Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/30/2005 R September 30, 2005 - TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, September 30, 2005 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 1 :00 p.m, at the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Administration Building, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, in Naples, Florida, with the following members present: .,-. Chairman: Mark P. Strain Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Kenneth Abernathy Robert Vigliotti Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein ABSENT: Russell A. Budd Paul Midney ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Asst. County Attorney Susan Murray Catherine Fabacher 1 -_~_.,,_"'_"__""'_"_'___"~_____m_~ -- September 30, 2005 ^"",-, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now we have a quorum. If you'd all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Today's meeting is a continuation of a meeting that started on Thursday, August 18th, for LDC Amendments 2005, Special Cycle 2A. And in particular, it was agreed that today's meeting would be devoted to discussions on the Bayshore and Gateway triangle overlays. With that, I'll take roll call. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein is not here, Mr. Schiffer is not here. Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Budd is not here. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. ~- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney is not here. And of course I am here. Thank you. What I'd like to do is just -- if the members are so inclined, we'll just roll right into where we left off, which was page 38. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? Just for the purposes of the record -- Assistant County Attorney Patrick White -- this is a continuation of your meetings that are a series of meetings for your first hearing on these round of LDC amendments, this cycle of LDC amendments. And as we discussed at the last meeting, before we wrap up today we'll probably have to pick a day. We would hopefully do that well before 5 :00 so we can check with the staff and make sure that there's availability for whatever times you may choose to continue this meeting to in these chambers. Thank you. ,-, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White, that's a good point. Why don't we just do it now so that way staff can go ahead and, while we're 2 ~. ".-,,-.' '",,- -..-,.-.- '--'~'--" ..- -~"~--'--"-- September 30, 2005 -, meeting, work out the next date, just in case there's conflicts. MR. WHITE: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next week we have a rather large and complicated agenda. I would think that the week after, in between the two meetings, like we had originally discussed to set up these kind of meetings, would be a good time. Does that work? COMMISSIONER CARON: I -- I'll be away that week in between our meetings this particular month. MS. FABACHER: What are those dates, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER CARON: That would be the week of the 10th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tenth through the 14th? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'm out for the 7th through the 14th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's two of you. Then we don't know - if the rest will be here. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I know that I'm good the Monday, the Tuesday, the Wednesday so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, is there any problem if we were to put it off until the week starting the 24th so we could have more members available? MS. MURRAY: Twenty-fourth of October? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. MURRA Y: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We still have the 17th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the week of the 17th we have another planning commission. MS. MURRAY: I think what we're going to end up having to make a decision about is whether to segregate this from the rest of the ,- amendments and do we want to move forward with the rest of the amendments or do we want -- and put this in on a different time track, 3 .------.. --.'. -'-~=,.,----'- -'~"'_'_'__,___w___,,"k' .---~---~ September 30, 2005 "",-, or do we want everything to move forward on the same time track. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I was going to suggest is that the next meeting we set up, regardless of where we get today, we start out with the balance of the LDC amendments that we haven't addressed yet, to get those behind us. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we can always continue with this one if we still need time after today and then make that decision at that point. Because I would -- MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- suspect this one's going to have to come back for a second reading with us anyway. MS. MURRAY: Do we want to just -- I know you were trying to do it now. Do we want to just see where we get today and then kind of try to figure out where we -- how much farther we have to go and .- then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I do know-- MS. MURRA Y: Or do you want to do that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I do know we're going to need another day for the balance of the -- MS. MURRAY: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- LDCs because we can't hear those today. We already announced at the last meeting we wouldn't so -- MS. MURRAY: And I know if Mr. Jackson is planning on bringing back changes, I'm sure you would want to look at that too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. MURRAY: So that's -- I'm going to guess that's at least probably two more meetings. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to state -- for the record, Catherine Fabacher -- that the scheduled -- October 12th is the ,.- first schedule BCC hearing, so I think Susan's making a point of do we want to try to keep to that schedule and go on another time schedule, 4 . ._'-,.._---~.- ...~--- September 30, 2005 .- or are we going to need to move the BCC meetings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see any way to make the BCC meeting. If they want a recommendation from us, I don't know how we could possibly do it by then, based on the amount of material that was brought forward and the amount of time it's going to take to get through it. MS. FABACHER: I agree, I agree. MS. MURRAY: Okay, okay. We'll take care of the BCC meeting schedule. So you're looking at the week of the 24th is the next meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. MURRAY: Yeah, that -- that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you'd look into the availability of this room for that week and then maybe after our first break we can discuss the time frame. - MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Then we'd have another break at prior to 4:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And then -- okay. We'll get it through today. As long as someone -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Maybe we'll know what we're talking about by then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why don't we start with page 38. Page 38 of the Bayshore overlay is where I believe we left off. I didn't finish the questions I had on that page. I can go right into it or, Donna, did you have some comments? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Chairman, yes. I just wanted to find out exactly where we left. I believe that we had taken out nine. If that is correct, then we can go from there. I don't have any notes ,.- beyond that. MR. JACKSON: That is not -- that is not correct. You did not 5 . .'"___.,~__.~_._~_._.__. ".._._. _,'~'~'N""_""'_""_'_"'_"_""_'~"__ September 30, 2005 take nine out. COMMISSIONER CARON: We did not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we did was in the previous references to paragraphs similar to number nine, we indicated that the language that in -- brought in the advisory board provided for reVIew and comment on redevelopment proj ects, not for recommendations or approvals, and we suggested that the language be changed to reflect that they are to review and comment, not recommend or approve. COMMISSIONER CARON: There should be criteria, specific criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then criteria based on our-- this same paragraph appears in numerous instances throughout this document. