 10-minute break, and we can exchange personnel. (Court reporter change at 5:00 p.m.) Page 103 September 21, 2005 ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody would come back to their seats, please. Where's Mr. Midney -- Mr. Adelstein, Mr. Abernathy and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Schiffer's here. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, somebody -- there's a group of you that are leaving at 6: 00. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All of us. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One or two -- okay -- well, somebody -- yeah, but I mean -- somebody had to leave a little bit early. I wanted to give that person the benefit of discussion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Midney said a quarter of. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then before a quarter of, I wanted to at least reschedule the next meeting at a convenient time so I know that he can be here. So, since he's not here now, let's just go right into the agenda, continue on with the issues. FEMA. I think your understanding that the way it's written now isn't one that we like, even though DSAC may like it. I hope that you'll come back with something that's -- and I would suggest looking at some freeboard to actually instead of hinder, help our FEMA rating, so -- MR. JACKSON: Mr. Schmitt and I talked offline, and we'll discuss it and come back with something. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I'll give -- he and I and Bob Wiley will look at this. Because I want to make sure we're on the same wavelength in regards to the guidance to the rest of the county as well. So I understand. And I think David's agreeable to complying with the requirements as specified. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under the minimum -- MR. EHARDT: Excuse me, could I just ask a question? What would be not acceptable as far as the height above the Page 104 September 21, 2005 existing sidewalk? Because most of the -- on Bayshore they spent a lot of money putting in this new sidewalk and landscaping. But what would be -- I'm just asking. I'm not holding you to it, but, I mean, are we talking about five feet is not acceptable, two feet is acceptable? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'd like to do is look at the data and then let's see what it is. I mean, it's going to base on that. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, where some of us are thinking, with all the hurricane activity and the fact that it's going to get worse, not better, whatever buffer you can provide is actually an improvement over what we have, rather than go below what we've already got. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Absolutely. Besides, anything that would diminish the pedestrian aspect of it would be unacceptable, too. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the next issue is the minimum floor area that I had. 700 square foot gross floor area for each building on the ground floor? You mean each unit, don't you? MR. EHARDT: What page are we on? I'm sorry. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 36. Same page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's wrong with a bunch of little buildings, Mark? ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine, if that's what you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was facetious. MR. JACKSON: That's minimum. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's minimum, okay. MR. JACKSON: It says minimum floor area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'll call to your attention that in -- MR. JACKSON: And that's already in the LDC for a lot of property, you know, they have a minimum size so you don't end up Page 105 September 21, 2005 with too many small boxes. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's an awful small building. I just thought it meant unit, and I wanted to ask. Building height, you have -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would like to comment. And there's 750 feet is the minimum in the other document. So you need to look at that. MR. JACKSON: Okay. That could be scrivener again. It's could have been my typing. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your building height, you have 14 feet building height equals one story. Are you talking zoned height or actual height? MR. JACKSON: That's actual height. And that happens to be in the Compo Plan. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's actual height? MR. JACKSON: Yeah. I mean, for determining the height of the building. You don't have to build to 14 feet, but it gives you -- there's a lot of commercial people would like to have a higher ceiling on the first floor for the mechanicals or for the ambience or whatever the store may be. And that's spelled out here: For the purpose of the overlay, each 14 feet of building height shall be considered one story. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then let's jump to the top of the next page then to follow this question. Top of the next page -- and I'm going to get back to this other page yet -- but it says that the first floor ceiling height at the sidewalk level should be no less than 12 feet and no more than 18 feet. So that means you could have an 18- foot high first floor but it's actually one-and-a-third stories, or something like that? MR. EHARDT: Yeah, the 14 feet in the Compo Plan, I believe, was just to determine the overall height of the building, the overall height dimension, if you had so many floors -- to get -- because that's Page 106 September 21, 2005 how we arrived at the 42 and 56 for three stories and four stories. But inside you can vary the ceiling heights and so forth. MR. JACKSON: Like a bank would want a very large room anteroom at 18 feet. But to determine the height of the building, okay, that's just from the base floor to the eave, that's -- 14 foot was a measurement tool. What you do inside the building here, we try to give some lines between 12 and 18. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But your statement here says 42 feet in height but four additional feet for the parapets. MR. EHARDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So it's not going to be 42 actually, it's going to be 46. MR. EHARDT: Well, the dimension is to the eave of the building, the way we're measuring height. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But we asked was it actual height or -- MR. EHARDT: Okay, I'm sorry, it's to the eave of the building. This is the actual height of the -- it's to the eave of the building, how we're measuring height. You could have a hip roof would take it up another 10 feet or you could have a parapet four feet high that went around it that would make it -- I'm sorry. Or you could have a parapet, which you get another four feet above there. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's kind of work on the same page. We have two definitions of height now in the code. One is called zoned height and one is called actual height. I need -- from my understanding of what you're trying to say, is which one are you referencing when you say three stories or 42 feet? Is it the zoned height or the actual height? MR. EHARDT: The zoned height to the eave of the building. If you're talking the absolute top, tip of the building, we're not measuring that. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't have a statement Page 107 September 21, 2005 for actual height in here, you've just got zoned height? MR. EHARDT: No. We assume if it's a parapet, it's another four feet. If it's a hip roof or some other type of, you know, sloping roof on it, it could be more than that. It just depends on the pitch and so forth of designing that. MR. SCHMITT: I think your point -- Mr. Chairman, excuse me for interrupting, but you're right, you're on the right track, and I think we need to make sure, because we do measure height differently based on -- well, we measure height the same, but it's -- the point of reference is different based on the type of roof line. And I think both need to be the same. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. And I want to somehow by next -- by the time this is brought back, figure out where these heights are in relationship to the definitions in the code. MR. JACKSON: Well, we did that with DSAC. We had -- we initially put some height and put some diagrams in there, and all of a sudden everybody got confused, because it was referencing what they have in the LDC, that it went from the first habitable floor to some mid-range between the eave and the peak of the roof, whatever the definition was. The DSAC was adamant: Go from the first habitable floor to the eave. And he said that's something that everybody can measure. They referenced Duwaney, Zeider, Plyaburg (phonetic). They referenced a whole bunch of different things, that it was easy and based. Because the thing that varies out of all these measurements is the roof, what type of roof, you know, a very steep -- I mean, how -- if it was a church, you know, the steeple goes way up there. So, I mean, there's different kinds of shapes of roofs. They said something that is always the same is the eave. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Dave, you're measuring it from the sidewalk, which is not the same. I would rather go from the habitable floor, especially with the conversation we just had. Page 108 September 21, 2005 MR. JACKSON: Well, the sidewalk came about back from the NFIP elevation for commercial buildings again. So we're trying to be consistent in talking about what was what. They wanted us to build down at the sidewalk level. That was the level of the first habitable floor, so we referred to it. Now, if we go back and change the elevation to be with FEMA, whatever, then we'll have to change that definition too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, would you have a problem eliminating the stories concept and just go with feet? In other words, is the 14 foot in there to prevent somebody from having a larger than 14- foot story? MR. EHARDT: I don't know, because that's -- 14 foot's in the Compo Plan, and that's when they talk about stories, with the 14 feet, that's how they -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My suggestion is, why don't we eliminate the story concept at all and just stay with the -- MR. EHARDT: Well, you may have to change the Compo Plan, I don't know. The measurement you may have to -- you have to live with that. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let David Weeks possibly comment on that. David? MR. WEEKS: I think we need to keep that reference to the 14 feet to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. As they've already stated, it specifically states that one story will equal 14 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And David, is that to prevent taller than 14- foot stories, or just give you a rule of thumb on a height what a story is? MR. WEEKS: My recollection is, is that it was to account for the varying heights. Reference was made earlier to a bank. We recognize that some buildings want to have a taller story than others. Page 109 September 21, 2005 That 10- foot rule of thumb doesn't work for all types of development. So the 14 feet was to allow for that variation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but this regulation requires greater than 14 feet as a minimum. In other words, to have a 14-foot finished ceiling in your first floor, I've got to put a couple feet of structure above that. So I'm -- MR. JACKSON: Mr. Schiffer, we use 12 feet as a minimum and 18 as a maximum. And that's interior. Fourteen feet was nothing more than a ruler to figure how tall the building was, so that buildings had somewhat of a uniform height. The only thing that would vary would be the roof line, how the builder decided to put -- where he put a mansard, where he put a parapet, where he put a hip. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like the way you're measuring to the eave. I mean, that gives people a lot of design freedom on the roo f. MR. JACKSON: Well, what it does, it keeps the front face of all the buildings, the maximum buildings in the same type of height so you don't end -- you end up kind of being kind of homogenous. But there's a lot of people that aren't going to build four stories, because they don't have enough area, they can't handle the parking, they can't do the landscaping. MR. EHARDT: As David mentioned before, we originally had it the way you see here. Then there was some staff comments that they didn't want to change the way they measured heights of buildings, and we changed it. Then it went to the DSAC and they asked us to change it back, and that's what we brought here. So we've been around a couple of times, I guess is what I'm saYIng. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One other question, David. Could you add to the definitions, or at least the abbreviations, NFIP? I'm not sure everybody will know that. Anybody who's Page 110 September 21, 2005 reading it should, but -- MR. JACKSON: Yes, we can. MS. FABACHER: If I just may input a comment, because I was involved in the staff comments to Mr. Jackson initially. Under the LDC, we measure the zoned height of the building, the vertical distance from the finished floor to the highest point of the roof surface of a flat or Bermuda roof, to the decline of a mansard roof and to the mean height level between eaves and ridge of gable, hip and gambrel roofs. The problem that we said was staff has to review, and now all of a sudden we're measuring different in different districts. Inspection personnel. That was our comment on that, that it just made it very difficult when we all of a sudden are measuring things a different way in different areas -- MR. JACKSON: Well, you gave -- just as an example, you gave three -- yes, ma'am. You gave three definitions, three ways to measure the height of a building. In your own code you have three different ways. We're giving one way. MS. FABACHER: No, I'm sorry, that's for three different roof styles. MR. JACKSON: Correct. We don't care about the roof. We give one way to measure the height of the building. Roof style has nothing to do with it. MS. FABACHER: My comment just was that it would be a lot harder to review if we keep changing the way we measure. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not there yet. We're not signing off on this yet. And I have a question of David Weeks, if he could, maybe between his comment and solution, we can -- David, it says 14 feet of building height equals one story, from what I understand in the Compo Plan. Is that what you're saying? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. Page 111 September 21, 2005 ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does the Compo Plan figure where that 14 feet is measured from? MR. WEEKS: It's silent. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's silent. So that means the LDC, it follows the LDC. MR. WEEKS: Correct. You have the latitude to measure it any way you choose. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which means 14 feet, depending on how you measure it, could be a lot more than 14 feet. MR. WEEKS: That's possible. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it say whether it's zoned or actual? It doesn't get into that either? MR. WEEKS: No reference. In fact, it predated all of that. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- and thank you, David. I'm not -- don't understand the reasoning of what other people would have said to you, but I know that since I've been on this panel we've struggled with height. And we've resolved it by having height defined both in zoned height and actual height. And if you would simply be able to supply us with those two numbers for these categories, I think all the problems in that regard would go away. Because everybody knows what that is, it's well defined and we've worked with it for some time now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, one thing, let me chime in. That's really -- and you know, kind of like the new urbanists, people are really worrying about the facades of the building and, therefore, measurements to roofs is kind of getting to be passé. So I think what they really want to do is lock in the height of the street facade, not inhibit the design of the roof. Or in some cases actually encourage flat roofs. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But their own language here, they're locking it in in relationship to the roof, Brad. Page 112 September 21, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're locking it into the eave, which is that part of the roof that touches the building facade. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or top of a flat built-up roof. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it's a flat roof, then it's actually the top of the flat roof. In case there is -- a flat roof doesn't have an eave. MR. EHARDT: Just a clarification. The height is to the eave, or the top of a flat roof. And then the parapet can be four feet beyond that. So you could have 56 feet plus four feet if you had a parapet. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. So you're saying you can have 60 feet actual height, but 56 feet zoned height. MR. EHARDT: If you have a parapet of four feet high. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. EHARDT: Now, if it's a hip roof or a gable or some other type of roof, I can't tell you what it is because I didn't design it -- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you had a 56-foot high building zoned, would you need 70 -- you want 75 feet for the various articulation that would be on top? I'm just saying let's get to numbers -- MR. EHARDT: I could think about that. I don't want to answer tonight. I guess I could think, you know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't think that's fair, because what they're designing is different than our suburban Land Development Code is designed. They're designing the downtown urban street. And what they want to do is they want to lock in the facade height. And that's done by measuring from the eave. The roof is an irrelevant factor at the -- of the height of that -- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then they build it into their definition, Brad. Now we can use the same definition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't see how you would. As a designer, I mean, what would you do, you would try to squeeze more building by flattening the roof down? Page 113 September 21, 2005 MR. JACKSON: The intent for us is not to have a semi -- you know, to define every article of a building. You know, there's got to be some kind of designing creativity in the part of it. And the only thing that we're trying to control is the face of the building and above the roof -- the roof line above. That's where your architectural features can come in. And so what if one building has maybe got a 10- foot hip roof and another one's got a IS-foot hip roof? That will provide an interesting skyline and give a chance for architectural features. What if they want to do the old Florida look, which is what you were trying to recommend as a guideline, and they want to put a cupola on there? Okay, the cupola may be 15,20 feet tall, because it's a feature that has to do with the old style. We'd end up writing pages and pages and pages of code on just trying to tell them how to write a roof. We're just concerned about the face. Let the roof ride. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not objecting to anything you just said. But tell us, if you want a 70- foot cupola on a 30- foot building, tell us you want an actual height of 100 feet. Just tell us. And then it's in the code and everybody knows what to expect. MR. JACKSON: You want a not-to-exceed height. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly what I'm saying. What is your maximum actual height and what is your maximum zoned height. That's all we're looking to find out. And whatever way you fit that in is strictly up to the way you guys design it. But I think that would be consistent then with what we have as the code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Jackson, I'd like to interrupt for a second here, if I may, please. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've stipulated -- you said you recommended, but in this document you've stipulated in cracker style. MR. JACKSON: It's recommended as a guideline. It-- Page 114 September 21, 2005 my understanding. MR. MIDNEY: Not all the lands that you're thinking of buying have these separate mineral rights. It's just certain ones? MS. SULECKI: That's correct. MR. MIDNEY: Okay. That clarifies it for me. MR. SCHIFFER: Paul, to be comfortable, you wouldn't want -- without this, there might be lands that would not go into the program because they would not want to have a problem over that. Growing up in a part of the country with coal mining under us, I find this is something I'm used to. The zoning that you're referring to, it's not just to get the mineral rights, is it? So Conservation has control of a piece of property, you could, let's say, have commercial zoning on it. What this is saying is that that commercial zoning would not be removed, it would be held essentially in place so that there wouldn't be any confusion with the oil. Isn't there -- I mean, what would protect that? Obviously Conservation Collier owns it, so they certainly wouldn't allow a 7 - Eleven to be built on it, but what would -- why do we need that protection? Why can't we remove the zoning? MS. SULECKI: We could remove the zoning. It was just considered that that would be very time consuming and expensive to do on each property, and the problem was, for example, in industrial zoning where we purchased a property. There is no use for a park, passive use of a park, so we could not put a parking lot and a trail on, and we couldn't get the public on there. In the estates, you can't put a parking lot without having a primary structure, so these were the issues that we faced as we looked at the zoning and the problems, so we would not be changing the underlying zoning. The property is protected because it's identified through the deed as Conservation Collier, and the ordinance identifies that we cannot use those for anything other than conservation Page 31 September 21, 2005 purposes. We may in the future decide to change the zoning. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you're saying is the protection is going to come from your ownership -- MS. SULECKI: That's right. MR. SCHIFFER: -- and your goals, and not -- couldn't we come up with a -- have the zoning that you can come, you can do whatever you want to do with your passive -- and make that a zoning classification that would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'd still have to change it, though. MS. SULECKI: We could, but we'd still have to change each property as we acquired it. That's the problem. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. MR. MURRAY: Just putting the nail, if I may, in the coffin on that one, the acquisition by whatever means, whatever, a warranty deed, fee simple, that is in perpetuity? These lands are being placed in perpetuity for this function. Correct? THE WITNESS: Yes, they are. MR. MURRAY: So that basically cinches it, if I understand it correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick, did you have a comment? MR. WHITE: No. MS. FABACHER: I have a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thought you raised your hand. MS. F ABACHER: Yeah, thank you. Just to answer something that you had asked about directional drilling, and I've discussed this with both Patrick and Brian, in most of the -- okay, oil and gas exploration is a permitted use in the rural agricultural and the conservation district. However, the rural agricultural has -- it says, subject to state drilling permits and Collier County site development plan review procedures, and what we have done, what Stan Litzinger and Marti Chumbler did in all of the sending lands, the RFMU, they had put in Page 32 September 21, 2005 this operational provision for oil and gas exploration, which says, you know, it's subject to state drilling permits in Collier County, non-environmental site development plan review procedures. Directional drilling and/or previously cleared or disturbed areas shall be utilized in order to minimize impacts to native habitats where determined to be practicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to bring that up, and I thank you for bringing it up, and that's exact language. I remember we went through this two or three years ago in detail. MS. F ABACHER: And we worked out this language, so -- MR. MACKENZIE: The references are exactly to that provision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize it. MS. FABACHER: Right. So we -- I had spoken to Brian and with his new language, he had no problem, you know, putting in pursuant to this operational provision, which will just cite the section reference and not write it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question about the language that you've inserted, Alex. It's not the new stuff, it's the old stuff. It says, Conservation Collier lands which provide for permitted non-destructive, in other words passive natural resource based activities, and it goes into saying they can be less than 20 parking spaces, et cetera. The word "non-destructive" I don't believe is a defined term, and in a lot of peoples' minds, a trail is destructive to a natural environment. With the word "passive" in there, do you really need the word "non-destructive" in all these definitions? MS. SULECKI: Well, we had some conversations about that, and my understanding is that the word passive appears in other areas of the LDC, and that staff plans to add a specific definition to the definition section in the next LDC cycle, identifying exactly what that means. We may not need non-destructive at that point, but what we -- our idea of passive or non-destructive was non-motorized use of trails except where for the purposes of management or environmental Page 33 September 21, 2005 maintenance or management by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, Alex, for a natural area, which Conservation Collier seems to believe it's -- a lot of people think that's natural. A parking area less than 20 spaces is not natural. A kiosk of 100 square feet is not natural. A public restaurant is not natural. In order to create those, you're doing some destructive process on the environment to do that, no matter how small it might be. For that reason, I'm thinking non-destructive might be a bad term to have in there because some people may take it as meaning no disturbance. MR. WHITE: There's some confusion, I think, between what the operative provision pertains to and what the lands are that this regulation is talking about because what it's saying is, those lands which provide for permitted non-destructive passive natural resource, blah, blah, blah, activities. It isn't saying that the things that are otherwise going to be allowed later on in the provision themselves must be in all instances non-destructive. It's talking about the overall aggregate purpose and use of Conservation Collier lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's not referring to the parking lots or the damages that those would cause? MR. WHITE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I have no other issues. MR. WHITE: I had that same initial kind of scratching of head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion on this item? Brad? MR. SCHIFFER: I move for approval. MR. MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion was made by Commissioner Schiffer, second by Commissioner Adelstein. MR. WHITE: Could we just be clear about which version it is that we're -- Page 34 September 21,2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The latest version that's in red ink, Patrick, that you gave us today. MR. MURRAY: Is that completely inclusive of that which was in the packet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. And then some. MR. MURRAY: And then some? MS. FABACHER: Right. Then the provision that I had asked be added for the oil and gas provision that provides for directional drilling and using already cleared land where practicable. (Several people speaking at the same time.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Quiet for a minute, please. Let me get this on the table. The motion needs to include the language that was passed out in the supplement that was given to us today, with the provision that Catherine referenced in regards to the oil techniques. MR. WHITE: And if I could just interject, that section is 2.03.05 B1c(1). Thank you. MS. FABACHER: I. It's an I, not a one, but that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, would that be in the motion? This package today that we changed, is that your motion? MR. SCHIFFER: Right. Isn't that the one dated June 22, 2005, which is the version date on mine? MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. MR. SCHIFFER: Catherine, is that the version date, June 22, 2005? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that was passed out today is the MS. F ABACHER: The one that was passed out today is dated -- where's your date? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Down the bottom, June 22,2005. MS. FABACHER: Yes. Yes. The one passed out today with the new language in red. That's the only other version aside from what was in your package originally. Page 35 September 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You're making a motion to approve that supplement? MR. SCHIFFER: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the correction -- with the additional language that Catherine noted. Correct? MR. SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The second accepts that. All those in favor? Thank you. MS. SULECKI: Thank you. MR. SCHIFFER: Mark, let me make a comment because I don't think -- when we do revisions, we really should update that date because the date is the same date as the old version. MR. WHITE: I think that's an oversight on the part of perhaps the drafters, and we'll be more diligent about those, especially if you duly note those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on to page 24. MS. F ABACHER: We're on to page 24 in the packet, and that is the clarification of the parking and storage of vehicles, and if you'll note on page 24, there's -- they're simply renumbering, changing the numbering system, from capital -- from numbers to capital letters. MR. MURRAY: Move for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion has been made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MS. F ABACHER: Now, the next item we've already covered. It's on page 18, but when I had divided the definition out from the Conservation Collier, so we just passed that one. All right. So I'm turning to page five of the summary sheet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, you said page 18. We're on page 27. MR. MURRAY: You've confused the devil out of me. Page 36 September 21, 2005 MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 27, on page five of the summary sheet. MS. FABACHER: All right. Okay. Sorry. All right. We're talking about the amendment for staggered setbacks in the estates. The BCC had directed, asked, that this be brought because at a public meeting, some of the residents were concerned about the ability of emergency vehicles to be able to access homes in the estates, which you know on these lots, particularly the 75-foot wide by -- can 660 feet long? MR. SCHIFFER: Right. MS. FABACHER: They had requested that it be staggered, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see-- MS. FABACHER: The front setback. I understand your concern, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a big concern here because first of all, the Golden Gate master plan committee went into a lot of depth on this issue. This is not what we recommended. In fact, this would not even close to accomplish the goal that the citizens were asking for. MS. F ABACHER: Exactly. I think that was in staff comments because David Weeks brought that point up to us, that you did not want it, but I was asked it bring it back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've spoken to some people who have been involved with this, and they realize now, after laying it out on a piece of paper, that it doesn't work, and if you want me to, I can show you how that fits. MR. SCHMITT: It would be very, very problematic even if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to be careful because you could force people onto someone else's property to get access to their back yard. We can't do that. MR. ADELSTEIN: I move that this section not be approved, rather than going through this. Page 37 September 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need to have discussion, but if there's a motion -- MR. MIDNEY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion's been seconded by Commissioner Midney. N ow you all understand what we're trying to do is stagger the 75-foot wide lots, but they still retain seven-and-a-half-foot setbacks. Well, if you do that, a vehicle's got to go on a neighboring lot to get to the back of the yard, which legally they can't do. MR. SCHIFFER: The question is, Mark, why push the front of the neighboring house back 15 feet. What's that going to help? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How you would want to look at someone else's back yard or you want to force someone to have a deeper and longer driveway than the other -- it goes against everything. I'm sure this wasn't the intent. MR. SCHMITT: The question, frankly, it was brought up during a public meeting, at a Town Hall meeting. It was requested by a resident, and the Board directed us to development an amendment and bring it forward, so as far as the rationale for it, you would have to ask the person who made the recommendation. MR. SCHIFFER: But essentially what we're doing is we're trying to get access to the rear of these so that people could store vehicles behind there, not be visible to the street? MR. SCHMITT: I'm not sure what the real issue was. I think Mark is probably aware of some of the issues. Some of it was access to the rear years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think since it's come up, though, I think the issue is somewhat resolved. That's why this does not really need to go forward. MR. SCHIFFER: Where is it resolved, in some other amendment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just in discussions. I don't think -- I Page 38 September 21, 2005 think nobody understood that this isn't going to help. I think now that various people understand that if you only leave a seven-and-a-half-foot side yard, you still can't get around the house legally, especially if someone wants to put a fence up or a hedge up at their property line. You can't drive by it. MR. SCHIFFER: If there's an issue, why don't we increase the side setback? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is the solution that would-- MR. SCHIFFER: Right. Something like 12 feet, so you have size for a fire truck or something to drive through it in an emergency. MR. SCHMITT: You're dealing with issues I think need to be brought up through the Golden Gate area master plan, especially with 75-foot lots. You begin to restrict the developable area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'd be taking what, 20 feet off. MR. SCHIFFER: They're 600 feet long, I mean, my God, you can design a lot of nice stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti? MR. VIGLIOTTI: In addition, if you're going to change the front setbacks, the piece of property has to go through mitigation, and they have to buy wetlands. The further back you bring it, the more wetlands they have to purchase. That's going to cause a problem, too. MR. SCHIFFER: If this wasn't an issue, they shouldn't be storing trucks back there, either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a forum at the end of October that you may want to attend and you'd have an earful there. There's a motion made to reject this, and there's been a second. I think we've had discussion. I'll call for the vote. All these in favor of the motion to reject? Anybody oppose that motion? No. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Next we're on the same page five of the summary sheet, and we are on to Section 2.03.071, Bayshore Drive overlay. It's on page -- well, it was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on page six of the summary sheet, Page 39 September 21, 2005 at least the one that you e-mailed out to us. MS. FABACHER: It must have-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here's a six. I'm sorry. Six came off the internet. Sorry, Catherine. MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry. I'll give everyone a printed one. Weare talking about the Bayshore Drive overlay. It is the additional handout that you got at the last meeting with the different colors in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. FABACHER: Okay, and I believe that David Jackson is here, director of the CRA advisory board, and also Mr. Joe Ehardt from HDR to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far, we're going to take a break at 2:30 for the court reporter, so no matter what happens and where we're at, I'm going to stop at that time and let her have -- her fingers a rest. MS. FABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know this one could take the rest of the day in itself, based on the number of questions that I'm going to have, so anyway -- MR. ABERNATHY: Take a whack at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the first thing I want to do, there was an interesting editorial in today's paper. I know we shouldn't bank on editorials, I never will, but the editorial indicated that the neighborhood is going to be consulted about this. I don't know who was in charge, but why are we seeing all these recommended changes to move forward and consuming a lot of time today if the neighborhood hasn't been consulted to begin with, and I know the paper indicates that before the money is spent, I believe there's been already a lot of money spent. MR. SCHMITT: Two different issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: This is an issue from almost a year and a half Page 40 September 21, 2005 ago. That was a proposal to the Board of County Commissioners for a contractor to develop streetscape proposals, which is a different issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there are streetscapes in here. Are those not the same? MR. SCHMITT: You're completely correct. It's related to that, and I probably would have to ask Dave Jackson to clarify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as long as it's not -- as long as this has been vented in the public, then we should look forward to it. I was just questioning the issue whether or not we were doing something that hasn't even been, you know, released in the public. MR. SCHMITT: You may have public here that may comment whether or not it's been vetted, and I won't make that determination. MR. SCHIFFER: Mark, may I ask a little history question here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go for it. MR. SCHIFFER: I'm not certain you can answer this, but I mean, this Bayshore was written -- essentially the first version of it which has been in the code for a couple years was written by the staff, and prior to the CRA. Correct? And there was a Bayshore overlay district that was prepared? MS. MURRAY: Commissioner, I may defer to David on that, only because the whole thing came out of the comprehensive planning department, and honestly, this is kind of my first bite at the whole -- dealing with it other than implementing it through the LDC. I don't have a lot of the background on it or the relationships between various MR. SCHIFFER: Well, maybe even prior to coming -- MR. SCHMITT: This was almost six years ago. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. It was 2000 the Bayshore was adopted portion was adopted. MR. SCHIFFER: Right, and then maybe two years ago, a year and a half ago, there was a small amendment to it, and this will be the second time that we're -- second real time we're looking at the overall Page 41 September 21, 2005 overlay. Is that right? MS. MURRAY: Correct. MR. SCHIFFER: That's all the history I need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- who's going to be answering questions that this panel may have? MS. MURRAY: Well, actually, it's David Jackson and his consultant are the applicants in this case, and a couple things just to clarify. There's two amendments here. One is to the Bayshore Drive overlay, which is an amendment to existing text, and the other is a new amendment, which is the Bayshore triangle. So even as staff, when we're talking about them, we tend to start talking about both at the same time, so I just caution you on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're starting out with the Gateway triangle, if I'm not -- MR. SCHIFFER: No, we're on Bayshore. MS. MURRAY: Which would you like first? MR. SCHIFFER: Bayshore. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Strain, if I could take a minute just so the other commissioners understand the relationship, is there -- are there any questions of those who understand the CRA and the staff, they are two separate and distinct entities. Mr. Jackson works directly for the CRA board, which is in fact, the same members on that board is our Board of County Commissioners. He is the staff element for the CRA. He's the executive director of the CRA, reporting directly to that board, and though it's a -- we work in concert in regards to the issues, it is two separate and distinct staffs, so I just want you to understand when Susan says that David is the petitioner, he is the petitioner because he is representing the Bayshore gateway. He is not part of the county manager staff at all, so you understand that relationship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Does the board want to start out, or do you want me to walk through? Page 42 _·"__·'_·"""N_'··"··'·''''~'''~'' """"-~ .J~ September 21, 2005 MR. SCHIFFER: Could we just go page by page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I was going to do. MR. SCHIFFER: You can lead, and we'll all pile on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Jackson, did you have a preference for any kind of introduction, or did you just want us to start peppering you with questions? MR. JACKSON: I have my flak jacket on. You can start any time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope it will be constructive, so-- MR. JACKSON: That's fine. David Jackson, executive director of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency. And true, we are a separate and distinct entity. The only reason the overlay has come about is because the comprehensive plan of 2000 mandated that these overlays be finalized to BOT (phonetic) form. They should have been completed twelve months ago. We are two years into the process, and yes, we've had community meetings, numerous ones, over the last two years that have been invited and publicly advertised, and we've also had a tremendous amount of county staff input into it, as well. The -- I'd like to confirm that the document you are looking at, and that I can reference with you, too, at the top of it says, Final Bayshore Overlay Amendment No.3 8/17/05. Is that correct? And it should be colorized with red and blue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Yes. MR. SCHIFFER: Paul doesn't have that. Hey, could you grab one on the table up there. Oh, Paul has it, never mind. MR. ABERNATHY: Somebody had a lot of temerity to call it final, but -- MR. SCHMITT: Who needs a copy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've all got them. Thank you. Yes, I think that's the version we all have. Thank you. Page 43 September 21, 2005 MR. JACKSON: Okay. Just want to make sure we're all on the same page and I can dance with you in step. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The first question you may have already touched on. Has the public in this -- or these properties, the property owners both adjacent to and within the triangle or within the overlay been notified? They are aware of what's going on here today? MR. JACKSON: They have not been notified with certified, return address mail, they've been notified through public meetings, e-mail contact, and my going into the community and talking with the community groups, residential groups, professional groups, and we still get comments from day do day, either bye-mail or people calling or coming into the office about the content of these two overlays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White stepped out again, but when he gets back, I want to make sure that's a sufficient notification for changing the zoning. That was one of my questions. MR. ADELSTEIN: Was there any notice in the newspaper? MR. JACKSON: Yes. It was publicly noticed through the county commissioners' office. He's talking about the meetings we had in March, May. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys -- yeah. Having conversation with the audience is going to be hard for the court reporter. MR. JACKSON: Sorry. It was just a background question, if you're talking about this meeting, or you're talking about the public meetings we had this year that I would know about. MR. MURRAY: This meeting is a continuation of a prior meeting where it was properly advertised, I believe, so I think we may be covered in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHIFFER: Let me ask David, in this question about land use, is there -- as far as I know, other than the addition of the artist community, I forget the actual designation, there's no changes in the land use map, is there? In other words, the neighborhood commercial Page 44 September 21,2005 designation, is that the same, or is there any changes to the map? MR. JACKSON: No. Well, yes, there are. There are some areas that are. Specifically one that would be that was the home occupations R&C. There was some questions there from staff about that. Some land was designated that was not being used as that, so we tried to correct it and call it what it was. Some of the designations for a couple of the mobile home parks that were previously -- zoning versus mobile home, we either can categorize them as an R-2 or an R-3. The residents in the area said they wanted to be R-3, so we changed some of that, so there's some numerical changes on some of the designations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when Patrick gets back, I'm going ask to -- MR. EHARDT: Sir, Joe Ehardt, and I'm with HDR consulting firm that's been working on this. One of the things we did was we expanded the overlay at Bayshore to cover other parcels of land that wasn't previously covered in the original overlay. Okay? Besides the changes that David -- there's some other ones, like he said, mobile homes and some other single family areas that we put in within the overlay designation. MR. SCHIFFER: Again, Lindy's question. That doesn't essentially change the zoning of people's land, what that does is add to them a different zoning option? MR. JACKSON: Correct. What it does is it captures and gives it maybe a different nomenclature, BMUD, R-1, whereas before it was mobile home, where it was R-3. It's changing it so that it all has the similar, same type of nomenclature, and true, the initial overlay only covered a few acres of land around Bayshore and Becca Avenue, and so because the -- looking at the comp plan, it says the entire area -- the future land use maps, is that we will -- the overlay will cover and address all the properties, and it only makes sense that everything within the area should be addressed, rather than piece meal part of it, Page 45 September 21, 2005 where you have two different completely things happening across the boundary line. MR. EHARDT: If I may just clarify one thing, too. There is an area -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Every time you speak, you have to identify yourself so she knows who you are. MR. EHARDT: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Joseph Ehardt, Junion. There was an area south of Thomasson that was in one of the original overlays, and working with David Weeks and looking at some information he showed to me, that area had to be eliminated from this overlay because it didn't fit within the comprehensive plan definition of where this overlay should go. It was a mobile home park down South of Thomasson, and I think there were some other areas. I think that was the only one that was down there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next question I'm concerned about is really -- Mr. Schmitt's back. I think he could address something for me. Joe, in reading -- and I've read these documents very thoroughly, several versions of them, and of course this final version. I have notes on every single page, but I notice in many instances, it's referring back to processes that are going to be intensive for county staff, that are going to require county maintenance in areas that we're not currently not maintaining, and items like that, review processes, items that will all be put on county staff, yet under the fiscal and operational impacts, the word is none. So you can implement this without any need for any additional personnel or any county maintenance -- costs won't go up? MR. SCHMITT: It has to go up. I mean, there's going to be costs associated with implementing this. At the -- even at the counter, just simple zoning requests and zoning letters, other type of issues, tracking, the opt in, opt out policy, all those kind of things. I have not even sat down and figured out what it is going to cost in regards to man hours in implementation of this. But the second piece of it is a Page 46 September 21, 2005 transportation issue with Norm Feder, and of course the landscape beautification and all the other issues associated with it, there's certainly going to be a cost to the county in regards to those additional items or maintaining proper entities. That will be a board decision which will be handled in a budget cycle. Whether or not they pass that off to the taxpayers under the general fund or decide that it will be the -- an MSTU or the CRA or some other entity to pay for that, that will have to be policy decision of the Board, but that's a long winded answer. We have not really done an economic analysis, but there will certainly be an economic analysis. Now, as you well know, I charge for services provided. I would have to charge some kind of an application fee associated with some of these activities, which would be the way I would recoup some of my costs. MR. SCHIFFER: But Joe, it would be the applicant that pays all these costs. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. SCHIFFER: You're self-sustaining, so the issue then is not with Joe's department with the cost to the development community. MR. SCHMITT: In some cases, some of this may be a general fund type activity. There are certain things we do at the front counter that are passed off to the general fund and are identified during the budget cycle. MR. MURRAY: This document requires that maintenance to sidewalks and other activities be done -- passed on to the county, and so that's a real cost. That's clearly understandable, as opposed to some of the costs which you may have that are folded in. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. MURRAY: There's two factors running there. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, but there would be an incremental cost based on -- as development takes place. There would have to be decisions made by the Board of County Commissioners on how Page 47 September 21, 2005 they're going to fund the maintenance of some of the -- the streetscape and other things associated with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I ask, Joe, it's kind of relevant. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Especially with what Commissioner Caron pointed out at our last meeting, when we talked about density, that if you had 12 communities times 79,000, we're going to spend a million bucks and get virtually little. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the reason that we have a question on the staff summaries for fiscal and operation impact is we need the information, so I think -- for my part, at some point, whether this is continued or how we handle it today, that question has got to be answered. MR. SCHMITT: We will try to come up with an estimate of what we think this will cost to implement. Appreciate you pointing that out. I'm going to need that for the Board to understand, as well. Part of it will be application fees, some of it maybe ad valorem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, both of you at the same time. Mr. Adelstein? MR. ADELSTEIN: As long as we're in that predicament of not having the figures now, why don't we just continue this until another time and let's get whatever you can and go forward then. Right now we're not going to accomplish much of anything. MR. SCHIFFER: Well, Lindy, there's a lot of stuff here that has nothing to do with how much of a fiscal impact. MR. ADELSTEIN: We certainly can't approve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here's what I think is going to happen. I have an issue with so many things that are -- this is more of a draft than a document. I'm sorry to say that, but I read this, and I was waiting for it to be completed, and there's so many questions here, I Page 48 ---....'~.__ 10. September 21, 2005 can't see this going through here today, but at least maybe we can provide enough questions so that you and your consultant realize that there's a lot of holes here that need to be addressed. There's a lot of ambiguous language. There's a lot of issues that aren't even answered, maintenance being one, water management on a master plan being another, connection piece mealing of sidewalks, the staff dollars, how this connects with the FLUE, the maintenance of -- Collier County's right to maintain the easements that they need, coordination with the DOT, utility easements that aren't accounted for, intrusions into right of way for awnings and things like that. I've got all that laid out, sentence by sentence, page by page, and at the board's call, we can go through this, start it today, but I don't see us getting completed. MR. SCHIFFER: Mark, I have comments for every page, too, but they're -- I don't see any of them being fatal. They're all like clarification issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, that's-- THE WITNESS: MR. JACKSON: If I may, Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. JACKSON: For you and for county staff Mr. Joe Schmitt, in my defense, it's like you winking in the dark, only you know what you're doing. If you don't tell me what your concerns are, if you don't sit down with me and as meeting after meeting we are available 40 hours a week or even after hours to talk about these things. We have addressed every concern that's been put in writing and given to us, and we have addressed it as best we could. We have changed things that were in error, and we're not perfect, we know that, and we've discussed those things that we may have a difference of opinion and try to come to some kind of a compromise or decided who was more in the right. I am willing to take all nine of your comments, if you'll put them Page 49 September 21,2005 in writing, send them to us e-mail, somehow get them to us, and I again offer one more time to the county staff, this was delivered to them in December of 2004. It was again delivered to them as documented on June 10th. I've yet to have a meeting with them. They've had it for 100 plus days. So I would like to know what your concerns are. Staff did give us a 19-page report, and we addressed I'd say 95 percent of those things that we found that we were either in error, was the documentation not consistent, you know, those type of things, and we corrected those. And that's why you see on the front page we have documented every time that we get an input, we change it, modify to move it on. And we did that with the DSAC. We've done that with every board, and we're willing to do that, and we react fast, and that's kind of why we came out of the DSAC and the board staff comments that were given to us back on those dates, that's why you received this red and blue document at the last meeting was because we responded to a 19-page document, made the corrections and delivered it to you. We operate on now, not the future, so I'm more than willing to take your comments, if you want to give me what you've got right there, pen in hand, and any other of the commissioners, and I offer again to the staff, please don't wink in the dark. Please tell me what your concerns are, and let's sit down and talk about it and come to an agreement, and then you will have a good, solid, final document. MR. MURRAY: Mark, I would like to just say, I worked with Mr. Jackson briefly, and we had nice conversations. We didn't get into the depth, but as you may remember, I wrote a critique on the last submission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you did. MR. MURRAY: And the differences between that and the corrects that have been made is phenomenal. Mark, I have a whole bunch of questions myself, no question about it, but it is, I think, a good work in progress, and I do think he needs some time. I would be Page 50 September 21, 2005 willing to work with him on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem. We're here today. MR. SCHMITT: I just want to make sure for the record to clarify with Mr. Jackson, since staff has spent a lot of time with Mr. Jackson and his consultant on this product, as well, so I'm not sure what David was referring to when he said we hadn't replied because we spent a lot of time on this. I think we're at some point in this process where we are at an agree to disagree because of some of the criteria involved or some of the processes involved in implementation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think enough said. Let's move forward with it now. MS. FABACHER: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine? MS. F ABACHER: Can I just say one thing as the LDC coordinator? When I began circulating it for this cycle, during the two years when I was being prepared, none of the other departments like transportation or anyone had been consulted or worked with, so over the two years that they were working on the document, when we finally transmitted it to the different divisions, transportation, environmental, landscaping, it was the first time that they had seen it, and we had to scramble to put together huge amounts of comments. In our defense, this is such a big project, it's just impossible to do it once the cycles began, and we would have appreciated it if we had the ability in the two years previous, when it was being worked on, to be consulted, and I don't want to say that that is Mr. Jackson's fault because he hasn't been here through the whole process. I think we've had several directors and so forth, but there was not enough working with the staff to -- we'd see to hone something before it was brought to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand, and you and Joe have made things very clear for the record. We're here today to get through Page 51 September 21, 2005 as much of it as we can. So let's just pick up -- MR. SCHIFFER: Mark, let's take a break now, rather than in seven minutes, and we'll come back -- let's just start down the trail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with that. We'll break until 3: 30. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The court reporter has indicated she's anxious to get started again, so -- okay. So why don't we just start with the questions on the overlay, and I'll just go ahead and start in on it. My first question may be more of staff than Mr. Jackson. There's a series of definitions here, Susan or Joe. Would those definitions be added to the LDC in the definition section, and if se, since they differ from the definitions already there, I'm wondering why we need multiple definitions for the same thing in the LDC? MR. SCHMITT: I'd defer to Susan on this. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record. Yes. I mean, this is part of the LDC, and I think if I understand where you're getting at. You would maybe rather see them incorporated into the definitions for the whole LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if anybody's looking for a definition, they're going to flip to the definition section of the LDC. MS. MURRAY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well then the accessory unit definition here -- I didn't have time to check. Do we have already an accessory unit definition in the LDC, and if so, does it conflict? MS. FABACHER: I can comment on that. We have accessory use of structure currently in the definitions. Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: And I would think if Mr. White were here, he usually says operational provisions such as library, studio, work, playroom, guesthouse, would be identified as accessory uses, you Page 52 September 21,2005 know, in the table for accessory uses, so -- still an accessory use or structure. I don't know if it's needed, and to say also that it does say -- Mr. Jackson had put 1.08.02 at the top of that, so it does indicate that they intend to put it into our general definitions. MR. MURRAY: And Mark, there was another question I had raised. There was a question on accessory uses where there would be a workshop and a kiln was the question that I raised, for somebody doing pottery, and that has not been resolved in this that I can see. If someone is going to make pottery, and they're going to have a kiln, what kind of a permitted and what kind of a zoning does that fall under? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's -- it's not addressed in your overlay that I've seen. MR. EHARDT: No, it was taken out. That was when we were talking about the artist village being residents that might have a home use that would be that, but we've taken that out now, and we just have -- the artist village is basically a commercial type of use. MR. MURRAY: Okay. That solves that part of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Court Reporter, are you comfortable with this gentleman's name? COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as these are being incorporated in the LDC, that was my issue. They're not duplicated in what exists already there, and I'm sure that staff will make sure that doesn't happen. Under street \yalk, you have a word in there, it says semi-opaque freestanding wall lined with a facade of an adjacent building for the purpose of masking parking from the street. What -- how would anybody know what the word "masking" means in the context that it's written here? Is there a definition for that? I couldn't find one. MR. EHARDT: No. I don't have a definition for masking. It's basically a wall that would extend like a facade of a building, kind of a Page 53 September 21, 2005 continuation of a theme of a building that would hide the parking, mask it from public view. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you suggest a wall that doesn't need definition. Like a wall is defined, so could we say wall? MR. EHARDT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to -- I think the way we're approaching this today is to make a lot of suggestions to you. I think this is going to have to come back, and that was another question that I had. MR. MURRAY: And I would like to add to that, too, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What? MR. MURRAY: To the wall issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, but before we go too far, I was asked during the break if it was the panel's consensus that this is going to be not finalized today but brought back at another date. I would think so from my review, though we're not done yet, I would think the exercise today is to go through this, critique it, so that they have some input, and we'll come back another time around. Is that -- MR. MURRAY: It's my guess. (Several people speaking at the same time.) MR. ADELSTEIN: Joe's figures aren't going to be available until then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then, for those in the audience that asked the question, this will come back again, as I expected for the month, or whatever month we reconvene. MR. MURRAY: If I can continue on my question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. MURRAY: I note on the final Bayshore overlay amendment and then also on the gateway triangle, if you compare them, the definition for street wall is different. In the triangle, delete semi-opaque, and it speaks of a freestanding wall, as the other one Page 54 September 21, 2005 speaks of the semi-opaque freestanding wall. Was that intended? MR. EHARDT: No. We'll correct that. It's just that going back and forth in between -- MR. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My next questions will be on-- oh, Commissioner Caron, I'm sorry. MS. CARON: I just wanted to make a comment that on page 39, there is a picture of what they mean by a street wall, so I think it shouldn't be difficult for people to figure out what is meant by it. The picture somehow relates to -- MR. JACKSON: Correct, and masking would be whatever term they use in landscaping to hide something. You know, that's what the landscaping is for, is to buffer, to hide, similar to opaque, so if masking is not a landscaping term, then we can use landscaping terms to make that word work for you. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay, maybe the word hide. MR. MACKENZIE: Hide? If that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're using percentages of opacity in our landscaping buffers, and you may want to take a look at that so someone knows clearly what they have to do there. I'm on to page four, if the rest of us are. MR. SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My first issue would be the red item number two, in about the middle, it says the documents must be recorded by the applicant in Collier County's official records. Now, these are the documents in referencing to subj ecting the area to the overlay. That changes its zoning from its base zoning to the overlay zoning, and my question would be of David Weeks. I know he's probably sitting back there dying for a question. MR. EHARDT: The operative word, sir, is maybe not change because I don't think it changes anything, so that's where the language further down that comes in and says, opt, and opt in. When you want Page 55 . --------"".~_. .., September 21,2005 to use the land for something else than what it was initially zoned or made for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, could you tell me how we would address these areas that opt in or opt out of this particular overlay if it needs to? How you would see that coordinating? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, planning manager in the comprehensive planning department. What the future land use element provides for in this future land use overlay for this area is that mixed use development is allowed, commercial development is allowed, residential development is allowed. For mixed use development, uses are limited to C-1 through C-3. There are some existing C-4 and C-S zoning there. Therefore, there needs to be some way to limit the uses to C-l through C-3 on those properties that are presently zoned C-4 and C-5, and the mechanism that they're proposing, and I don't know of another way to do it is to provide the ability for a property owner to opt in, to decide yes, I do want to do mixed use, and because I'm doing that, I understand that I'm limited to C-1 through C-3 commercial uses. Otherwise, how is it that we the county are able to prevent an applicant from developing C-4 and C-S uses as part of a mixed use development? They need some way of distinguishing. Now certainly another choice would be to require a down zoning of that property from C-4 or 5 to C-3, 2, or 1, but that adds additional costs and time, and after all, we are trying to promote mixed use development here, and certainly the time and cost delay is an impediment, not an inducement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you see -- will staffbe able to keep track of the changes? How do you -- I mean, what's your mechanism for that internally? MR. WEEKS: Well, I'm going to defer to Patrick probably in part to answer this because I think he helped draft this language, but -- I'll stop right there. Page 56 September 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's as safe as it gets. MR. MURRAY: The major parts. MR. WHITE: You know, I don't know if the word is blamed, or -- I'm not sure how I can help the process. I mean, I don't know what David's suggestion would be for me to add at this point. MR. WEEKS: Well, let me say this, then. I may need to defer to Susan. I have a comment, but I'll let you slog through it. MS. MURRAY: Well, actually, I think what I was just going to do is to clarify what I think your question is, and that is how we -- the staff would develop an opt in, opt out process, but how is that officially recorded or recognized? MR. MURRAY: What's the mechanism? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If someone is doing a title search or due diligence on a piece of property, they're going to pull it open, and they're going to see that it's -- the activities there are C-3, C-4, C-5. How will they know that someone opted out to go to this lesser zoning and the impacts that that may have on their purchase? MR. WHITE: That is because what's anticipated, and I think -- I don't know which version you're looking at, but there is one that I did not draft that I did review I think last evening that suggests that it be recorded with the Clerk of Courts, and the point of that is simply to create, just as you indicated, Commissioner Strain, a record, an official record that would show up in a title search, indicating what that property owner's preference is, and it would be essentially binding in perpetuity until some point in time potentially, they might come back and do something different, but that obviously is something that you'd have to look very carefully at being able to allow someone to do. As always, there's a tension between flexibility and fixed choices. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it would be important for this panel to understand that there's a process that's going to happen that's going to make this work, so the public is protected, the purchasing public or the buying public. Page 57 September 21, 2005 A title policy, I agree would show it. A lot of times, though, I'm not sure, that's quite a ways along in the due diligence process. That's where it was intended to be, not -- so FLUE would be out -- FLUE would be contradicting with the recorded documents at this point. MR. WHITE: I don't think the future land use element is something that's going to come in to the title search, and a title policy may be very late in the process, but anyone who's doing due diligence is going do start with some type of a record search. Certainly if they have any question about what uses have been elected by the property owner as to a specific lot or parcel, that OR page search is being to come up very quickly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHIFFER: Dave, if you could put a notation on here, land use as to what parcels have opted in? I was actually speaking to David Jackson. MR. WHITE: Oh. Maybe I can clarify that. What you're calling the FLUE may be in fact the official zoning map. Is that what we're talking about? MR. SCHIFFER: Can't we put a -- come up with a character that we put on there to show which people have opted in? MR. WHITE: Well, I think one way that it could be done by our graphics department is to do just that. There are any number of not only designating letters, but also some kind of footnotes that can be attached, and then you have to look and see what that cross reference is. I mean, arguably, if there's a large enough database and a way to graphically depict it on a page, you could theoretically put the OR book and page where the recorded election, the option of the property owner, has been put into the clerk's public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- the point of my question was that I think the process needs to be further defined, and then, since we're going to be coming back with this, between now and then, if that could happen, that would help clarify. Page 58 September 21,2005 MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. That has always been the intent. There have been discussions with the legal community within Collier County to talk about how to do this, and that has not been fully solidified, and again, this point is a contentious discussion point for the property owners that own C-4 and C-S, and in all those public meetings that you had asked me about prior, they explicitly said, if I have C-4, C-S, I do not want to be mandated that I have to down zone or change my zoning, and they wanted the option, and what we put in here, there's the word, I believe I put in here that -- is that during the submission of the SDP, site development plan, to change the use, to redevelop it into the mixed use category or uses, whatever it would be, would be the intense paperwork, whatever the county legal system feels comfortable with, whatever that document looks like, that's when it would be submitted, and then it would be solidified somewhere down in the process, but the property owners are very keen on don't down zone me. Give me the option, and if I do, when I do it, it's in perpetuity, and I can never go back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that needs to be ironed out for the next time. MR. JACKSON: Absolutely. Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you brought up -- Bob, did you have a question? MR. MURRAY: No, it was resolved in the conversation with Mr. White. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's another issue on the same sentence, just below that. It says that. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Strain, just for the record, I just want to make sure you understand. I doubt by the next time we come back I will have a solidified process of implementation on this. We could maybe have a scheme, but the implementation itself will not be part of the LDC. Eventually, that will be part of an administrative code, but I don't think I'm going to have the specificity that you're Page 59 September 21, 2005 looking for in regards to how we could do it. We've got to set up some kind of an administrative process, but I think what I need David to work -- as you suggested, that we at least define the legal mechanism on how -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure it can be done. That's all. MR. JACKSON: And yes, sir, I'm recommending the reason that you don't put those legal documents in here because they'd be a living document, and they may want to change, as laws and things change. Just that you cite in here that there is a process, and that process lies somewhere else, and it is something can be changed with ease without having to come back through the six-month cycle to change. MR. WHITE: And just as a hopefully pleasant reminder, what's been envisioned is that those kinds of processes would be located in the administration code, and I think that once we have a structure for citation, we could in fact even make a reference at this point for example in that regulation to that administrative code provision. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, while I'm thinking of it, I may make a recommendation for you all to think about is those processes take time to develop and are dependent upon the actual language that is finally adopted as a result of these amendments, and I know we had a similar situation last amendment cycle, and it was extremely helpful for us to have a delayed implementation date of these to give us time to develop all of those processes. Again, they are dependent upon what actually ends up being adopted by about Board of County Commissioners, and that worked out quite well because while it sounds very simple and, yes, we have solutions to all this, the matter of coordinating, putting it down on paper, making sure everything's legal, making sure we don't have to make any other changes to the Land Development Code as a result of what happened takes quite a bit of time, and I would just offer that as a suggestion for you. Page 60 September 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As this gels up, and we get further along, if you'd keep us remindful of that as we make whatever decisions we make, that would be helpful. The next item that follows in that sentence, it says, first of all, the individual acknowledges buying into the plan. These mixed use sub districts runs with the land in perpetuity. The next sentence that I need some clarification, as long as the property utilizes the mixed use sub district regulations, it legitimizes existing point of development. Compliance with those regulations would be continued to be required. What does that mean? MR. EHARDT: I've got to read it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In one sentence you're saying it runs in perpetuity, but then it seems to be conditional on this last sentence, but I'm not sure the last sentence is even referring to that. I just couldn't follow it. MR. MURRAY: No, I don't think it is. I don't think it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a point to clarify. How's that? If we don't figure it out here today, it needs to be -- I think it needs to be clarified. MR. MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next paragraph says, individual land owners may choose to follow existing Collier County commercial zoning. I would suggest that individual land owners shall follow existing Collier County commercial zoning regulations related to uses when they build or rebuild through the underlying zoning or at their sole option they can go into this. If they don't choose to go into it, they don't "may" follow it, they have to follow it. Wouldn't that be the operative word? MR. JACKSON: You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next sentence, next bullet point, has in bold a discussion of the architectural -- or let's see, a conformance with existing regulations applicable to zoning districts Page 61 September 21, 2005 except for certain design standards found in Chapter 4 of this LDC. This chapter that you're talking about as Chapter 4, does that mean you're opting out -- they would be opting out of the commercial criteria, and the commercial criteria that will be utilized is just what's in Chapter 4? MR. EHARDT: Certain elements, setbacks and things like that that are in Chapter 4 would be applied to the new commercial C-4, C- 5, if they decide to redevelop with something new. If there's a new building built that was a C-4 use for example -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: An existing C-3 use? MR. EHARDT: Yeah. The property is zoned C-4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. EHARDT: He wants to tear down what he's got there, buys and tears it down, builds a new building, then the setbacks and certain other things described in Chapter 4 would apply to that new building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then where the Chapter 4 would be silent on an issue, would it fall back to the Land Development Code? MR. EHARDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHIFFER: Mark, I have some on page four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. I'm done with page four. MR. SCHIFFER: Up at the top there, you eliminated, you crossed out, shared parking facilities. Is there a reason why you're not thinking that as a way to go? You see where it's crossed off, four sentences down, on-street parking, shared parking facilities? MR. EHARDT: That was -- that's in the original-- MR. SCHIFFER: You have to go to the -- MR. JACKSON: That's language that was in the original. We've moved that back into the parking section, and we did -- MR. SCHIFFER: It's back in? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir, it is, and we did it both for gateway Page 62 September 21, 2005 and Bayshore. It was -- it just didn't seem to fit in that location, so we moved it back into the section where it was most applicable, and we put in the shared parking. MR. EHARDT: There were certain items in the existing Bayshore overlay, certain tables, setbacks, different things that were in Chapter 2 that we felt were better in Chapter 4. That's why we moved some of these things. MR. SCHIFFER: In paragraph two, there's a thing in there where this landowner's decision and recording should be done usually at the time of site plan submission. Wouldn't -- could we do that so that maybe it's done prior to the approval of site plan? In other words, someone could go in for site plan approval, not get it, and not want to do this, so -- MR. JACKSON: Ifit makes more logical sense to do it somewhere else, somebody tell me where, and we'll put it in there. MR. SCHIFFER: I mean, the word "usually" doesn't pin it down, anyway. MR. JACKSON: Well, when we wrote this, you know, we didn't have a definitive response from the attorneys or from the land -- zoning and land use, so if it makes sense somewhere, then we'll put that, you know, that -- where it is that paperwork is applied for. MR. SCHIFFER: In my opinion, it would be prior to -- you know, it could be one of the things pending for the approval of a site plan because that way, the person knows what it is he can and cannot do, and he doesn't make a mistake of opting in and then wishing he hadn't, to find out that he needs a site plan approval. MR. JACKSON: Could he submit it with his intent -- obviously at his preapp meeting, he's going to have to say, I'm going to mixed use, and he's going to show his plans and go through the whole process, but it won't be approved until the whole project -- MR. SCHIFFER: But I think the site plan, the SDP, could be approved pending, you know, proof of that letter. Page 63 September 21,2005 MS. MURRAY: This could be a whole separate process. I mean, it's not part of the SDP process. You can certainly imagine doing this simultaneously, if you wish to take that risk. MR. SCHIFFER: Right. My thinking is, in other words, rather than having them come in prior to, he can go through the site development plan process, find out that he can't do what he wanted to do, and then in the meantime, get opted in. MS. MURRAY: Yeah, that makes sense. Unfortunately, a lot of people come in and want to do everything at once, and I'm just telling you from professional experience, and normally they'll ask if they can do it simultaneously, and they're willing to take the risk. I just would encourage you not to limit if you find that appropriate, but just to try and give you a real life example of what really happens in reality now. MR. SCHIFFER: Maybe prior to site plan approval. MR. MURRAY: Would you be speaking more for their welfare by not letting them get into a trap? MR. SCHIFFER: That's what I'm trying to avoid. MS. MURRAY: I understand, but they often are willing to take that risk. MR. MURRAY: Well, that might be true for developers, but for moderate income business people, it seems to be something I wouldn't want to open up. MS. MURRAY: It makes no difference to us. We can operate it either way. I'm just trying to explain to you what -- MR. MURRAY: I'd rather see -- they're not familiar, necessarily, with the -- I wouldn't want to see them get burned. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray, and some of the business owners that have discussed with me that they may take advantage of this, they are small businesses. They've got less than an acre of land, they may want to do something in the mixed use category, they just wanted to be able to know that they could apply for the process, and if their proj ect is approved, then they are the mixed use at that point, so Page 64 September 21, 2005 obviously they always want to fall back to what they used to be without -- if they can't get their project approved, they don't want to be stuck with a land use that they don't want to use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're done with page four, we only have 49 pages to go. Page five, Item A, Mr. Jackson, you reference will be a small-scale, pedestrian-oriented. Is there a definition that could be provided for that, or something -- or a different word that's -- MR. EHARDT: That is the language that was in the original ordinance, and we didn't change it. There's some things in the existing ordinance we didn't change, some things we moved from Chapter 2 to Chapter 4, and some things were new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have an idea what your mindset would be in regards to what small-scale is? Because if you do, you could put something in that's more descriptive so there's no question if it is or is not small-scale? MR. EHARDT: I would let the development standards dictate that. It has certain, you know, heights and areas and things like that. I'd rather let those dictate it than try to give some other words here. I think the regulations kind of dictate the shape and size of parcels or buildings that are allowed, and I think that would be more appropriate way of defining it, in my estimation. MR. JACKSON: I believe, though, it was not here that that language was put there trying to describe what the end product would be, knowing that the comprehensive plan put a height limit on all the buildings of three to four stories and 56 feet, and that they were trying -- they were trying to go to pedestrian scale, i.e. Fifth Avenue South, Third Street, Clematis over on the east coast, something along those lines, so if somebody tried to pick a couple words that gave a visual description of what the build out was going to look like. So if you have problems with it, like I said, that was original language put in in 2000. Page 65 September 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and if we're going to -- things need to be clarified and you all have a better word for it, use it. If not, we'll make sure as we go through this it fits. MR. SCHIFFER: On that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. SCHIFFER: So David, if someone has a large piece of land and does something that appears to be large, would anybody ever say to you, hey, that's not small-scale? MR. JACKSON: I'm thinking. MR. SCHIFFER: I mean, you limit the size of buildings, commercial buildings, that max out at 20,000 gross, if they don't have residential. Other than that, is there anything? MR. JACKSON: I can't read into the writer's mind because I wasn't here, but I think when they talk about small-scale, they're talking about height, not in mass of building. MR. EHARDT: And I think, at least in the Bayshore option, most of the commercial development that fits this NC category is along Bayshore Drive and only goes back a couple hundred feet or so. It's not like a, you know, 30 acre piece of land there's all commercial, at least in the Bayshore case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what it boils down to is that you're literally rewriting everything for this area. If this is something that should be clarified and something that could get out of hand, by all means by next meeting, try to suggest a clarification. Under Item B, Waterfront Subdistrict -- it says the purpose of this subdistrict is to allow maximum use of the waterfront for entertainment while enhancing the area for use by the general public. Does that mean recreational uses in the waterfront subdistrict would be prohibited? MR. EHARDT: I thin they are in the table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm asking. I don't know. MR. EHARDT: Yes. Page 66 September 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you need to -- okay. MR. JACKSON: Again, that's original language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd just as soon clean it all up if we're going to go over this. Under residential subdistrict one, R-1, the last sentence, the intent is to create a row or residential units with uniform front yard setbacks. If you look under subdistrict R-3-E, continues on the following page, it says, the intent is to create a row of residential units with consistent front yard setbacks. Are you meaning anything different? One is uniform, and one is consistent. MR. EHARDT: I think it means the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use the mike, sir. MR. JACKSON: He said he believes they mean the same. Would you prefer we use the same words so we are consistent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's be consistent. MR. MURRAY: Couldn't be the worst thing that you ever do. MR. EHARDT: Excuse me. One clarification. I need to talk to Mr. Jackson because we changed some things in this district related to setbacks. Some of them were to be built to lines, and we opted now to just have a new setback where people can set further back than that, so I may need to reclarify this definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Work it out by next time around. That same page, where we started with residential subdistrict 3, the purpose of this district is to allow a development of mobile home, townhouses, and single family residences. Mobile home is a concern, and I want to make sure that you realize we can't do mobile homes in the coastal high hazard area, and part of your overlay is in that area. I'm not sure that this -- MR. JACKSON: The majority of the area is in coastal high hazard zone. Page 67 September 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's my understanding that mobile homes aren't allowed. MR. JACKSON : Well, I understand for conditional uses -- and Ms. Murray will have to chime in on this one, but if somebody has a mobile home on a lot, its own mobile home, and they want to replace it, they can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, in a coastal high hazard, can you clarify? MS. MURRAY: I'm not sure I can answer that question with respect to coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This says to allow the development of mobile home. I think that that's where my concern was. If it's existing, we can certainly look at that, but I don't believe -- I didn't know you could develop any new mobile homes in a coastal high hazard area. I think that's addressed in the GMP. MS. MURRAY: There are different rules for replacing versus new, so that might be something we need to answer for you next time, if I can't come up with something. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, you're correct. The future land use element prohibits new mobile homes within a coastal high hazard area. This entire Bayshore overlay is within the coastal high hazard area, with the exception of that portion lying both north of U.S. 41 and east of Airport Pulling Road. All of the existing mobile home zoning and VR zoning that allows mobile homes lies within the coastal high hazard areas. We just need to clarify the language. This is referring to redevelopment, not new mobile home zoning and development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that issue needs to get struck and rewritten, and in preparing for whatever you have to do, it needs to be consistent. MR. JACKSON: We will clarify that off what Mr. Weeks said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before I go to page six, does Page 68 September 21, 2005 anybody else have an item on page five? MR. SCHIFFER: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page six, the same item, top of the page -- oh, no, I already addressed the consistency. I guess number three on the bottom of the page, until the property owner -- it says, sub districts will remain under current LDC commercial regulations until the property owner decides to rezone to the BMUD-NC or BMUD A V sub districts. Now, maybe it's a clarification from staff that I need. I thought what we're -- what this overlay does is essentially rezone it. Basically, they'd be opting into one of the sub districts or instead of rezoning it because that's what an overlay would do, I believe. It's a rezone already. David's standing there, David Weeks, so maybe he could -- MR. WEEKS: I had that -- Mr. Chairman, I had that comment, as well. This, I think, reflects the earlier language in the earlier draft. I think what we need to do is make the same reference to opting in, and I made a note that we probably should reference that section at the beginning, section 2.03.07.5.2 that explains how you opt in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as that's noted the for next time. Gentlemen, I'm done with six, I'm done with seven. I did not dwell on the uses that carry us all the way to page 33. Any of you have any questions on the uses? MR. SCHIFFER: Yes, I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? MR. SCHIFFER: David, on page nine, there's a description of artist studios, and first of all -- I mean, I'm not sure -- the SIC code is actually for theatrical production and miscellaneous theatrical services, so I don't think that's an appropriate SIC code, but why wouldn't we want artist studios in the commercial district? Why wouldn't we want artist studios in all the districts? Aren't we building an artist community here? In other words, for example, the Page 69 September 21, 2005 neighborhood commercial should allow artist studios. MR. JACKSON: As a commercial use in a C-1 to C-3 or a neighborhood commercial? MR. SCHIFFER: I mean a place where a person could go and just -- MR. JACKSON: I don't have any argument on that. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay, so do you agree that killing the -- your intention wasn't to not have theatrical services. Correct? MR. JACKSON: Well, we did have one theatrical services in the arts -- arts village area. This is one of those things that either you list everything or you list nothing because there's so many art forms, and everybody has a definition of what art is. Building metal boats for some people will be art, and you don't want a boat factory, you know, so we'll look at the SIC code. We can put the permitted in the NC area there and see if we can find some other -- MR. SCHIFFER: Why not for the waterfront? I mean, an artist might want to look out at the water. MR. EHARDT: We -- the intent was to create this artist village and try to spell out the types of activities we'd see in that artist village. It was a distinct area within the Bayshore area. It has a lot of the same requirements as the NC category does. I believe staff wanted us to put something in related to the IC code. I know -- there's no real definitions that I could find for some of these uses that we're talking about here, so I just had to list them out as best I could of the types of things we got from some of the people that were interested in doing this type of development in the area, and -- but, yeah, I've got no problem showing it in the NC area to the waterfront area. MR. SCHIFFER: I'd like to see it in the NC, the -- I mean, the commercial zoning, somebody within that commercial project could build -- could be a group of artists, an art studio. I know you can't just Page 70 September 21, 2005 throw them all into that -- MR. JACKSON: That's fine. I don't have any difficulty with that. MR. SCHIFFER: And this comes up. This is going to be all over the place, but go down to the footnotes, and Patrick, help me with this one. The intent of that phrase, let's take five, for example. You use this throughout the thing. It says, only allowed on residentially zoned property as part of a mixed use development. Does that mean -- in other words, if I have a use, does that mean that I can only do it on residential property, or are you saying it is only allowed on residential? I mean, can you get rid of the word "only" and then say, allowed on residential properties? Wouldn't that be the same thing? MR. JACKSON: Okay, so you're trying to stay away from -- (Two people speaking at the same time.) MR. SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, if you read this carefully, what it says is, it's only allowed on residential property, which is -- MR. JACKSON: As part of a mixed use development. MR. SCHIFFER: As part, so if I have a commercial piece of land, I want to put this use on, and you're telling me I can't do it because it's only allowed on residential property. MR. JACKSON: Okay. Maybe we'll clarify it. We'll have some people that will capture a piece ofNC property, like on Bayshore, for instance, where it's not very deep. It's only maybe a hundred feet deep, and they want to capture some of the residential zoned land there and make it part of a mixed use project, and so you're taking the residential and turning it into a commercial use is only allowed if it's part of a larger mixed use project. MR. SCHIFFER: But when you say to me that a use is permitted, but it's only allowed -- in other words, if you get rid of the word "only", I think you say what you mean. MR. EHARDT: Okay. This is something that David had us put in there as clarification. There were some sections in the overlay that Page 71 September 21,2005 we designated for the artist village that are residential right now. They're part of a mobile home community. I forget the name of the street now. Xxx Vanburen Street. On the south side of Vanburen Street, it's residential, and on the north side, it's C-5. C-5 is not a problem in doing what we want to do in NC categories. MR. SCHIFFER: But I would argue that if it goes to this footnote -- MR. EHARDT: Wait, let me -- let me -- let's continue on, and maybe David can explain it further. What the FLUE says is that you cannot expand the commercial property in the Bayshore, in the overlay district, into the residential area, unless it's immediately adjacent to a commercial property. Am I saying that right? I think that's why this language -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to talk into the speaker, sir. MR. SCHIFFER: Let me say, I understand that. MR. EHARDT: Okay. MR. SCHIFFER: And I understand what the intent of this is, but the way you've worded it, you're not allowing me to do it on the commercial property. What you're telling me is that it's only allowed on the residential property. MR. JACKSON: Okay. Well, in reality, you could not make the residential mixed use by itself. It would have to be attached to some kind of a commercial property, so we'll take the word "only" out and MR. SCHIFFER: And it's intent -- I'm not understanding the intent. MR. WEEKS: I would suggest something to the effect of, for residentially zoned property, this use is only allowed if it's part of a mixed use development. I think we understand the idea. You're reading it to mean that if you're zoned commercial, you can't do this use. MR. MURRAY: That's what it says. Page 72 September 21, 2005 MR. SCHIFFER: Because you're telling me it's only allowed on -- I have a couple more. MR. MURRAY: Okay. Go ahead. I just have one question on the artist thing again. I want to beat a dead horse, if I may. We're coming back up to that artist studios, painting and so forth, and we get down to ceramics, pottery, and it's permitted, and hand in glove, if you're going to have pottery, you're going to have ceramics, you're going to have to have a kiln, so I just want you to be very cognizant of that, if you don't want to be putting a business, allow a business in there that can't function, so I just call that to your attention, and that's the end of that for me. MR. SCHIFFER: My next question is on page -- never mind -- page 15, the marina is not allowed on neighborhood commercial, but there is some neighborhood commercial that's alongside Haldeman Creek and everything, wouldn't that be allowed on that? We actually have some -- MR. JACKSON: Back in the section back here where it talks about waterfront properties, we put in there that neighborhood commercial could be used for a marina property, as long as it was adjacent to, directly in the same ownership. It's further back. MR. SCHIFFER: In other words, the reason you don't have marina in there is because you don't want it on neighborhood commercial that is not on the water or something? MR. JACKSON: Right. MR. SCHIFFER: Could you put in that footnote to explain that? MR. JACKSON: Which page was that, sir. MR. SCHIFFER: Page 15, marinas. MR. JACKSON: And you want to put P in the BMUD section? MR. SCHIFFER: And then you want a footnote to explain that it has to be alongside the water. MR. JACKSON: Okay. MR. EHARDT: You're talking about in the NC category? Page 73 September 21,2005 MR. SCHIFFER: Right. Another question, just out of curiosity on the footnotes, you have a lot of ibid situations. Why don't we just have less footnotes. In other words, why -- I mean, in other words, we're footnoting -- let's just make it simple -- say number one, and then the next five are going to be the same as number one, so we do five ibids. Why wouldn't we just always refer to number one? MR. WHITE: In other words, in the table box, you'd put the same number? MR. SCHIFFER: Right. Why have -- you know, we have a couple hundred numbers here. MR. EHARDT: I think I was trying to follow the format that's in the new code, and I think they were numbered consecutively, if I remember right. I may not. MR. WHITE: They are consecutive, as they are distinctly separate footnotes, but those that are similar, if you look through the table boxes, you'll see there's essentially a repetition of that same footnote. MR. JACKSON: We'll correct that. MR. SCHIFFER: Page 20, I note dwelling units are allowed in neighborhood commercial and waterfront sub districts, but for down here, we're not saying that residential uses are permitted, and I wonder -- I mean, I wouldn't want a problem with somebody saying you can't put a residence, and they could say, well, I can put a dwelling unit. Is there a problem with -- MR. EHARDT: That can go in there. MR. JACKSON: I think we missed it. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. And again, it can be in mixed use, which would be the intent. MR. JACKSON: Right. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. On page 24 is accessory uses, the boat rental down to the boat yards, wouldn't that be available on neighborhood commercial, if it's alongside the water? Put in Page 74 September 21, 2005 allowable, but footnoted that it -- I mean, it has to be on waterfront? MR. JACKSON: You are talking about the boat rental in the residential? MR. SCHIFFER: In the neighborhood commercial. There's some neighborhood commercial, I know, that's on Haldeman Creek. MR. JACKSON: Sure. MR. SCHIFFER: I think the footnote that states it has to be on water. You don't want a land-locked boat rental. MR. JACKSON: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's called portage. MR. EHARDT: Just a point of clarification. I'm trying to think where there's -- the NC property that's on -- is that on the north side of Haldeman Creek? MR. SCHIFFER: North side of Haldeman Creek. MR. MURRAY: You may have something in the future where you get some additional pieces into your -- MR. EHARDT: Right. MR. SCHIFFER: A little thing, on page 26, we have garage-residential. Would that always be your understanding for either a garage alongside a residence, not a parking garage serving multiple residents? MR. JACKSON: Right. MR. SCHIFFER: Page 27, has an accessory use -- I think marinas are allowed as a primary use, but could they not be an accessory use in the neighborhood, commercial, and waterfront also, or you think the fact that they're allowed as a primary use, that would never be a problem? MR. EHARDT: I don't think I'd duplicate indicate it. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay, as long as there would never be -- MR. EHARDT: If they're on the other one there wouldn't. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm done with uses. That lands me on page 31. Page 75 '" 11\"' .~-"""., September 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go to page 33 in paragraph A, last sentence. It seems to indicate that if you have an underlying RMF -6, you're allowed to have commercial uses as long as they're part of the mixed use development, so that means you take the density of an RMF -6 and you can add to it some amount of commercial use, so that your density on that piece of property would be much greater than what it simply would be as RMF-6. Is that the correct interpretation? MR. EHARDT: You can increase it if you use the -- it would probably get to the 388 draw down that they have. You could. If that 388 units is used up, then you couldn't use it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I was going to -- I've certainly got a -- MR. EHARDT: David, is that right? MR. JACKSON: When you mean density, you mean by just mass of commercial, or more residential? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now, if it's RMF-6, all you can put there is six units per acre. MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now you're saying you can have the six units per acre plus whatever commercial you want to fit on the property . MR. JACKSON: Provided it is attached to a mixed use piece of property, neighborhood commercial and expand it. Then it could, yes. It could take what is remaining or up to what -- 12 units per acres -- that's left in the density bonus pool. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I will have -- I have a lot of questions about the density bonus pool, but I guess -- MR. JACKSON: We have an expert -- we have an expert today that could answer that for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know if anybody from transportation is here, but I would ask that -- and Ross Miller is Page 76 ~ ,..~._._,..,. .._~-----"--,, September 21, 2005 shaking his head no, even though he works in transportation, but -- you know, with some of your decisions, Ross, I'd have to agree with you, but -- just kidding. I would like to find out if in the TCMA that was created, that I believe this area is a part of, or TCME, whatever which one it is, did they count this additional commercial being in that area when they did the TCME? It regulates or converts the program. MR. SCHIFFER: Mark, that's an existing situation. I mean, the code now says that in mixed use, you're allowed 12 units per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But does the RMF-6 in this overlay allow additional commercial if you're in neighborhood commercial? MR. SCHIFFER: If you're in neighborhood commercial, you're allowed mixed use, therefore, you're allowed the 12 units per acre now. MR. JACKSON: Okay. I can't speak to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't get that. MR. JACKSON: I'm going to try to look into your brain here and figure out if I'm going to answer the question that I think you're asking, is that the bonus density pool was taken out of Botanical Gardens for the effect of the increased transportation impact. The density in the entire area will not be any greater than what the underlying land use allowed. It just may be in a different place along Bayshore or along the triangle area, so, I mean, we'll get into that. I don't know if we really need to bog down here. When we get down to the footnotes to talk about that, but the 388 density bonus pool came out of Botanical Gardens and its underlying -- its land use ofRMF-6, it was 388 units, it was allowed by the comprehensive plan, to be dispersed throughout the overlay district, and without any written rule, so -- and a rule could be written, but -- so instead of it all being down at the intersection of Thomasson Drive and Bayshore, those 388 units, they could be spread out throughout the rest of the area along Bayshore or anywhere in the Page 77 September 21, 2005 residential area where it is attached to a mixed use development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David Weeks, could you -- I'm-- haven't heard of transferring development density in other places, other than the TDR program. Do we have a transfer development or some transfer density from the Botanical throughout this area? Is that how it's been set up? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. And in effect, we would create a special TDR provision here. Back in 2000 when the future land use element overlay was adopted for this area, and as David Jackson just explained, that that's the nuts and bolts of it. The Botanical Gardens was forthcoming. We knew that. We wanted to encourage mixed use development here. The incentive in part for that is to provide additional density. However, because the vast majority of this overlay lies within the coastal high hazard areas, providing for increased density through a rezoning was not enough. That's like a line in the sand that the Department of Community Affairs does not want to cross, so our means of increasing that density was to take those units away from the Botanical Garden site after rezone, and creating this pool, as he referred to it, of 388 units, and up to the point that that's used up, this density incentive is applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the coastal high hazard area in this particular case, on individual parcels, you could increase the densities, but only because you're using the gross density calculation left over from another project that didn't use it. Is that -- MR. WEEKS: That's correct. The overall fact is a reallocation or redistribution of, at that time, existing, approved density, as opposed to, at the end of the day, increasing the number of units that could be in the coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The issue of taking the RFM-6 and allowing it to be used with the mixed use development and adding commercial now to the RFM-6, is that also addressed in the GMP? MR. WEEKS: It is just in the general sense that it says mixed Page 78 September 21, 2005 use development is allowed, and what we're doing here, which is allowed under a zoning of the land, just as we're taking lands that are presently zoned commercial, and we're going to allow residential development to occur there as part of a mixed use development, we have the option scenario where a piece of property zoned residential is going to be allowed to have commercial development, and in this case, also, more density than the underlying zoning would indicate. That's the real difference here with the zoning overlay . You cannot go by your underlying zoning to the greatest -- well, I would say completely it becomes irrelevant because the zoning overlay, if you opt in, dictates what your uses are going to be and what your density is going to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand now that the 388, then, is somewhat regulated. Basically, it comes from a formula derived from the maximum that could have been there anyway. MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How is the additional commercial that seems to be implied could be created in all these areas, how has that been accounted for grossly over the entire overlay project or the properties in that area, versus what would have been there under the existing zoning? MR. WEEKS: That has not been accounted for. Now most of the properties that are in the overlay that allow commercial uses, most of the neighborhood commercial, most of the waterfront, if not all, is presently zoned commercial, so there's not the increase, but there are some RMF -6 zoned properties that would allow for commercial development, and there has been no similar accounting for that increase, as there was with the 388 residential units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you -- where I was going with my original question was trying to find out if transportation, then, has some way of -- because when they did this TCMA or TEM, or whatever it's called, at that time, they had to show the State how they Page 79 " ," ~-"""---_.--~. September 21, 2005 figured all the traffic counts in the area were going to be and they relied on certain formulas. Then this new commercial wouldn't have been in that initial formula, so I'm wondering how that's going to affect the overall TCME. You may not be able to answer that question. MR. WEEKS: I can't -- certainly I cannot answer the specifics of how many trips would be generated additionally. I can say that laying this down in an overlay which allows for this zoning overlay that we're discussing existed since 2000, so when the TCEA was adopted about a year ago, this future land use provision was already there, and we're taking a step now to implement what was already in the future land use element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, maybe you can let me know next time. Mr. Abernathy? MR. ABERNATHY: I think you could use the word cow patty in the transfer of the Botanical Garden, surrender of the Botanical Garden units -- MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. MR. ABERNATHY: -- some years ago. Is the 388, are those all derived from Botanical Garden properties along Bayshore, I guess it was? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? MR. VIGLIOTTI: The 388 units that go into a pool, how are they going to be distributed? MR. WEEKS: First come, first served until they're used up, and our department has specifically mentioned if you're in the overlay, it's always been our intent that we will track those units. Initially, it was presumed because such a process that we've discussed today did not exist, we presumed that it would be through a rezone action. In this case we're coming up with an administrative process. Either way it doesn't matter. We will track those number of Page 80 September 21, 2005 units with each approval until that 388 has been used up. MR. MURRAY: And I would have a question, really, more for Mr. Jackson is, is there a waiting list currently for such application? MR. JACKSON: They're lined up at the door. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? MR. SCHIFFER: And David -- I'm sorry, David Weeks, it exists today. I mean, we're not adding that to the overlay at this point? You're defining the pool a little better, but the 12 units was in there prior to today? MR. WEEKS: The 12 units was in the future land use element. That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the conditional commercial that can now be put in RFM-6 was not? That's what I'm trying to get at. MR. WEEKS: No, sir, if you're going back to the notion we have this pool of residential, did we have some pool of commercial? No, we did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was getting at. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Going back to the units again, They're being given away for free? MR. JACKSON: That's not been discussed with any part of us. MR. WEEKS: No, there is no independent development right that exists. It's a -- if you will, you could say the county controls those, as opposed to a private entity. The county has that pool of 388 units. Each time an applicant walks in the door requesting this density increase, if they qualify and it's approved, and we take that off the books. MR. ABERNATHY: The Botanical Garden could use the money. MR. VIGLIOTTI: So could the county. So could the county to fund this. Couldn't we attach a dollar value like other areas of parking spaces? It's a thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is interesting because the first Page 81 September 21, 2005 developer who can move the fastest and acquire the most is going to walk in there and try to get as many free densities as he can, where elsewhere in the county, they'd have to pay a fortune for that. MR. WEEKS: But the incentive here is to try to get a mixed use of the property gratis. That's the basis here. You may be correct. We had not thought of this before, but the notion of charging for those, I would question whether that's -- is that still incentive, or is it now becoming a disincentive? MR. VIGLIOTTI: I believe if you put a dollar figure to it that they'll still do it, depending on the right dollar figure. It might be hard to find a number that works for everybody, but there is a dollar figure that everybody's leaving on the table. MR. MURRAY: As long as we're discussing that, take into consideration this is intended as a neighborhood redevelopment, and as I understood it, it was to benefit the residents, and primarily the residents, and not make it open season for all the developers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, did you have another? MR. SCHIFFER: Yes, and I'm sorry to go back, but this will be quick. David, on page 31 -- David Jackson. You know, we used the BMUD abbreviation a lot, and in Chapter 4, the first place it kind of shows up, could we put in the abbreviations these BMUD things? In other words, there's no way you can define it in the LDC abbreviations COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, what is that? MR. SCHIFFER: Pardon me? COURT REPORTER: What is that? MR. SCHIFFER: The word, the BMUD. It's capital B -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: B-M-U-D. COURT REPORTER: Thank you. MR. SCHIFFER: Where we have our abbreviations? Could we put these in there? MR. JACKSON: Sure. Page 82 September 21, 2005 MR. SCHIFFER: Somebody could come across Chapter 4, and they really wouldn't know that that's the Bayshore thing unless they read that, or spell out Bayshore. MR. EHARDT: Have this in the definitions? MR. SCHIFFER: Well, prior to the definitions, we have abbreviations. I think it should be in there. MR. EHARDT: Oh, okay. MR. SCHIFFER: And we highlighted it like it's an abbreviation. In other words, our standard now if we have a bolded. MR. JACKSON: Right. We'll define it a little better and put it in the definitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? MR. VIGLIOTTI: I want to get back to the units again and the dollar value. David, couldn't you work on a program that might make sense to generate some kind of revenue, instead of just -- MR. JACKSON: The community redevelopment agency, that's one of its purposes, is to provide incentives for redevelopment of blighted areas, and redevelopment of spaces. Usually the incentives are something that is a gift to the person that is going to create something new, make it better, larger, or will comply with whatever our zones, codes, and designs are. I agree with the comment made that it may become a disincentive, but then again, it's a gamble, it's a risk, but our job is to provide the incentive that this bonus pool is a definite incentive to bring this whole area back to life, and I would hate to put a cork in the top of the bottle. However, that doesn't mean that your suggestion can't be taken up with the community redevelopment agency board at their next meeting and discuss with them if they have a desire to attach a dollar figure to it, but right now, I don't see any administrative or any language or legal stuff that says that we can, we should, or we couldn't. Page 83 September 21, 2005 MR. VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to see it at least investigated. I know the other CRE people pay for parking spaces. It's common, and it still works. MR. JACKSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't your board made up of people that live in the area, business owners? MR. JACKSON: That's just an advisory board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. JACKSON: Which is just advisory in only capacity. The CRA board is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the BCC. MR. JACKSON: No, it's not the BCC. It's the people that sit as the BCC. It's separate and distinct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The five bodies-- MR. JACKSON: No, they are separate and distinct. They are not the same. They're the same people that sit there, that's the thing we have to keep separated here. They have different legal actions, and they don't mingle. MR. MURRAY: I watch the transfiguration occur every time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They don't look like themselves, let me tell you that. MR. SCHIFFER: Government schizophrenia. MR. MURRAY: I've got 33, but we went back to 31. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can't go back. We're on page 33. Under C(3)a, just a question about the outdoor displays. Merchandise is limited to the sale of comparable items sold on the premises, and as indicated on the proprietors' occupational license. They don't tell -- on the occupational license, they don't tell a guy what merchandize he's going to sell. MR. JACKSON: This is original language. I have difficulty with it, too, but I didn't know what to do with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's clean it up. Page 84 September 21, 2005 MR. JACKSON: Well, I'd just as soon take it out. This -- what this means is somebody can't -- I mean, somebody sells boats, he puts boats out there in his front yard, or somebody sells benches or art, that he can't take his art out and put it out in his -- if he has a front yard area, that's his private property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe it needs to be reworded in a better manner, so -- MR. JACKSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be a good time to do it. Page 35 is the rest of the commission there? MR. SCHIFFER: But wait a minute, Mark, one thing. I kind of understood that what it's saying is that if a guy gets an occupational license to be an outdoor vender, he can only sell those things that he has a license for. I mean, you're saying that an outdoor vender could sell food, and he starts to sell cars. I mean, wouldn't that be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It doesn't say on his license what his merchandize is. That's all I'm saying. (Several people speaking at the same time.) MR. JACKSON: Well, it says sold on premises which intends that he has a fixed site. He's not a cart vendor -- MR. SCHIFFER: Right. MR. JACKSON: -- pushing somewhere. He's got a building. He's got a rental space -- I mean, he's in a space. It's on his premises that he is leasing, so -- MR. EHARDT: Couldn't we just put a period after premises, or strike the last part? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I can go do 35. The first thing on 35 is your front build-to-line. In the C-1 through C-5 zoning districts which underlay the BMUD, that's where it's to apply. What if someone wants to use the underlying zoning setback? Does that mean that they're not allowed to, that they have to use the front build-to-line? Page 85 September 21, 2005 MR. EHARDT: The way we're written it now, that is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even if you don't opt in, you've still got to -- MR. EHARDT: -- use that criteria, but you can do a more intense use if you have C-5 or C-4 which you couldn't do with the opt In. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only thing you're not buying into when you opt in is the change of use? MR. EHARDT: Basically the use, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I your want to make sure it's understood that way. MR. JACKSON: A little bit of a more uniformed setback, it'll bring it a little bit closer to the road. It's a little bit more uniform type of setback when somebody redevelops a property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got -- there's a lot of questions about the build-to-line to understand it better, but I guess we'll work our way through the pages to get to them. Under number two in the next column, in-fill projects will match front yard setbacks of existing -- adjacent existing structures. Well, if they didn't have a build-to-line before, is this assuming all the structures are built to some imaginary line? What if they're staggered? What if you got different -- MR. EHARDT: Let me think about this. I forgot what I wrote here. That probably needs to come out and stick with the build-to-line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: Yes. And in redevelopment, that does -- I think you're exactly right, Mr. Strain, is that in redevelopment, you're going to have, when there were no codes, buildings built at different settings, and then when there was takings on roads, and so the line moves around, and we may have buildings -- and we do have many of those -- there's no -- it looks like a snake crawling on the ground. Page 86 September 21, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The maximum density at the bottom lists 12 units per acre. I just wanted to make sure that whatever that is, it doesn't exceed the current density allowed by the coastal high hazard area because I think you have a base density of four with a traffic congestion, I think you're dropping it down to maybe three. I'm not sure how that works, and maybe David Weeks, who's standing behind you, can tell me if this fits with the -- MR. JACKSON: Well, yeah. This is a mixed use neighborhood commercial, so the 12 units is correct, if they bring residential in with the commercial component. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as it doesn't increase the density that we currently have for the coastal -- we can't -- I don't believe we can bring any more density in to a coastal high hazard area. MR. JACKSON: It comes out of the pool. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. EHARDT: That's all. That's the word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David Weeks, is that worded in a manner that will work for your understanding of it? MR. WEEKS: I'd have a couple of minor changes. I would recommend -- the first one would be to add the phrase, this applies to mixed use proj ects only. Because that is the only means by which these will qualify for that, and secondly, in the second sentence of the footnote 105, replace the word "since" with "if'. If the underlying zoning is commercial because there are, again, some RFM-6 properties within the neighborhood commercial, but those are minor adjustments, but otherwise, back to your question, yes, sir. MR. MURRAY: Would you repeat that last piece again, replace the word -- MR. WEEKS: In the second sentence, it begins with the word since. It's stating that since the underlying zoning is commercial. I would replace the word "since" with the word "if'. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. While we're into that paragraph, Page 87 September 21, 2005 and Mr. Jackson, I guess this is more of a question for you. I understand your first sentence now about the 388 density. Then it says, this bonus is allocated on a first come basis and is recommended by the CRA local advisory board as developments are planned. Now, is that the board that was appointed by the five bodies that sit up there? MR. JACKSON: No. It's a nine-member appointed board, advisory board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appointed by the BCC or the CRA, whatever you want to call them? MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: It's appointed by them, it's advisory in nature. Their objective in their bylaws, their scope of work is to give community input into anything that happens within the boundaries of the CRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I feel pretty uncomfortable with allowing a private group to award density. I think that's at the discretion of the BCC or the government process. I also don't believe that your board, the advisory board, has the right to do that anyway, by their own establishment. When they were created by the BCC, the most they could do, according to Item D of their creating documents was review and comment on any redevelopment proj ects proposed in the advisory board's component redevelopment area, and I think that that's going quite a bit further than that process. I would suggest that that sentence be struck. MR. MURRAY: I would agree with you, Mark. That was one of the issues that I had, was the concern for decision making. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think review and comment would be weighed, appropriately so, by staff, since staff are the professionals that we rely upon to make sure all the consistency is there and all the other elements of discretion are used, so that would be a suggestion. Page 88 September 21, 2005 MR. JACKSON: You're talking about page 35, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your footnote. It does occur in other parts of these overlays. MR. JACKSON: Correct. I'm just trying-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 105, and you have the same language throughout this document in other paragraphs we'll be getting to that reference approval authority of your advisory board -- MR. JACKSON: I think the operative word is "recommended" because they know they don't have any statutory authority. The reason it's in here, sir, is to make sure that any person that is a developer or redeveloper in the area, that they come to the community and talk to the community and lay the cards on the table and get input, and the input would be for design, architectural review, density, the likelihood that the project with be a benefit to the entire area, and it is a recommendation which can be overturned when it gets into the county planning process or up into the planning commission because you will see all these projects, and then it has to go to the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MR. JACKSON: The recommendation is to provide a tool because right now, we do not want an end run around the community, and you'll end up with something you don't want. It's too late, it's already through the process, and you have to swallow it, and that is happening now, and we're just trying to circumvent that and put them back through the process to don't forget that we are a community redevelopment area. The community needs to be involved, and they need to know what's going on in their neighborhood, and you have people standing in front of you in the planning commission all the time saying, when did this happen? How did this happen? Nobody has input, and you have to backfill. We're just trying to put the language in there to allow the community to provide recommended input, recommended, and then the people that have the legal side of the house can continue from there.M Page 89 September 21, 2005 I mean, I didn't mean to be terse. I'm just trying to convey the people that are in this area, how they feel about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I've got more to say. David, do you have a comment? MR. WEEKS: Just a quick comment. If I understood Mr. Jackson correctly, he mentioned staff, but he also mentioned planning commission and board, and as this is structured, this is going to be an administrative process with staff, only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, and that's why I'm still getting into it, David. But I disagree with the way it's written on those bases, but Mr. Jackson, to go back to what you said, you talked about recommendation. Again, I've got to go back to the documents that formed the advisory committee that were signed by the chairman of the county commission, and it says specifically they will review and comment. It doesn't say recommend, doesn't say approve, but review and comment. Now, I don't know what the protocol is legally, but I would think that you need to stick to what your allocation was, just like this panel has to stick to what we're allowed to do. So I would have problem with language in there that says review and comment, but I can't see recommending an approval at this point, as it being inconsistent with the other documents that formed that group. So those are my comments for next time. MR. MURRAY: I would also add to that. If it is truly to be a fair system, if it's going to be first come, first served, it has to be really noted as first come, first serve, and the recommendations that come from your advisory board, who knows these recommendations? This information has been passed on to the county? Is public knowledge? So those are the considerations you must make, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on page 35. MR. SCHIFFER: Just a matter of format. Don't we now, instead of calling the county comprehensive planning director, don't we say Page 90 ~'~.M_"",_"_~;",,___^, September 21, 2005 county manager or his designee everywhere? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHIFFER: That comes up in a couple places. It comes up there on footnote -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just after 105. MR. JACKSON: Yeah. The county manager designee was original language from zoning, planning staff. They always ask who is this and what does it mean, so what I tried to do was take it out and try to, you know, put in something that is a known entity to qualify the county manager or his designee. MR. MURRAY: We can do it parenthetically, I suppose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you comment on this issue because we've gone to great lengths to change into the UDC from the LDC. We changed all that language over to the county manager and his designee, and we've done that in the PUDs that we've put forward, so are we now reverting, going back to this? MR. SCHMITT: Should be county manager or designee. That's been pretty consistent. MR. JACKSON: All I comment to that is, I get staff recommendations that says take it out, who is this, so I'm in a -- MR. WHITE: That's fine. You need the information, but that doesn't mean the provision has to read that way. Once they know that, then they will know how to apply it in whatever procedural rules they develop. MR. JACKSON: Then I should put back in here county manager or his designee? MR. WHITE: Or designee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or designee. Right. MR. WHITE: Yes. Leave out the pronoun. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that same sentence, I want to follow up on your question, once the 388 unit density bonus is allocated, only the affordable housing density bonuses can be used to increase Page 91 .'-""~-'--~- -".. September 21, 2005 density. Now, Mr. Schmitt, what are we at with the affordable housing and the CHHA? There were some changes coming down from the BCC. Where are we at with that? MR. SCHMITT: David could talk about this, but part of this depends on where we were in a zoning reevaluation of what density was available there, but the bottom line was going to be a four units an acre in a coastal high hazard area for affordable housing. That's what the EAR based amendment was going to offer. David? MR. WEEKS: Further, even if the EAR based amendments are approved that caps density to four units per acre in a coastal high hazard area, that would still provide the opportunity to rezone from three units per acre up to that cap of four, so there's still some validity to that statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just wanted to make sure. MR. MURRAY: David -- and you said if. Has that not yet come back from DCA? MR. WEEKS: Only the report itself. MR. MURRAY: With no comment, right? MR. WEEKS: Correct. The next step is to actually prepare the amendments to the growth management plan and go through that adoption process. MR. MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm -- Susan? MS. MURRAY: May I make a brief comment? Because we've discussed this before and things, but I don't see any changes in here. One of the things that staff has difficulty with, when you start talking about redevelopment versus new is what constitutes redevelopment and what constitutes new, and the way I read this is new buildings, meaning taking a raw, vacant piece of land and constructing a new structure versus either adding onto an existing structure or Page 92 September 21, 2005 demolishing a portion of and rebuilding of, and it's -- I think it's -- the way this is drafted, anything new would probably be interpreted to mean vacant land to brand new, completely new structure, and I'm curious if the intent is to try to apply some of these rules, when somebody comes in to redevelop, and then what does that -- what constitutes new in that case? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're now in the regular areas of the county. Do we have a way -- I think it's called a 50 percent rule. If you renovate over 50 percent of either value or square footage or something like that -- MS. MURRAY: We have in the architectural standards some clarification that where you do make a certain percentage change or certain types of changes, you would then apply certain rules, and yeah, for other provisions of the code, we also have regulations that spell out what constitutes redevelopment or new development or a change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you see any reason why what's in the existing code wouldn't be able to work here? I mean, I'm just talking it out. MS. MURRAY: Possibly. I guess my concern is, I'm not sure if that would meet their intent. I guess that's what I'm asking. (Several people speaking at the same time.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're also-- MR. EHARDT: I think they were intending for -- they're structures, they're buildings. The existing building on the site gets torn down, you build something new because you couldn't ask a person in an existing building to build his facade that's set back 30 feet, build it up to the build-to-line. That's just, you know, it doesn't make any sense. MS. MURRAY: Well, it may be that you want them to comply with other regulations that they possibly could do -- and maybe not. I guess that's what I'm asking because the way it's written now, it would Page 93 ----~, September 21, 2005 strictly apply to brand new buildings. MR. EHARDT: Yes. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, what that means is that someone will come in with a -- that has a currently existing 25,000 square foot building, demolish everything but the bathroom, and build around it and say it's not a new building it's an existing building modified, and I think limitations in the LDC would say no, you're 50 percent of either the square footage or the value. Therefore, you come into the new development. MR. JACKSON: That's the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the missing items that Susan is saying need to be implemented somewhere in here, and I would recommend that that happen. MS. MURRAY: That problem -- MR. SCHMITT: I would just point out that is the trigger also for the FEMA regulations, so in the building department, it would be, as Brad knows, that would trigger the requirement to bring everything up to code, regardless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? MR. MURRAY: So the 50 percent rule is based on what, square footage, dollars? MR. SCHMITT: 50 percent of the assessed value of the building, itself, the appraised value. MR. VIGLIOTTI: 50 percent of the appraisal? MR. SCHMITT: Either/or, but presently it's the appraised value so you can actually certainly have a higher measurement in regards to the 50 percent rule. MR. VIGLIOTTI: 50 percent of cost, construction cost? MR. SCHMITT: The structure itself, not the property it's on, the actual replacement value of this structure. MR. MURRAY: The improvement. MR. SCHMITT: The improvement. It's the improvement versus Page 94 September 21, 2005 the replacement value of the entire structure. MR. SCHIFFER: And also, Bob, there are the costs of the new work. There's some things that don't necessarily have to be included. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. Some work sheet FEMA uses that's fairly similar to the zoning department. MR. SCHIFFER: Susan, let me ask you a question on this. For example, there are some conflicts in other parts of the code. Which would prevail, the 80 percent of the structure located on the property line? We have architectural standards that require 60 percent of a side broken out. I mean, we have landscape buffer requirements that are in excess of five feet, so would not this prevail in that case? MS. MURRAY: Yes. This is an overlay, so it's going to overlay the existing set of rules. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. EHARDT: Just for clarification, are we saying that we need some language here on this 50 percent thing, or the existing regulations cover that? MR. MURRAY: The existing regulations cover it. MR. SCHMITT: I think you'd want to reference the existing criteria in the LDC for build back policy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The court reporter has to change out at 5 o'clock, which will be time for another break, but anyway, before she leaves, we need to know for her replacement how we're going to move forward. We have several choices. Mr. Vigliotti has to leave at 6:00. We still have a quorum if he leaves. We could continue to whatever time of the night you all feel like it. I'm game, or we could break for lunch -- break for dinner for an hour at 5:00 and come back at 6:00 and start up again, or we can stay working until 6:00 or 7:00. What's the preference? MR. MIDNEY: I've got to leave at quarter to six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A quarter to six? Okay. So one, two, three, we'll still have a quorum. Page 95 September 21, 2005 (Several people speaking at the same time.) MR. SCHIFFER: I'm here. I'm in the quorum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're here. What about you, Ken? You're kind of the deal breaker here. MR. ABERNATHY: I'm here, but I'm ready to quit for the day around 6 :00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well then, I think the consensus is that at 6:00, we're going to have to quit because that leave four instead of five. If that's the case, we'll break at 5 :00 when the court reporter comes in to change, and we'll stay until 6:00 for the new court reporter, we'll break at that time, and at the rate we're going, for those of you that are trying to stay for other matters, I don't think we're going to get through the overlay, through the first overlay, before 6:00 at this speed. Yes? MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. There are some people who came to speak on this, and they've been very patient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After the break, I was going to ask that they stay long enough to be part of this. In fact -- MR. MURRAY: We can do it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we can do it now, if that's okay. Any problem breaking in the middle, Pat? MS. FABACHER: I have the speakers list. For the Bayshore overlay, I have Mr. Thomas Sbrocco. Is he still here? Okay. Mr. Michael Fernandez? MR. ABERNATHY: He left. MS. FABACHER: Then I have for the triangle district, Mr. Michael Carradi. Does anyone else wish to speak? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick -- Pat, I got one question. Ifwe leave at 6:00 today, we're not going to get into the balance of the amendments. Do we need to provide an opportunity for those people who are speaking on something else besides the overlays, to offer their discussion today? Page 96 September 21, 2005 MR. WHITE: I don't know if we have any other speakers. MS. FABACHER: We had one speak -- well, it was Brian. I don't have any other speakers. MR. WHITE: Certainly if there are other matters that members present would like to speak to, I don't believe it would be inappropriate to afford them that opportunity today and just advise them if they do decide to speak, they have to fill out a speaker permission form and turn it in to Catherine, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All of those -- all of you here that may want to talk on any subj ect that's on today's agenda, we will break and we will end today at 6:00 and continue to another date, but if your only opportunity to speak on that matter is today, feel free to do so, just fill out a speaker slip and turn it in to Catherine, and we'll address you before 6 o'clock. So thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, so that means that county staff can go ahead and leave, that are here for other amendments? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see us getting through Bayshore before 6:00, at this rate. MS. FABACHER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on page 36, we've got 52 or 53 to go through, and we've still got Gateway to go through. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll never get through it. Let's continue on page 36, talking about the building standards, and it says, locations on Bayshore Drive, first floor elevation with the sidewalk for commercial and mixed use building. How does that interact with FEMA, and maybe staff would have to answer this because I know FEMA has a minimum height, and we're forcing people to be below that height by standard, are we allowed to do that? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. You can have a low FEMA height Page 97 September 21, 2005 mandate in a certain area, but all the buildings would have to meet all the flood-proofing requirements, and that would happen through the building code -- would have to meet the flood-proofing requirements, and I'm sure Brad can certainly -- define that more in regards to it, but it has to be a defined area as a -- in our zoning as an area -- just like Fifth Avenue, Fifth Avenue in downtown Naples is a flood zone. Every building down there is flood-proof because it's at street level, rather than the flood elevation. MR. SCHIFFER: David, the elevation of FEMA is about a foot over grade, though, isn't it? Do you have any experience with this? MR. JACKSON: No, I don't have any experience. This input came from the DSAC, the two meetings we had with them. That was the recommendation, and they voted on it and asked us to put this in there. They cited Marco Island and they cited Fifth Avenue South, and they said that it is allowable because they permitted buildings without it, and that as long as it meets the flood-proofing requirements. The objective there was to prevent an undulating sidewalk that looked like a hill-over-dale type of thing where you have an existing series of fronts of buildings that are all at -- you know, below grade from a long time ago, and somebody knocks down a building and builds, now you've got to go up, you either have stairs, you have handicap walks, or the sidewalk has to move up and down. It's to keep it on a level plane type of scenario, so that was their recommendation put in there and we accepted that and put it in here because it was -- you could do it legally. MR. SCHMITT: But the concern I have for you is that I think it's very close to the street, and I don't think, for example, that if it's up a foot or something, that would be a problem to obtain, and it wouldn't give you that up and down sidewalk stuff, and I think the other thing, too, is that you're doing traffic analysis on that street, this street, while some of us picture it as a cute little downtown street, is going to be a Page 98 ~~.--- September 21, 2005 major thoroughfare to a lot of development, so there might be even some safety of having patios and stuff like that a little bit high off the street, so this is really locking everybody down low, locking everybody at the sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, did you have-- MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. This still will not meet the requirement to meet the mandate of five-and-a-half feet for elevation of parking or some of the storm water runoff issues, so you still have to meet all the South Florida Water Management District issues. I think by recollection, and I could pull up the map, the FEMA flood map, but I believe we're about eight-and-a-half feet down there for FEMA elevation, and I'd guess this is probably a little bit higher than the issue we'll be dealing with in the triangle. The triangle has low areas that don't even meet the five-and-a-half foot elevation, but just to make sure everybody understands, there are going to be mandated requirements, regardless of what the LDC says. You've got the building code requirements, and you've got your FEMA flood map and your South Florida Water Management District requirements that are going to be the overarching factor to be mandated, to be met, regardless of what the LDC says. MR. MURRAY: That doesn't permit it, that doesn't solve the problem? MR. SCHMITT: That's the option. MR. MURRAY: In this document I read, it's not an option, it's a requirement. MR. SCHIFFER: But my point, David, is that we're very close to it. Couldn't we come up with some design considerations that would allow people to -- while Joe is correct, there are ways to build below the FEMA. I don't think they're encouraged ways, but -- MR. SCHMITT: They're expensive. MR. SCHIFFER: And they're expensive, and, you know, some Page 99 September 21, 2005 of them, some question, well, we really haven't put them to the test yet. Damming up openings is not exactly what-- MR. JACKSON: What is your recommendation? MR. SCHIFFER: We look at it when we come back, and I think if it's within -- I think it's going to be within a foot at the highest, that we might allow people to build at FEMA and therefore ramp up, slope up, patio up, to get to that setback, I mean to get to the elevation. In other words, to force somebody to be eight inches below FEMA, I don't think we're doing anybody a favor. MR. JACKSON: You won't get an argument out of me. I'mjust asking what is this board's recommendation? This is what was put in as -- (Several people speaking at the same time.