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely, yeah. --, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we already addressed the fact it needed to be changed to have that criteria defined in the previous paragraph. Mr. Jackson? MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA. I went back and looked up the language that is -- that constitutes and establishes the local advisory boards, and there's two of them in this county. This is a CRA resolution 2001-98, and this resolution was created through the Florida Statute, Chapter 163, Part Three. And it also had to do with a county ordinance that established the CRA. And in there it specifically says the advisory board will serve as the primary source of community input to the CRA staff and the CRA itself. Each advisory board will consider and make recommendations to the CRA and the CRA staff and to assist with public input in the ,- local redevelopment planning process. So, recommendations are allowed. 6 ._.'"~- ---~--"._--- September 30, 2005 - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is your -- what section are you quoting from? MR. JACKSON: CRA resolution 2001-98, Article IV, Section One. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Article I, Section Three, Item D, it says more specifically, the purpose and duties of each advisory board shall be as follows. D, review and comment on any redevelopment projects proposed in the advisory board's component redevelopment area. Now, I understand where you're going with it. It would be nice if all the advisory boards in the county felt they could do that for their particular areas, but we leave the responsibility of re -- of approval and recommendations of those SDPs and other pertinent Land Development Code issues to the professional staff of Collier County, and I don't see any reason that should be changed. So my recommendation or suggestion would be that the language be as we - previously discussed, to review and comment. MR. JACKSON: Well, then I would like for your -- your board, Mr. Chairman, when you guys make a vote on this, that the recommendation from the CRA staff to the CRA board and as it goes to the BCC is let them decide. The way I read the ordinance and the resolution is that the recommendation that the CRA local advisory is exactly what they're supposed to be doing, and they're supposed to be involved in the public process for this, and they should be able to review and recommend. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What is the section? MR. JACKSON: They're advisory in nature. They don't have the authority to approve or deny. That goes at the higher levels when a -- a SDP comes to the planning commission, when it goes to the local zoning and advisory board, when it goes to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What is the section again? ~._. MR. JACKSON: Article V -- Article IV, Section One, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that under the -- the one called 7 -..,,-_._--" --""._--- .__._,.___~'3'.'.'.._~__~_,__ September 30, 2005 ,- creation? MR. JACKSON: It says Article IV, community redevelopment agency advisory boards. And to reiterate, it's CRA resolution number 2001-98. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I'm reading, too, so apparently there must be a -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: More than one version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. JACKSON: Mine's got signatures at the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Wait. Now, the one you're reading from is titled Article II, community redevelopment. It's under the CRA language. The one I'm reading from is under the one titled -- this may be where the discrepancy comes in -- bylaws of the community redevelopment, local agency redevelopment advisory boards of Collier County. One is the CRA and one is the local ,- redevelopment advisory board. Maybe, Mr. White, at some time during this meeting you could take a look at these, this resolution, and kind of clarify this for us. MR. WHITE: I am familiar with both of those documents, although I don't have a present recollection. And if I had the opportunity to refresh by looking at the documents you have, I should be able to give you a fairly clear opinion at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will give you mine right now. I think I have a complete -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Get them up on the computer. MR. WHITE: May I approach? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. F eel like we're in a court of law here, Pat. MR. JACKSON: And in there I see exactly where the Chairman -, is coming from. One of the specific bylaws for the local advisory board. But in the establishment of the advisory boards, under Article 8 -'---~~-"-"- ---.,---- September 30,2005 ,- IV, it specifically states the same language. So get down to lawyerese, interpretation, I guess. MR. WHITE: I'm assuming that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's let the county attorney review it, and we'll continue on with the meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one quick question. What's the consensus of this board as to the intent of that paragraph? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well I -- I'll restate it. My -- my concern is that we have a professional staff to review, I wouldn't -- sure wouldn't want to see their hands tied by not able -- not able to review based on recommendations from an appointed board that may not have the same expertise in the same areas that staff has. But that's just my opinion, and this board hasn't weighed in on that yet. And if you want to wait until Patrick finishes his review, might __ MR. JACKSON: And, Patrick, even under the specific ones, - Article I, under the by laws specific in Article I, Section Two it's __ again, reiterates recommendations. So, over to you. MR. WHITE: Would you be able to provide me that now so I could review it at the same time? MR. JACKSON: Should be the same one that Mr. Strain gave you. MR. WHITE: Just want to make sure. MR. JACKSON: Okay. MR. WHITE: Can I-- MR. JACKSON: Yeah. This one here and then the-- MR. WHITE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show that Mr. Adelstein is here. Okay. Well, let's move on with the balance of -_ COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You can't miss him. ~~, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You look bright today. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I came from a trial. 9 September 30, 2005 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought you won the masters. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I thought you won the masters. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That was last year. MR. WHITE: It's Friday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Besides section nine on page 38, are there comments from anybody on the rest of the page. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah. Just on three -- I think we talked about this. The concern I had is that the side walls would block the vision triangle that was required. We discussed that? MR. EHARDT: Yes. And I -- I've been thinking about that and have a recommendation of maybe moving that wall back about five feet from the face of the building line so a car could pull out and be able to see who's on the sidewalk. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in other words, the building line, which is five-foot back -- MR. EHARDT: The building line would stay let's say back a sidewalk, but the street wall would move back about five feet. So when you're driving out, exiting the parking lot you'd be able to see some -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You'd never hit that ten-foot -- ten-foot triangle then. MR. EHARDT: We can -- we can try. I just don't -- I think it's too much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, it wouldn't hit it because it'd be ten feet back from the property line. MR. EHARDT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. There's a triangle requirement line of sight in the LDC, and as long as -- MR. EHARDT: I'm not -- I'm not familiar exactly with your ""- LDC on that. Is it related to parking lot egress, or is it related to streets? 10 -~'._~_. - .'^--.-.--....... ....~....-_..._'".__.~"._._-- September 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's related to streets. MS. F ABACHER: It's related to egress. It's related to egress. MR. EHARDT: Egress, okay. MS. FABACHER: But there's a-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Identify yourself for the record. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. Catherine Fabacher, for the record. But there is a -- you know, you can have something below and you can have something -- I think it's seven feet here and I'm not caught -- right now, off the top of my head, I can't tell you what the bottom is, but, you know, you can -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern was the way it was written, the four to five-foot thing would block that vision triangle. MR. EHARDT: Right, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So long as we stay out of it, that's the only comment I had. '_c CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other comments on that page? I have one. We may have addressed it, but I just want to go back to it. Number eight. Shared parking requirements shall be consistent with those provided in subsection 40502 of the LDC, except that the CRA local advisory board shall recommend approval or denial through the zoning and land development review director. I -- when I keep reading this -- and it goes back to almost number nine in some ways. If you deny, how does that affect the decision that -- the ability of staff to approve it? MR. JACKSON: Recommend. They have no authority to approve or deny, they recommend. And at that point the people with the authority to approve or deny make that decision. This is the first step in community input into their area, their neighborhood, their commercial district. And this is a community input, and it's a -, recommendation which can be accepted or rej ected by those with the authority to approve or deny. It's just a recommendation. 11 _._~_."' ,.__"'~"u."" ~_.~._~_.-_.,..~-_._._---- September 30, 2005 ,.""-' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that the idea of community input's a good thing. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's not where my concern is. I just want to make sure that there's not a process that supersedes staffs reVIew. MR. JACKSON: No, sir. That's why it says recommend, okay? And that's why the CRA resolution we just read from says advisory in nature only. They don't make decisions of approval. They make recommendations to it. And then it goes to Miss Murray's level, Joe Schmidt's level, it goes through the BC or the planning commission level where you guys have the authority to approve or deny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move onto number-- MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair? Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. _. MS. FABACHER: According to 40502K3, a parking exemption, the BZA, after remove -- review and recommendation by the planning commission, may approve a parking exemption for the following circumstances. And that's where the shared parking is referenced in 40502. MS. MURRAY: That's actually a different process than the administrative deviation. Yeah, there's a -- off site parking. MS. FABACHER: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move onto page 39 then. Questions from the panel on 39? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a couple ones. David, why on four did you reduce the height of the glass, just out of curiosity, from two feet -- from three feet to two and then the top of it from eight to seven? What was the intent there? MR. EHARDT: We just -- sorry. Joseph Ehardt, consultant for ,..0-..0-" the Bayshore, Gateway redevelopment area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Talk a little louder, please. 12 .---.-.,.. _._---_....~,,-- September 30, 2005 MR. EHARDT: Yes. Joseph Ehardt, consultant with the Bayshore CRA. We just -- at that time I was working with Aaron Blair and we talked about this, and we just felt that that was a better situation to get the -- the height that we wanted about the -- for you know, clear store and storefronts and things like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Second thing -- you know, if you both are going to answer questions, one of you might take two podiums.. Number six, it says fluorescent colors shall not be used as accent colors. Since they're not allowed to be used as primary colors, shouldn't we just say fluorescent colors are not allowed? MR. EHARDT: Yeah, I agree, I agree. That's fine. Before I -- as you see, I struck the word neon through. That was in the original and then I looked in the architectural code that you have and - fluorescent was a word that was used, so I -- it has the same meaning to me, and that's why we put it in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's also a hard one to define, too. MR. EHARDT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got stuff on landscaping if nobody -- other people have questions above -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. Donna, did you have something? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I'm waiting until we get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On item G four, it says clear glass windows with a tint of 25 percent or less. Is that a contradiction? I mean if it's clear glass, does it have a tint or does a tint mean it's not clear anymore? MR. EHARDT: Well, it's clear to the fact you can see through it. It may have a tint to it, but you can see through it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's not opaque. 13 '.~_._-_._"..- .... - ~~--- September 30, 2005 .-, COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's not opaque. MR. EHARDT: It's not opaque, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what you mean. MR. EHARDT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item five, attached building awnings may encroach over the setback line by a maximum of five feet. You have a -- I pull this from a prior page. I thought you were defining your lines as build to lines. MR. EHARDT: In some cases we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does the setback line and the build to line overlap? MR. EHARDT: They would be the same. In some cases they would be the same. I think you're mixing Gateway with Bayshore but what we're saying is if you're at the build to line, you can build five feet out with an awning. If that happens to encroach in the - right-of-way, that's allowed. At least that's what we're recommending. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 35 it refers to a front yard build to line, five feet. MR. EHARDT: Behind the property line, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then what you're saying here is the attached building awnings may encroach over the setback line by a maximum of five feet. MR. EHARDT: Right. The setback line is the five -- the setback line is the five feet behind the right-of-way of the property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is also the build to line. MR. EHARDT: Right. But the awning could go -- project five feet beyond that was my intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you would go no -- you would not go past the property lines? MR. EHARDT: In this particular case, I would. In the Gateway - one, I would, when we get to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I had questions on that one, as 14 ------'.' September 30, 2005 well. Okay. And I'm ready to go into landscaping. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, ladies first. Donna, you had questions? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The concern I really have is kind of the buffers in general. This is an urban area, our code is a suburban code, and there is some concern. Like, for example, why do we have buffers at all, landscape buffers, in the urban area? Some of the buffers I think it would be a problem, we have -- we call it foundation planting. It's really the perimeter of the building, we have required buffers around that. All of that stuff would not allow you to do what you're describing in your -- in your codes. So would -- should something be put in here that would say that the code will supersede the landscape requirements or -- ,,- MR. EHARDT: I think our -- if I may, our -- Joseph Ehardt. Our intent was that -- I agree with you, it is an urban situation. And the existing code not only requires depth, but it requires landscaping. We're trying to get with just the wall, maybe a little bit shallower in a sense, to get that type of feeling without having such a, you know, residential or rural type atmosphere between it and going with just the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how do we get rid of -- for example, the foundation landscape that are required. If that's required, then you'll have -- in some cases buildings could be large enough to have landscaping totally around the perimeter of it to the depth of 20 feet. So you put a building with 20 feet of landscape around it, that's not an urban building. MR. EHARDT: No. I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doesn't even meet your -- you --,- can't even do your front setbacks. So what is the case? MR. EHARDT: I -- I'll have to look at that. I didn't realize that. 15 ,. -,.,-~ September 30, 2005 I'm sorry, I'll -- I'll check into that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me even ask Susan. I think what could be put in here is a sentence of which prevails. I mean, Susan, if there -- for example, this thing is silent on perimeter landscape. Does that mean perimeter landscape does not apply to this area or does it? MS. MURRAY: It -- it would. And -- and let me make sure I understand where you are because I'm on page -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm on J. MS. MURRAY: -- 40 -- okay. You're on J. Okay. Thank you. I was on 40. I was one ahead of you. Let me make sure I understand your question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's actually not in here. MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern is what's not in -, here. In other words, it says that everything's required by Chapter 406 -- which is our landscape code -- unless otherwise specified. We have requirements which we call foundation planting which -- I mean we're not digging holes and putting trees in with the foundation, but it's really the perimeter of the building. That would mean all of these setbacks and stuff that they've described could not be done. So does that mean that or should we put something in here that says who trumps who? MS. MURRAY: Yes, you should, if you want-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For example, a front buffer we have a five-foot setback, but we don't have a five-foot buffer. So if we had to buffer this project -- and, again, you know, we can't take the requirements of a suburban code and make a urban street come from it, so how do we handle that? MS. MURRAY: You -- if -- this is an overlay, so if it says in - here, as it says, you know, unless otherwise specified below, the provisions of the existing code are going -- the underlining zoning 16 ,. ~.- September 30, 2005 district code are going to apply, and then anything that you want to deviate from the code needs to be specifically put in here. So -- otherwise they're going to apply. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then -- then I think what -- and I guess the consultant has to carefully go through the landscape code. Because for example missing is that foundation plan which would make all this irrelevant, what we're talking about, prior to this, anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The suggestion you're making really would be to the benefit of the overlay to understand it and include the proper language in here. MR. EHARDT: Right. MS. MURRAY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You won't have a conflict when you try to come in for a permit. --, MS. MURRAY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think, Brad, that's a good point. MS. MURRAY: Need to insure that your cross-sections all meet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. MURRAY: Either what you're requiring in here for landscaping or what the code itself requires. And then if -- if that doesn't work, then this needs to deviation from the required section of the land development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then you'll be getting back to us with that. MR. EHARDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Feel free to shoot me that ahead of time, and I'll do the same task. MR. EHARDT: Fine. Thank you. - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna, did you have any comments? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's okay. I can -- 17 ~__._._H__~ . .." -_.>' _._.~-"~_.~" September 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a similar comment. We've talked about the wording of the recommendation that we'll soon hear from Patrick White on this one. But another intent that I'm trying to understand in that paragraph, it says at the recommendation of a CRA local advisory board, the county's zoning land development review director can administratively approve. Does that mean if you fail to recommend anything or didn't even review it, that the county would not be able to review it then? MR. JACKSON: I believe you're reading in a little bit too much to it, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: We're trying to be consistent in procedures when we're asking for a little bit of a deviation in the overlay from the code. The language we try to, you know, copy the same words so that the -- you know, the intent was clear that if you understood it one ~- place, you understood it in all the other places. The fact that they don't make any comment to it would be because the plans never came through the CRA staff to be reviewed. And right now CDS is routing all things that happen in the CRA through our staff. It would be because it -- it got through it wasn't seen. So we always comment on all SDBSIPs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: And there's a place for us to sign off on those and make comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now-- MR. JACKSON: Where would -- we would be silent is that we are okay with what's there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, is that consistent with the process that you have now? MS. MURRAY: Well, I guess what I don't like about this ,- wording is it implies that if they recommend something to us, then we can take action on it. 1-- 18 ------". --.". -"......"'.,_."~----_._-,--,.._,-_.~.,,~---_."-,_.._.._--- September 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going, too. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. I'm a little uncomfortable with that because it implies that unless you recommend something to us, we can't take action. If you want us to consider your recommendation, I think that's -- you know, probably needs to be worded a little bit differently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that-- MR. JACKSON: I can follow that. I -- we can soften that language and make it work out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MURRA Y: So it works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could, that might help solve the problem. MR. JACKSON: I understand your concerns. We could fix that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, even better yet, couldn't you come up with what you want to be there and again go back to this is an urban situation not a suburban, and actually come up with a lesser requirement if that's what we want everywhere in there? In other words, you know, rather than have the option, rather than have a judgment necessary, why don't you just establish what you feel that buffer should be and so be it then? MR. JACKSON: We -- we can look at that. Mr. Schiffer, what I was trying to do was try not to replicate the entire code as it exists. We just were addressing those issue -- what we thought there would be an issue rub between the urban setting and the suburban setting. And if you feel that we need to embellish this a little bit more, we'll gladly do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think you know -- in other words, there's limited commercial. I mean you know where this ~_. is going to occur. I would just come up in your mind what you want to be there and define it and that's it. 19 '<.~',*,-""~-",,,",,-,......_-- September 30, 2005 ~ MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. We'll comply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the -- the other issue here is the criteria. Any time that you're asking for an administrative approval for something, they need to have criteria which they can rely upon to approve it. So similar to the other instances where this occurred, you need to develop criteria. MR. JACKSON: Absolutely. And that will be subsequent to a meeting that we have with staff that we're trying to set up now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would work out. MR. JACKSON: We fully understand the criteria which came out from Miss Caron and we understand it again. Wherever this is, criteria will be developed, and it will be acceptable and palatable for everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, isn't that another -, place where it should say county manager or his designee? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That's one of the issues we brought up before, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Everywhere that is -- MS. MURRAY: I think they're aware of that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think that's the-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Goes without saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 40. Any comments on page 40? Well -- go ahead, Donna. COMMISSIONER CARON: I have one under architectural design. Although I probably should let Mr. Schiffer go first. But under one it says that you can use any of the architectural elements listed below. And I would just submit to you that putting shutters on a building isn't going to give you the feel that you want and that you probably should have more than one of these criteria, as you do still in the Gateway have -- I think it's three or four that they have to include. And I wasn't sure why you just chose -- 20 '.'. ..-...._"...~ , September 30, 2005 .,~- MR. EHARDT: Well, we had some discussions with Mr. Jackson about that, and he didn't want to get too restrictive on it. That's why I struck the three here. But I have no problem inserting, you know, three or four to match that up. I -- I agree with you, that would probably be more in keeping with the style and the theme. That -- that would protect it here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Of what you're trying to affect. MR. EHARDT: Right, right. COMMISSIONER CARON: That was my only point. And Brad may want to weigh in further. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my comment on that is, that you know -- first of all, architects don't like menu design because non-architects end up designing all of it. I mean I think what you're saying here is that use these elements to create the style. Does one thing create the style? Of course not. I mean using all of them I could ,- create a building that doesn't have the style they're looking for. MR. EHARDT: We originally had that without any number or things. We just listed some of the elements. Then we were told we had to be a little more specific in some comments we got, so we got a little more specific by picking three or four, depending on what it was. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. EHARDT: Then Mr. Jackson felt that he didn't want to limit it that much, so we struck it out so -- MR. JACKSON: We're -- we're stuck in that how restrictive or how unrestrictive we want to be. We don't want to necessarily handcuff an architect, and we don't want this whole area to be so homogeneous that everything looks the same. And you kind of have that now with the color pallet that the county's got. You know as new buildings are built you kind of end up with this -- you know, everything kind of looks the same, with small variations. ....~_." So we're in that tight spot of trying to be recommending, encouraging, without being overly restrictive that everything looks the 21 -,., ,,,-" September 30, 2005 same, cookie cutter style. That we do have some flavor in that urban style where there is -- the roofs dance, they move, the windows, awnings, types of roof and materials, all those types of things. So we may be guilty of being wishy washy at this time, but then again when it comes to architecture you have you to let the architects and the engineers, you know, have some play in there to make the -- make the neighborhood interesting. So, your advice is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern about your whole paragraph here is that in the first sentence the architectural theme is encouraged. I mean encouraged is a nice word, but most people, if they have that as an option, they'll do whatever they want to do. And you may not get what you want to get out of this, if I'm reading this correctly. Then it says the suggested design or elements of the building should reflect. Well, should is not as strong as shall. So, basically, ,- you're encouraging a design that should reflect this and can include any or none of those elements. And I'm just wondering if you -- if you've put too much flexibility in it compared to where you're trying to go. MR. JACKSON: I follow your reasoning. And out of the community meetings we had when we met with the residents and we met with the building community, we -- we got a tremendous amount of input, was don't handcuff us, don't restrict us, give us some leeway. And also those people that have been coming to my office since I've been here that are going to -- they says I love this style, I'm going to incorporate those things that make sense with the thing that I am building. And so it -- it hasn't been -- it's kind of been a soft hammer, but they are willing to apply these elements into the design. We can be totally restrictive. We can make it black and white and say you will, .-. but then again the fear of being homogeneous and being over controlling. So we're trying to provide a little bit of leeway so that 22 '-~---'. - September 30, 2005 there is a time -- you know, there's room for ingenuity and thinking for that to apply. COMMISSIONER CARON: Here -- here's the way that you -- that may work out better. Because I think Mark actually hit on it. Perhaps in that sentence you should put shall back in and then you don't need to use any of -- you know, you don't need to number what they might use to create the old Florida architecture, but you will definitely have old Florida architecture. MR. JACKSON: So shall instead of should there in paragraph sub one; is that correct, Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: It would be my suggestion that might work out better. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean I'm okay with that. I mean the term -- the theme term of old Florida, Florida cracker is a subj ective term to begin with. So I mean you're not -- you're not -, pegging somebody down to an objective situation. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's no way -- MR. JACKSON: It's like our definition with TND, traditional neighborhood design, it's that -- it's a concept, it's not a thing. COMMISSIONER CARON: So Brad has his flexibility, and -- and we -- and the neighborhood is ensured that they will get something with an old Florida style. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, somebody comes in with a glass cube, what do we do? What protects that? How does that -- I mean it doesn't have any of the elements and therefore you say that's not an old -- MR. EHARDT: I guess -- I guess your -- the architectural code that you have right now would have to take over in that particular case. >-," I mean I was trying to -- and it's hard to do. I was trying to separate the theme of architecture versus the architectural code, which 23 ._~_., -~ September 30, 2005 -" has more to do with massing and certain things like that. I was trying to separate to more of a theme. I know your code reflects mediterranean, I think it even has old cracker in there, old Florida, some different styles. All we were saying is let's regulate this to old Florida in there in the cracker style. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the reviews that the CRA advisory board would do are -- would they review this, David? MR. JACKSON: They have opinion -- as many opinions as there are people on the board, just like you. So it's like herding cats trying to get them to come to -- to talk about it. They have a meeting on the 4th of October. I'll bring it back to them and see if I can get them to solidify it, and I'll take your comments to them and have them one more time walk through it. And I'll take your shall comment and if they want to put a number back on it to maybe give a little bit more definitive guidance. Is that okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean I don't like the number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be a good idea. MR. JACKSON: You don't like the number? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I had -- the question, though, is do they review these designs? Do they have the -- I mean who makes the judgment that this is okay in my neighborhood to meet these things? Shouldn't it be them? MR. JACKSON: Well, they do. They -- they see these plans as they come through my -- my office. And they look at them, they review them, and they provide comment. Of course they -- they don't have approval, denial process. That's what gets into the building code and the CDS part of it. You know, the people that have that authority. But -- but they do get in there and they -- you know, they do give them the evil eye if they have to and make recommendations and say, hey, look, you know, we can make things difficult by, you know, making strange recommendations, but we'd like for you to help. 24 . ."..-.-- --- September 30, 2005 ....'''' And for the most part, most builders will come in, and they will be amenable to making some kind of concession agreement or comp -- you know, type of a thing, compromise to make it fit. And for the most part, I haven't run into an architect here in Collier County that doesn't have pretty good designs, so you guys got a pretty good group of them from what I've seen so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, the only -- my concern was just the vagueness of the whole paragraph. And if you wanted to tighten up and your residents felt that was a good thing, then that's a suggestion. But if you -- if they like it this flexible, then they'll get what's in the code is the bottom line. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So in the event that somebody were to come in with a Mediterranean style and insist on it, that's what it's going to be in the middle of all the -- the other. I think you really need to look at that again. MR. JACKSON: Right. And -- I mean and it goes without saying that I've got a lot of 1960s and '70s architecture out there right now, so you end up with -- it's going to be an interesting look anyway because those buildings are grandfathered in, they're not changing at all. So you're going to have '60s, '70s, and '80s style buildings, amongst other new construction that's going to be of cracker style. So you're going to have a real flavor there for a long time, until the whole place turns over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move onto page 41, if we can. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? MR. EHARDT: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Could I ask one question, please? I wasn't sure. On the elements, you didn't like a number. Are you just saying use these elements? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not a big fan of a menu ..-~, thing. Because here's what happens is that people design to the menu. Building codes, people design the codes, codes are minimum. So if 25 -_._--~~<~,. ,., 'w"'-~___~ September 30, 2005 ~ you establish a minimum, you're going to get a minimum. Guy's going to go, one, two, three, I'm done. MR. EHARDT: Would it be appropriate to say must include using some of these elements listed below, or you would rather not even have the elements there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean I would playoff of David's statement that the architects are going to do good whether you, you know, give them this requirements or not. I do think that what I would do is set up something where the neighborhood was the board or the people that reviewed what they wanted in their own neighborhood. That's what a CRA IS, it's neighbors controlling the neighborhood. Why that would be passed downtown, I don't know. I think they should be the ones setting the standards, meeting with the architects, coming up with what they need and want. And that to me is ,- more important than a menu. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? MR. EHARDT: We'll be back. MR. WHITE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I've had an opportunity to review the documents that each of you gentlemen have provided me, and they appear to be one and the same. Both of them are derived from effectively Resolution Number 2001-98. There's some discrepancy as to what the second of the two sets of bylaws that each of your materials has within them, but it's correct to say that the first of those two sets of bylaws specifically pertain to the CRA itself, Community Redevelopment Agency. The second set of those bylaws are ones that are peculiar to the Bayshore, Gateway area advisory board. And the way to distinguish them, if you want to talk about them, is that the sites are different slightly for those for the agency. Those -- the article numbers are in ,,-~ Roman numbers, so it would be Article Roman Numeral Number I, for example, and the bylaws for the board are in Arabic numbers, 26 .^~-.._-,,-- . ,,~..~-_.~. September 30, 2005 Article Arabic 1. So there's some way to distinguish them besides the idea that one set of rules are a specific to the agency the other are specific to the board. Now, I think the pertinent provision that Mr. Jackson was referring to is derived from the provisions in Arabic Article 1, section three, which are the bylaws for the board, as I said. And section three's purpose -- and under there there are purposes and duties, in parentheses small d -- and this would seem to be the -- the source and -- and authority for what the advisory board's able to do. At least under this resolution. And it says review and comment on any redevelopment project proposed in the advisory board's component redevelopment area. Now, I think that the -- the gist of the discussion you are having today turns on those two words, redevelopment projects. And I understand, Mr. Jackson's point, but the -- the overall construction of ......~ .. the rules for the CRA and their advisory board is to create a statutory agency and a set of advisory boards that deal with redevelopment in a blighted area. And that is implemented by each of those areas having an agency and then BCC adopted redevelopment plan. It would be akin to the growth management plan, if you want to think of it that way, for the whole county. And that redevelopment plan's kind of the -- the outer limits or the constitution that that advisory board and that agency look to in their budgets, in their -- I guess redevelopment proj ects would be the word. And it's for that reason that I tend to think that what this set of bylaws means when it says redevelopment projects are those projects that are part of the redevelopment plan. Now, I think the distinction that's being drawn here is that there are certain proj ects that are developments. Not necessarily redevelopment projects. They -- they could arguably be one and the -, same in the sense that they could be a proj ect brought forth before the county's community development division for its review and approval 27 " -....~_._-_.~-_..~ ~ _.. - September 30, 2005 ,- as an SDP or some type of a building, or it could not. The more typical redevelopment proj ects that I think are in the redevelopment plan are things pertaining not necessarily to the development of a specific site or the construction of a specific building, but rather things like getting drainage proj ects implemented, having over arching set of standards developed for a particular area, and things along those lines. And so it has been that when I worked with the CRA and the local advisory boards, I advised them that it was always critical to make sure that the redevelopment plans fully represented all of what they intended to do in any particular fiscal year and that they kind of use that as their marching orders for activities and tasks for a year. That is not to say that it wouldn't be possible -- and I think it would require an amendment of their bylaws to do this, but I think it's entirely possible that the desired Land Development Code process in - -- in this set of amendments could be achieved, but I think that you'd want to see the bylaws themselves for the advisory board more specifically stated to reference that that advisory board would be able to take under review, consideration and to make recommendations with respect to specific projects, development projects that are submitted to the county for review. And that's the difference here. I think that the intent of the phrase -- in article Arabic 1, section three, small d, the words redevelopment projects, I believe, is intended -- this is just my opinion -- to talk about those projects that are within the redevelopment plan applicable to a particular CRA area. So, I -- I don't know if that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Patrick, are you the county attorney that's responsible in the ultimate to review all this stuffbefore it finally gets to its final phase of approval? I mean I know each -- MR. WHITE: You mean the LDC amendments? -, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. The-- MR. WHITE: Yes. 28 ___...._w. "-'_.