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are some other factors we need to consider. Number one is that generally we use the crown of the road as the benchmark for elevation. The sidewalk can be all over the place, up and down, which way . You're going to have buildings running all over the place if this exact language has to be followed, which I think would be pretty difficult. Also, I'm worried about -- Joe, you've been dealing with this issue recently. How will providing a mandatory position of buildings below FEMA affect the overall FEMA rating for the entire county? Because that means everybody's going to end up having to deal with that. MR. SCHMITT: If you have -- again, this is an area where you say you're going to build below the flood elevation. Everything would have to be flood-proofed in order to not impact the community ratings system. In the flood ordinance we're working on right now, you are allowed to build below flood elevations, if in fact the building is certified as being flood-proof, so -- but it's discouraged. Quite honestly, I would discourage it. I would be more in alliance with what Commissioner Schiffer said. Let's look at what's required there and at Page 100 September 21, 2005 least to the minimum as defined by south Florida Water Management, which is, I believe, five-and-a-half feet minimum of where you want it be, and then of course you would have your building elevated, which is really not part of the LDC. That's more the building code, but I think what you're asking about is the streetscape itself, what elevation that can be. MR. SCHIFFER: Joe, could you do this? Because your staff can provide it. Could you provide David with the aerials that show elevation? What do you call them, lindar? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Xxx Ihop. It's all on line, by the way. MR. SCHIFFER: And then let's -- I'll hop down, Dave, and visit you. Let's look and see. Next time we meet, we'll report whether it's an inches issue or a foot issue. Because inches I think we can work around. MR. JACKSON: The footnote gives kind of an opt out here. It says, if NFIP standards are not used, the buildings must meet flood-proofing, so you have a little bit of -- well, yeah, there's kind of an option there. The way I read it, the way it's written now, we're asking them to go there, but if they go there, then they have to do the NFIP things, but if they don't do it, then they can go back up to, you know, to FEMA elevation. MR. SCHIFFER: You're saying it has to be sidewalk level, so at sidewalk level and below, you're pushing it a little, but let's see. Let's look at it. It may not be an issue at all. MR. MURRAY: I have a question for you relevant to when we talked about flood levels. Now, we learned from Katrina about storm surge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. MURRAY : We're not talking about storm surge when we're talking about flood level, or are we? MR. SCHMITT: We're talking -- FEMA flood maps are based Page 101 September 21, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I read it as a word that was very clear that that was cracker style. But okay. MR. JACKSON: Well, whatever the term is, there's -- we don't COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Either old Florida or cracker style. But it was a stipulate that I understood it as, not as a recommendation. It was a lot stronger than that. My point would have been then, if it is true that what I've just said is true, that you should be able -- I mean, how much variation is there when you're dealing with that? We're not talking about mansard roofs, we're not talking about that. So I wonder if we're not chasing a chicken. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or a rooster. Guys, we have a court reporter trying to record eight of us talking here. MR. EHARDT: Mr. Chairman, may I ask for clarification? You're considering -- and what we have here, the zoned height be to the eave and then the actual height is whatever we come up with beyond that. Is that what you're saying? ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't remember how it's termed in the code. It'll tell you. But you'll see different for different types of roofs. All I'm saying is give us a number that -- maximum for your zoned height pursuant to the code and maximum for your actual height pursuant to the code so that we can reasonably put something in the new document that everybody can read and understand what their limitations are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me object to that, because that's not what they're trying to do here. In other words, the way we do height in the code is good. But it's a suburban code. What they're building is an urban downtown street. And they don't want -- for example, our actual height is dependent on different Page 115 .~,--'^ September 21, 2005 roof shapes. They don't want that. They want the height of that wall locked in. They don't want me to be lowering my eave height as I put a larger sloped roof on it, because I'm measuring to the midspan of that slope. You know, what they want is to lock in the cornice height or the eave height of all these facades. And that's -- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He just said that they want to be able to have roofs with different pitches and different heights. Now, how could they lock it in to one? Just the opposite of what you just said. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not saying roof, I'm saying facade. That's the difference. I think what they're designing is not the roof, which our code does. What they're designing is the facade of the wall of the street, which an urban code does. Remember, this is an urban area, this is not a suburban area like our Land Development Code. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, I know we have a code that's worked everywhere else, and I think it can work here. These guys have gotten some input from us today. I suggest you come back with something, because I personally will not accept it like this. I'm only one vote of nine. So you can take that for what it's worth. MR. EHARDT: I'd just like to clarify so I understand the question. Ifwe had what was measured here, this 42 and 56 to the eave, and we said that the overall height of a three-story building can't be any more than 75 feet or something like that, is that acceptable? ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'd be working in the right direction. I just want to make sure -- MR. EHARDT: Or do you want us -- excuse me. Do you want us to go back to the way the county measures heights of roofs? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that would be the answer. Page 116 September 21, 2005 MR. JACKSON: That's all I want to know. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want the definition on which you put the number to be for the zoned height definition in the county. You need to see if that's going to fit with what you have to do. I can't tell you offhand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If the Land Development Code that you reference, it gives you a calculation, then that should give you a max. That's where you get back to us. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gentlemen, Mr. Midney has got to leave in 15 minutes. I want to take this opportunity while he's still here to schedule the next meeting, in which we will continue this meeting to the next meeting. So, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Okay, Mr. Chair. I looked at from 5:00 to 8:00, when we usually meet, not 2:00. But anyhow, I have Monday, September 26th, Tuesday, September 27th, Wednesday the 28th, Thursday, the 29th -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Wait a minute, wait a minute. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, you said 5:00 to 8:00. We've been trying to meet during the daytimes to get a jump on this. And I think that's -- we're going to have double this amount of time needed to finish this cycle. So why don't we look at a daytime. MS. FABACHER: Okay. I will verify. But I do have availability at one building or another. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What dates again? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Twenty-six, 27, 28, 29. MS. FABACHER: And then October 4th-- MR. SCHMITT: Twenty-seventh is the Board of County Commissioners meeting. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, as a recommendation, because Page 11 7 September 21,2005 we have so much here, why don't we just set a date and time certain and the only thing to be discussed would be the Bayshore and Gateway. And so all the people that come and hang around, they don't get just turned away, they know that they have a time certain on another day. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is a continuation. Patrick, can that be done with a continuation? MR. WHITE: I think you're free to set the scope of your agenda. It is the idea of where and when precisely you're going to have that meeting that matters most. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would we have to precisely know where and when the balance of the issues would be discussed, since it's this -- MR. WHITE: Not necessarily so, so long as you had an adequate period of time between that next meeting and the one that would follow, which I would consider to be at least a minimum of seven days. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this meeting from tonight to the next one has to be a minimum of seven days as well? MR. WHITE: I'm suggesting that if you can do so, that's fine. But it is not mandatory at this point in time. What I'm talking about is jumping the next time. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If they're going to reconsider all this, they need seven days, don't they? MS. FABACHER: Patrick, would they have to announce a location at this meeting -- MR. WHITE: Yes. MS. FABACHER: -- because I think that's going to be problematic if they want to meet during the day, because we didn't have verification during the day. I can assure you we will have a place to meet. I can't assure you that it will be here. MR. WHITE: The continuation from today's meeting to the next Page 118 September 21, 2005 must be date, time, place certain. If you want to limit the scope, which was your question, of that meeting and advise the potential public that want to attend, as well as the staff, that is appropriate to do so. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next week is now up for grabs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm good on the 29th and the 4th only. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Thursday. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thursdays are no good for me. I can do Mondays or Tuesdays. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tuesday is the BCC, which means staff would be difficult possibly for them to be there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could we please use the numbers? MS. FABACHER: Well, the 27th is gone. The -- I don't indicate that the 29th is BCC. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twenty-ninth is a Wednesday -- Thursday, I'm sorry. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. Yeah, 29th is a Thursday. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not good on Thursday? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That won't work. Thursdays are no good for me. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 28th? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The 28th would be a week from today. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were here today. Can you be here next week? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: During the day? At night. Thursday nights. During the day I'm fine. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're talking daytime. MR. WHITE: Daytime; 2:00 to 6:00? Page 119 ..._--~,<...".... September 21, 2005 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm good 2:00 to 6:00. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any day? Okay. So that leaves Wednesday or Thursday then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't we take both. We may need them both. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The staffs not going to be available. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't we take both days. I mean, we're not going to get it done in the next one day. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know we're not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why don't we just pile them __ I mean, we should really have run the rest of this week out just to get it done. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with any of it, you guys. If you want to do next Wednesday and Thursday. MR. WHITE: If you wanted to do both that Wednesday and Thursday and you made that announcement for both of them today, that would be sufficient. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we could do that. Let's just get it done. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wednesday and Thursday next week, starting at 2:00. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Next week, Thursday, we have a meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't make it -- I cannot make the 28th. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a meeting? MS. FABACHER: No, you don't have anything. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Next Tuesday isn't the -- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's still September. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, right, they took an extra week. Page 120 September 21, 2005 ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's five paychecks in this week -- this month. This is one of those big months. This is one you can go out and buy something extra. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's okay with me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty-eighth and 29th. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Twenty-nine and the 4th is my availability. MS. F ABACHER: I recommend the 29th, if at all possible. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we're going to need at least two meetings probably to finish up Bayshore, and one more to finish up the rest of the cycle. Because we still have Golden Gate to go through yet. MR. SCHMITT: And other amendments. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would be useful if we could be consistent, though, and be here all of us as -- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying we shouldn't. But I'm just -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Next Thursday then is a good day. Why don't we start that at 2:00. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody can make it Thursday? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: At 2:00. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the 29th, right? Yes, can I do that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 2:00 to 6:00 I can do. MS. FABACHER: So may I suggest that we meet 609 and 610, since I only checked from 5:00 to 8:00. But I know we can probably clear the 609 and 610 conference rooms at the community development building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not a fan of meeting over there. I don't -- it just buries us. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's a wretched place to meet. Page 121 September 21, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can't hear what's going on and it buries us from the public. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, can -- Patrick, can we suggest that we're going to meet here again next Thursday at 2:00, unless it's not available. Then we'll meet at CDS? MR. WHITE: You can certainly suggest that, but my distinct preference would be that you make it specific. We have, on occasion, when we've found out, for example, on the day of a meeting that a particular room was otherwise needed for an emergency purpose, gone ahead and posted a guard, if you will, at the door and sent people to where the new location was, as well as sending out faxes, e-mails and every other way we could to provide reasonable notice. But I think there's really no way to know for certain, but the room can be split, just as it was today. So I think that you've got a very strong probability that it will be appropriate here to start. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's set it up that way. Next Thursday, 2:00, this meeting room is where this meeting will be continued to when we finish today at 6:00. Okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And why aren't we doing Wednesday and Thursday? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's what I was going to ask. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We've got a lot of work to do, and the only way you get work done is meet and work. MS. F ABACHER: Your staff availability is going to be limited on real short notice. COMMISSIONER CARON: What about 5:30 on Friday? MS. FABACHER: That's a possibility, sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which day, the 30th? I could make it. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's Friday, we could make our mind up on Thursday of next week, because we'll know by Page 122 ___--......'.-.'"...·.e-...·.-· September 21, 2005 then. So why don't we just plan on Thursday. MS. FABACHER: Maybe take it one -- I'm sorry -- one day at a time. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's set up for next Thursday, 2:00, this room. And if that needs to have another meeting, which we probably will, on that day we'll decide where and when the next one will be. And it might be the Friday after -- MR. WHITE: There's nothing that theoretically says you can't, but it is just not a healthy practice. We did it when we got under the extreme circumstances. We were doing the Vanderbilt overlay a year ago in January, and -- if for example we find out during the week that it's possible. I don't know what the concern is about staff availability, but there's nothing wrong with going ahead and saying, for example, that you're going to do Wednesday or Thursday or Thursday and Friday. And it's far preferable to cancel one of those and announce on either of the days that you may actually meet when the next continued day would be. If you're following my suggesting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would be in favor of what Mr. White is suggesting and we pattern in the two days. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me ask a question. Why are we starting at 2:00? Why don't we start in the morning and all day Thursday? ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 2:00 is what we started for today, and -- if you all want to meet for the whole day, it's up to this panel. I certainly have no problem with it. Why don't we just leave it at -- you know, if this doesn't get passed next week and the week after, the week after, I'm not sure it makes that much of a difference, as long as it's done right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: As long as we have plenty of Page 123 September 21, 2005 time to finish it. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just leave it at 2:00. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Then let's go back to work. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Let's get out of this. MR. SCHMITT: I'm looking at the board's schedule. After all that discussion, I finally got the schedule. It appears that this room will be tied up the entire day on the 29th, 8:00 to 1 :00, for new employee orientation. Then I believe IT is doing some electronics work for the rest of the afternoon. It appears that Friday is open all day on the 30th. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's go to Friday. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 2:00 on Friday. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 2:00 Friday. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How about 9:00 Friday? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, I can't. You can do it, I can't. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either 2:00 or maybe bring it up to 1 :00, right after lunch. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 :00 is okay for me, too. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 1 :OO's okay for me. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That gives us an extra hour to fill a little more in. We may actually get through this one next Friday then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm up for the most time. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's put it at 1 :00 next Friday at this room. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll be there as close to 1 :00 as I can. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick, we all set then? Is Page 124 "____~"_,_.."".m..".-.---..,-- September 21, 2005 that -- MR. WHITE: If you just -- before we break today, we'll specifically announce the date and time again. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't planning to do that. Yes, sir. MS. F ABACHER: May I ask if -- you're not expecting revisions at that meeting? ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, ma'am. We still got to get through the first round. MS. F ABACHER: That's what I thought, but I wanted to make sure. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't even --let's go back to page -- I can get to 37, if the rest of you can. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think so. MR. JACKSON: We left off on 37. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, let me just go back to the height. I know you directed them, and I know you strongly want to word this back into the old wording, but I do -- there is a validity, there is, you know, design movements that do discuss eave heights not roof heights. So can their mandate be to come up with a comparative system? Because I don't want them to go away and throwaway what some of us, I personally feel, is the appropriate or at least the modern way of doing the new urbanism design. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't suggesting that they dismiss your comments. I just suggest to them that they listen to all the concerns that they've heard on this issue and try to come back with something they feel will resolve it, whatever that is. I can tell you right now, I strongly believe in the code and the language in the code. And until it changes I'm reluctant to see something else change in regards to it. Page 125 September 21, 2005 So we've got to keep it simple, if we can. And that's my issue, Brad. But let's see what happens. On to Page 37. Parking standards. Number three: Outdoor cafe seating shall be exempt from parking calculations. Is that -- if they have an outdoor cafe and their kitchen and back rooms, back rooms, say they have some take-out counters, kind of like Larry's Lunch Box. They have outdoor and indoor. Their indoor has to be calculated under standard parking. Is that -- that's what you're assuming? MR. JACKSON: That's correct. Yes. Inside the building is calculated. Outside is a bonus. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the whole facility isn't exempted, just the outside. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- on No.6, the last sentence, the property owner must agree to maintain that portion of the public right-of-way where the parking is located. I'm just wondering, how does that happen? Do we have an agreement with the property owner? It's in the public right-of-way, isn't it, or would it be? MR. JACKSON: I don't know. But there's a lot of residential areas that they have to take care of the swales in front of their yards that is county right-of-way. So I don't know how that's done, but people do it. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. They do it because they're obligated more than they probably don't like the way the county takes care of it. MR. JACKSON: When I went house shopping, the owner told me, he says, in disclosure, you have to maintain it. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or it just doesn't get maintained, it looks bad. MR. JACKSON: No, you have to maintain it. So somewhere Page 126 ------- . ."--.--~--~.. September 21, 2005 there's something. But anyway it's part of the thing, you know, pride in your community. And we found that pretty much in the area where you get things like this going, people come sweep up, clean up, and they take care of their property. And they help out. Especially if they've got parking out there and they know it's yours, because, you know, it's one of those things, now you can take it away from them because it's in the right-of-way. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan or Joe, is there a provision that if someone was not taking care of this particular area, that they would have some avenue for the county to enforce them to take care of it? I'm reading Item 6, E-6 on Page 37, the last sentence, on-street parking on local streets, they're making the resident or the person in front of -- using that parking take care of that area. I'm just wondering how that gets enforced. MR. SCHMITT: There's no way. I mean, you can ask it from the community perspective. But it's public right-of-way, they can say, hey, that's the county's business or that's -- MS. FABACHER: I'm not sure the county would even want the public taking care of their right-of-way. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the liability for someone out there pushing a broom getting run over by a car might be kind of dangerous. So I'm wondering, even though this is the old code, I know you're not responsible for it, Mr. Jackson, maybe we ought to drop that last sentence. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You almost have to, because you doesn't know who's parking in that particular spot. It may not be the owner in front of, it may be somebody that -- three doors down. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, anyway, that last sentence then -- Page 127 September 21, 2005 ,.~- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What about the first sentence? It requires an agreement with the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know who's responsible for it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The person who's using it as parking. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. The first sentence and the last sentence should be struck. No.7, I know this is accessory parking zone. Is that defined in the code, Susan? I know Mr. Jackson didn't write that, so it must be a -- it's capitalized, that's what made me wonder. MS. MURRAY: The accessory parking zone. I haven't-- MR. JACKSON: What page and paragraph? ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 37, paragraph 7, third line down. It's old language. Might as well clean up everything while we're working on it. MS. MURRAY: I've not come across that at all. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't either. Well, if it's capitalized, it should be defined somewhere. MR. EHARDT: It's the -- the commercial property along Bayshore owns residential property adjacent or behind it. He owns that parcel. He can't use that parcel for commercial, but he can use it for parking next to the residential. That's the intent. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So parking is a permitted use in a residential zoned area? MR. EHARDT: In that case. If the -- the person on Bayshore owns the parcel behind. That was in the original overlay. MR. JACKSON: Correct. And there's an existing application that is the Gulf Shores Marina. They purchased two residential lots on either side. One is Lakeview, one is Riverview. They purchased them and turned them into parking lots so they could handle the parking that Page 128 September 21, 2005 they required for their building. And they are residential lots and they'll always be zoned residential, but he's using them for that use. And that was written in the original overlay. And it was a way to find parking for challenged properties that were built a long time ago when they didn't have the parking to meet the requirements for what they have now or what the code requires. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since this is old language maybe staff could kind of verify that this is -- whenever the rewrite comes back, which may be some time, who knows when. MR. SCHMITT: Interesting to know it does show accessory parking zone in the little diagram. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I highlighted that, too. I can't figure out what designates it as an accessory parking zone. You're just using the bathrooms, that's the only way you can park, or-- MS. MURRAY: And the code has processes for allowing what is described, so I'm not sure if this is something to be different than existing process, or -- I guess it's just not clear enough. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we ought to-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And there's another question, too. Is that parking -- do they charge for that parking? MR. JACKSON: No, I mean -- like you said, on Bayshore, there's only one application, and it was either for employee parking, customer parking, or storage of boats and other things that were parked in that area. That's how the only application that I know that's existing now. But there are several other property owners that have restaurants that are parking challenged because they're such a good restaurant that they have overflow and they don't want people parking on the swales of the residential party behind them. They're trying to acquire the residential properties behind them and turn them into parking lots so that they can service their clients. MR. EHARDT: Without rezoning the property to commercial Page 129 September 21, 2005 use, which would -- you know, you could build a building back there. We don't want that. The building we would want to stay up in front and just allow parking in the rear. MS. MURRAY: Right, there's a provision in the code that will allow that now. I think, you know, the staff probably hasn't done much of the significant commercial down there, so we haven't opportunity to use this provision. But I think maybe what we'll do is look at it and just provide a recommendation to you consistent with the existing code so that everybody can be on the same page. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the court reporter, the previous lady got to know who these two gentlemen were. I just remembered. Could you state your name for the record, please. MR. EHARDT: Joseph Ehardt, E-H-A-R-D-T. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We got into that last time. I'm done on Page 37. Is there any other questions on the panel of this gentleman? Maybe we can get through page 38 yet tonight. Item 8 on page 38, again brings the SRA local advisory board into recommendations of approval or denial. Again, I'm falling back on what the documentation that implemented that group relies upon, which is review and comment. And the same would apply to No.9. No.9 though brings up a different issue. The director can administratively approve reduced parking requirements to a maximum of 25 percent. First of all, there's no criteria listed for that administrative review or approval. And that kind of a parking issue, Joe or Susan, is that typically allowed for the director or is that something that goes through a procedure? Page 130 September 21, 2005 MS. MURRAY: Yeah. Right now in the Land Development Code we have an administrative process where you can reduce parking, and under very unique circumstances. And I won't elaborate on that. But it is administrative. It is approved by the director. Normally we don't appeal things to the administrator. I mean, the director is given the authority in the LDC to interpret the code. So appeals are normally brought before the BZA. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would agree that's how it's been happening. But it says site conditions that do not allow for required parking to be physically feasible. I mean, anybody can come up with that. So I would think that in order for this to even be considered administratively, they would have to have some criteria to apply to the administrative request. And then of course, if it's got to be appealed, it should go through the process that the rest of the county has to go through. MS. MURRAY: And they would have to prove to us based on that criteria they couldn't apply. Just saying that the site doesn't allow, not being a professional engineer, we would -- I mean, anybody could come in with an engineer plan to me and say look, this doesn't fit. That's one of the reasons we have to have the criteria, but also to treat everybody fairly. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a 20,000-square foot building and you run out of parking, you could make the building 10,000 square feet and you will have plenty of parking. MS. MURRAY: That's a possibility. COMMISSIONER CARON: I guarantee you've got to have criteria on this one. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you were going to say something? MR. EHARDT: Would it be feasible that the applicant would have to submit some type of a site plan to demonstrate how much Page 131 ,,"- September 21, 2005 parking he has on that parcel? I mean, anybody can look at a site plan and see that he can't get any more parking on there, if he doesn't reduce his building. Now I understand if he reduced the building obviously he can get more parking. But if he didn't do that, if he had the existing structure and was going to do that -- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest that you find out what criteria is currently used to obtain administrative approval and incorporate that same language into this, and we'd be off in a, probably a good start. MR. SCHMITT: Or just reference the section in the code. MS. MURRAY: The section in the code. MR. JACKSON: The intent, and although it is not specifically stated in here, that this provision was to be for an existing, nonconforming site that has a building already on it. That is -- now, it doesn't have the square footage, it was built in the Fifties, Sixties, Seventies, 41 or Airport Road did a taking, and they do not have enough space. You physically cannot put that code requirement on that land. And that was the intent for this, was instead of taking and delaying the development process -- and you can physically see it, he can see it, his engineers can see it, that they can't put it on there, let him administratively do it instead of taking it through the hoopla up and down the chain, costing money, every time you show up you've got a check in your hand. It's one of those logical no-brainers. Now, I agree with you that if you're developing a clean site, there's not a building on it, and he wants to put 20,000 square feet on it and can't put the land, well, yes, then he reduces the building. We're talking about pre-existing buildings. This is a redevelopment area, and we've got 20 or 30 of those cases right now, of which I have three buildings I know that have tried to develop it and they couldn't because they could not meet some part of the code. So for the next six years it sits fallow. A couple of gas stations and Page 132 ."__.__"_.,_._",,.._.~___"_~,,_,,_.___'m._"" __> _"."",,___M~'.__"'" September 21, 2005 whatever. I've got a couple mini-marts that have happened in that case. So that was the intent there. Maybe if we put some language in there that it had to do with preexisting sites that couldn't do it? COMMISSIONER CARON: I was going to say, you need to clarify that language and then maybe you've got something, but right now -- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're trying to say. On that same page, if you go down to 3-A. The wall shall be constructed of the same or complimentary materials as the primary buildings. How does the word complimentary come into play? Joe? (Commissioner Midney has left the meeting.) MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, I do apologize, but I need to go back to nine, because I'm -- I think what I heard Mr. Jackson state, I just want to make sure we understand where we're going with this because we have an administrative process, but beyond that, it is a policy decision that the board withholds themselves as the BZA. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, we're not objecting to that. MR. SCHMITT: I think what Dave is looking for is some kind of administrative process that without the criteria and above and beyond what currently exists in the code. He was talking about redevelopment sites that have a building on there that right now can't meet the parking requirement, so therefore, he ought to have some capability to allow for an administrative variance. And we only have one process, or two processes. One, it meets administrative criteria; two, you come in and apply to the board for a vanance. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the conditions under which the special criteria applies to the building that he's referenced or Page 133 September 21, 2005 whatever number building aren't ones that you can accept administratively, then he goes through the variance process. MR. SCHMITT: I just wanted to make sure he heard your guidance on that because I think he was -- ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's how I was intending it. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. Because I believe he was looking for, again, some kind of administrative process that would truncate that and allow the zoning director to -- MR. JACKSON: Yes, I am. Mr. Schmitt, you're right on. Is that the -- because this is going to go before the BCC, and they're the ones who are -- work, as I believe, as the BZA. They will see that. And if they want to delegate authority downhill to the most acceptable level for something that meets all criteria, then why not put responsibility at the lowest level for it to be happening there. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aquaport was one. Bayshore project up in Vanderbilt Beach was another. There's a lot of issues in the old days where that staff administratively did that were unacceptable to the community. And as a result we've gotten away from that and we've gone through a public process to get some abnormalities reviewed. Through no fault of the current staff, by the way. MR. SCHMITT: I have no problem if we want to increase the threshold, but we just need to define it and define the criteria so that we can apply it equally, no matter where the issue is brought to the zoning director. Because it can't -- just saying I can't fit the parking because the building's in the way and it's too big may not be the answer. Then by all means, you may have to raze the building and start all over again. And I'm not being that draconian, but I need to make sure we -- that Dave understands where you guys are coming from. Because what I heard you say was make sure there's criteria that is definitive and can be applied equitably across the board. It's not an arbitrary Page 134 _~__,...",.,.,_,. _,··~,,_.~.'m_. ..""........_>.'-,...-_.___.,_..".,.. September 21, 2005 process. Because if it's arbitrary, that's where we get -- I don't think we get in trouble, we get accused of making sort of capricious -- arbitrary and capricious decisions. And I want to make sure Dave understands that. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the concern about not going through the public process? Is there -- MR. SCHMITT: I think time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And money. MR. SCHMITT: And money. MR. JACKSON: Incentive. That's what our job is, to provide incentives. And this is an incentive. MS. MURRAY: There are multiple ways to address parking, not just a variance and not just an administrative deviation, which by the way doesn't take that long, probably two weeks at the most, $500 cost. MR. JACKSON: And that's an incentive. Less than two weeks, if it's $500. MS. MURRAY: Well, any administrative process that you go through in our building is going to cost you something because we're a fee for service organization. So that point's kind of moot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Dave, that's a bargain, I'll vote for that. MS. MURRAY: But there's also shared parking and that sort of thing. I would suggest if the cri -- if you want to for some reason reduce the required parking in this overlay, that that is also spelled out, as well as perhaps an administrative reduction. Because I think that's what I'm hearing Dave say is the problem, is they've got old sites that just aren't going to meet it and they may not even meet the existing criteria in the code for administrative reduction, which would then bump somebody up through a public hearing process. So that's an option as well, is to reduce your own parking standards here, and then allow for some administrative deviation, with criteria as well. Page 135 September 21, 2005 ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that enough guidance for you to cogitate about? MR. SCHMITT: I'm willing to look at expanding the administrative criteria. And I think that's what we need -- Dave and I and probably Susan need to talk about. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a good idea. MR. JACKSON: Right. And I would request this board task the staff to talk with us. MR. SCHMITT: No, this board can't task. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we can. Now, don't-- let's not get into that again. MR. SCHMITT: You can ask to us come back. I have to take it back to the board -- okay, I won't argue. You're right, you can. MS. MURRAY: We have been talking, so we can continue our discussions. That's not an issue. That's not a problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have some page 38 questions. Are you done with 38? ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm not done with 38, but let's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, go ahead. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've only got about three minutes left before we agreed to stop, so why don't we just take yours. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Up on eight, remember earlier I asked that you had a phrase in there that encourages on-street parking and shared parking and everybody said it's in the code. Is this what you were referring to as it being in the code? MR. JACKSON: Shared parking requirements, to the existing-- with the current LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there's nothing that really encourages it. What you're saying is that the existing code, you can do what the existing code says you can do. Because I think for the Page 136 "",_",..,.."".___~,.~~>o".._",,_.,·."_.~e"~"~"'+_"_"_~___~.'_"'__~""_' September 21, 2005 success of this downtown, we're going to have to have shared parking. MR. JACKSON: Correct. And the only reason -- we took it out at one time and we put it back in at the request of staff -- is that if when somebody reads this code, at least it's there and it says that this is the option. Because if it's not there, then they think they don't have the option. It's whatever the existing code is. It ends up being kind of redundant, but it kind of in black and white tells the person when they read it that there is a shared parking option. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But when I asked earlier why did you take out encourage on -street parking and shared parking facilities, this is where everybody said it was. Because this doesn't do any encouragement, this just allows to you do what you can normally can do. Is there any other place that has shared parking referenced? MR. JACKSON: Yes, it's in the Gateway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but not in this. Okay. MR. EHARDT: This is the section. This is what I referred to when we took it out of the two and put it in four. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but I mean it's not encouraging, it's allowing what's allowed. Again, the county manager or his designee, I think, should be in eight and nine. On street walls, we have a requirement where driveways come up the sidewalks. It's a site triangle. It's a 10-foot by 10-foot. It's in the landscape code. The concern I have is would this -- can we reference in there -- that it's -- I mean, the impression I get is a street wall has to actually come out further than that site triangle will allow. That's a very unsafe condition to create. So could we reference that as a -- or would this in any way override their requirement? You know what I mean? When a sidewalk and a street abut, there's a 10-foot by 10-foot, and then Page 137 ._..._--~,._-~,>"._~~--~.,'~....._.,.- September 21, 2005 triangle that creates -- we don't want any walls or anything greater than 30 inches in that. Because it looks like it would. MR. EHARDT: Let me do some measurements to see. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what does it mean that no street wall shall adjoin on a common property line? If you have two property lines that have parking lots on both sides, you want some stagger of that wall, or? MR. EHARDT: What I was looking for -- that if you had Building A and Building B, and Site A and B, that you wouldn't want two parking lots right next to each other. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why? MR. EHARDT: I wanted to keep the facade of the street a little more consistent with buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then why don't you word that -- I mean, the way you're causing that design is by the placement of these street walls. Maybe you should put -- I mean -- MR. EHARDT: I'm just saying there can't be any two adjacent properties that have the same street wall, and that it's limited to 65 feet. Only one parking bay is what I'm saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so then maybe what you should say somewhere in the parking, that we can't have more -- two parking bays on adjoining property can't be -- and then, because the street walls is the result of the parking. You're using the street wall to cause parking, to cause building, when, you know -- do it the other way around, I think. MR. EHARDT: Let me see if I -- I'm just trying to clarify what you said or what you're trying -- let's say we have a building, and next to it it's parking lot, let's say. You know, a row -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Alongside the building. MR. EHARDT: Right, and there's a street wall there. What I'm saying is that I don't want another street wall with its parking and then the building. I want another building, then the street wall. I don't Page 138 September 21, 2005 want two parking lots but against -- then you're going to have a continuous long low wall. I would prefer to have that broken up, I guess is what I'm saying, by buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think that's okay, but -- in other words, you're controlling the design of that site via the street wall, not via a comment like no two parking lots can be adjoined or buildings stagger -- you know. In other words, you're using a very low element. Because I could interpreted that to mean I could offset them and achieve that too. And that's not what you're describing. MR. EHARDT: Maybe a common property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we're -- COMMISSIONER CARON: In other words, you don't want it to look like the picture that's provided here. MR. EHARDT: No, I do. I do want it to look like that, because that's one bay of parking. I mean, that's two bays of parking, that's about 65 feet. You figure 60 feet of parking on both sides. I wouldn't want two of those together and then another building. That's what I was trying to get at. ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, we are past our deadline date. We will pick up at our next meeting next Friday at 1 :00 in this room. We'll pick up on page 38. That meeting next Friday will be dedicated solely to the finishing up of the Bayshore and the Gateway Triangle if we can get that far for the meeting. Patrick, is that sufficient notification? MR. WHITE: Yes, sir, I believe it is. Just to indicate that those are the Cycle 2 amendments for the CCPC in its first hearing but a continued meeting. Thank you. MR. JACKSON: And the Gateway will go faster because there's a lot of duplicity here. What you've commented on is duplicated. It is duplicated. We can correct it twice. Page 139 _,_,__",._.,....__..._.___._..._._"._..,,_^.,,~.___"'w_W-"_....~.. .." September 21, 2005 ACTING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This meeting is over. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:02 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Acting 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 CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM and TONI SHEARER. Page 140