~~~'<<---"-- September 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Between now and the time we re-review this when the markups happen, can you take a look at the sections that we've questioned in regards to authority and make sure that they're consistent with the bylaws? That's all -- that would probably resolve -- MR. WHITE: Well, whether they are or they're not, I think that the practical solution here is that if you find them to be otherwise something than you think works for a redevelopment area, such as Bayshore or Gateway, all you have to do IS make your recommendation, assuming it would be one of approval, conditioned upon the fact that those bylaws are sufficiently revised by the CRA advisory board with hopefully the consent and agreement of the CRA agency -- although that's not specifically apparently required -- so that - that was an express understanding of what the functions, purpose, and duties of that advisory board would be. It has not been, in my practice, part of their routine function. They were never tasked with nor have they established the lines of direct communication back and forth with the county staff to assure that they have all of every project that comes up for consideration in their CRA area available for review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: I'd say that it's been done on an ad hoc basis where projects of some greater magnitude or -- or, you know, complexity have come forward and been brought to the attention of one or more of the advisory board members or -- or the director, and they've gone ahead and done so. But that has been a -- my experience, on an ad hoc basis. And all of this is based on a further observation and my ,- conclusion that the functions of the advisory board are to take the public input from the community and forward that input to the CRA 29 .".~c___".__ _e_._~. <__,_ .u-.._........._._.__~--.~,...~_.~_"",...".._, September 30, 2005 itself. There doesn't seem to be as much of a desire to have that advisory board function as an input to the county staff. There is a CRA staff that they should have a working relationship with, and that would of course be Mr. Jackson and anyone else that comes on board and of course to take that up the chain to the CRA agency. U sing the word CRA and agency just to emphasize the distinction. MR. JACKSON: Mr. White-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: If you recall, when the CRA was established, the CRA staff was the planning department of the county. MR. WHITE: That's true. MR. JACKSON: So by de facto-- MR. WHITE: It is that. MR. JACKSON: -- it was an input to the county staff because ,- that's the way this whole thing -- MR. WHITE: Well-- MR. JACKSON: -- was established. MR. WHITE: That's certainly true. And it is in -- probably continuing to be the case with respect to the Immokalee CRA advisory board and its area. MR. JACKSON: Correct. MR. WHITE: But there are-- MR. JACKSON: Planning staff is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of you at a time, please. MR. WHITE: But there are specific dedicated staff who perform those line functions and, in my understanding, when they're working on those tasks, have essentially a different billing source than when they're performing more typical county functions. Here, I'm not aware that there are many folks that are -- if any -- - dedicated to CRA staff functions who are county employees. I know that there's an interlocal between the CRA and the county for the 30 ~.,-,~.~.._- ... "''''~-----'''-'''~'''''~'-'--'-''-~~-'."'--~-''''-'''--- September 30, 2005 -....- purpose of defining some of those relationships, but there is no, per se, county CRA staff that performs any type of a review function for the purposes of routine development projects such as SDPs and other submittals that come to the county and has a working relationship with the advisory board. And what seems contemplated by these proposed LDC amendments is to establish some degree of interconnectedness in terms of knowing what projects may be coming down the pipeline to the county, making sure that those were provided to the CRA advisory board, that they, in turn, after their deliberation and review, would make some recommendation, provide some feedback to the county staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I-- MR. WHITE: So this seems to be a new type of process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the solution's already more or - less been on the table. Mr. Jackson, you indicated that you understood our -- some of our concerns about the way it's worded. If you were going to come back with some proposed language, it might address the analysis Pat just provided plus might address some of our concerns, and maybe the best thing is wait until you come back now, hearing what we've already stated about those issues. MR. JACKSON: Very well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That might resolve it. Thank you, Pat. MR. WHITE: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 41. Anybody have any questions on 41 is? Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a small one. Number four, up at the top, Hardy Board is a proprietarily -- a trademark name, isn't it? I mean -- - MR. EHARDT: Yeah. I guess -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean I think cement -- 31 "' ......w_~." September 30, 2005 ....''''.. MR. EHARDT: Yeah, cement. I can take the brand name out. I just wasn't sure if everyone knew that, what it was. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I think the architects would. And I think the concern would be does that mean you have to use Hardy Board, which isn't what you want. MR. EHARDT: Fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On that same one, where you reference the facade wall building materials, are you including the trim materials? MR. EHARDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because a lot of times trim that's been coming out is a -- they use styrofoam with a stucco coating. Would that be allowed based on language you have there? MR. EHARDT: Yeah. What I meant by stucco was the exterior -, appearance. So if it had some other wood or other backing behind it, it would be allowed. Unless your architectural code doesn't permit that. It was more the exterior appearance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you just add some wordage to make sure that it's understood that way, if you don't mind? MR. EHARDT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just ask something, Mark. I mean it's very common for detail work and stuff. Although this isn't Mediterranean, so maybe this doesn't apply. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you might get a Mediterranean and that might apply. MR. EHARDT: Well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, this might keep the Mediterranean out. My concern was is that there is a lot of foam back products for detail work that -- that -- but that's really not the facade - wall building material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's only concerned about exterior 32 -.----""---" ---~, ~ September 30, 2005 applications, so if that's clearly made, then there's not going to be -- it won't be an issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But your concern is -- the word stucco is a cement product, it isn't the Ethis product. Are you concerned it would be confused as that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm concerned with the fabricated crown mold simulations or the molding simulations that have foam cores and they're wrapped in a stucco with a fiberglass coating over them and then stucco. They're used all the time. Most of the time because they're very less expensive and they're durable. I'm sure you'd want to see some of that because it adds a lot of pizazz to the buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was -- I wanted to make sure that wasn't excluded. -'-. MR. EHARDT: Is stucco a bad word or we don't -- or what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stucco's good. You're concerned about what's forming the armature for the stucco, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you concerned with what's forming the armature for the stucco? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what the word armature-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other words, they use foam, they come up with a lot of the design in the foam and then they stucco over the foam. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was just concerned that -- all -- it was a simple question. I just thought that if you had a foam core with a -- that you'd be prohibiting it by use of this language. That's all. I wanted to make sure because a lot of the product -- MR. EHARDT: If-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- out there-- ,- MR. EHARDT: If I -- 33 '_"_W"_'_"_"_"~"._'_ '~_"_'_U~~"_ , .. _ ,_~ ,_ . .__~_'"_~.,,~_ September 30, 2005 ._" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is foam core. MR. EHARDT: If I use the word stucco, I mean I imagine you could have maybe a wood backing, a foam backing, you could have concrete backing. I mean there's a lot of different materials. I guess you could have metal if you wanted to. You might not do it, but you could have a lot of different materials behind it. It's more like a plaster on a surface. I just don't know if going beyond saying stucco is needed, but, you know, I'll -- I'm afraid I'm going to leave something out is what I'm concerned about. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree. And I think what you -- and you're saying facade wall building materials. You're really talking about the generic wall itself, not the trim work and stuff anyway, aren't you? MR. EHARDT: There may be some trim work or there's some molding that might be styrofoam with stucco on it. I mean I've seen '-'"- that before. I've seen columns, you know, where the first, you know, four or five feet is usually concrete block because people against it and above that's stucco or the -- you know, the foam with the stucco applied to it on the outside, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I started this question asking that, Brad. It would be considered part of the facade, which led me to my concern about styrofoam. Commissioner Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Would it help if we used the word stucco finish? MR. EHARDT: That's fine. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: If you use stucco finish, that allows the inside to be whatever you want it to be. MR. EHARDT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You ever thought about being an architect? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No comment. 34 .".-""""'-"-'-- September 30, 2005 ""'- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: He thinks he is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was a good solution. I like it. That would -- that would take care of it. I'm -- anybody else on 41? If not, let's move to 42. Comments on 42? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Anybody? If not, I've got numerous. Number three, all boat racks shall be enclosed to the wall or a fence. And you may have already addressed this. Is the type of materials for that wall or fence stated somewhere in this document? MR. EHARDT: I haven't stated it anywhere, not in this particular case. I can, but I did not in this particular case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would just a slat wood fence be acceptable? Or do you care? Or chain link fence or-- MR. EHARDT: Chain link I would not want. I guess it would ~-, be a matter -- and I'm not -- I'm not sure on your architectural code. I know you've got buffers that allow walls, what materials are allowed there, but it would be something similar to that, what's allowed in the architectural code. And I could reference that here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just think -- MR. EHARDT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for your own benefit, if you intend something other than an array that isn't addressed somewhere else, if you want to address it, you may want to consider it. MR. EHARDT: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Doesn't the architectural standard allow for chain link fence? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In certain places. This is C4 zoning. COMMISSIONER CARON: Under certain conditions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So would that apply in these cases? It could apply in these cases? MR. EHARDT: I -- I'll word it -- 35 -,-".-.., ._-. ...-_...----~.- September 30, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You might want to make clear-- MR. EHARDT: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- what you don't want. MR. EHARDT: Right. What I don't want, yes, sir. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number four you refer to height of structures. Is that zoned height or actual height? I think we started to talk about this last week. I can't remember the outcome of it. MR. EHARDT: This was in the original ordinance, and I think that was actual height to the top of the structure that was there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're updating everything maybe we ought to just clean this language up so there's -- it's not ambiguous for anybody coming down the road, including the people that you'll have to deal with in your own area. Five A. I notice that there are some boat sales over there going on, and I'm wondering -- actually all of section five. How are you -- -, does any of this going to change what those people have, or is this only applicable if they buy into different aspects of the overlay? MR. EHARDT: This would apply if it's a new -- new construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only new construction? MR. EHARDT: Not existing construction, new construction. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How does one know that? MR. EHARDT: I can state that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That'd be a good idea. MR. EHARDT: I'm sorry. MS. MURRA Y: Is this -- one quick question is the areas used for new boat sales activities, are you talking about the display area here, your limit one -- MR. EHARDT: Which one are you on? I'm sorry. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. I'm on 5A. It says all areas used for 36 ,.~_._W.. ....,-,- September 30, 2005 ,,',- new boat sales activities shall occupy no more than 35 percent of the linear frontage. Is that the display area? MR. EHARDT: Yes. MS. MURRAY: Display. MR. EHARDT: Yes. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Might be helpful to clarify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if you have -- I know there's a boatyard down on Bayshore right now that has a large building with a display window, but yet they're surrounded by boats for sale. Well, this is new, so this wouldn't affect them. If they came in and wanted to renovate over 50 percent, then they'd probably have a problem. MR. JACKSON: That specific marina is going to be renovated in the nearfuture. They have a new owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, is it? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. So there's a very good likelihood that ..---.. there will be a lot more masking. The building will come down and a new construction will go up. MR. EHARDT: Just for some clarification, I think the history's right. I don't know all the history, but this was basically put in because of that one particular boatyard that was down there on Bayshore, to allow their activity to continue. And that's why this language was in the original Bayshore overlay that's on the books right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well they're the ones I was mostly concerned about. I -- I pass them many times. They've been there a long time, so -- Under five C -- and, Susan, this is probably a question for you. Is that the methodology we use today? I -- because it looks like it's a request for a variance petition and those usually go through CCPC and BCC, right? --, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's my interpretation, too. MS. MURRAY: I'm trying to understand. Approved by the BCA 37 September 30, 2005 ~- through a variance is correct, the BCA board -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. MURRAY: -- sitting as the BCA. And obviously I'm assuming that means it would go through the same process that we currently have, which means through you and then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's-- MS. MURRA Y: -- to the BCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to make sure. This doesn't circumvent the process we currently have. MS. MURRAY: It doesn't look like it. I think it's okay to say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do we need it? MS. MURRAY: Probably don't. It's just kind of repeating what's already in the code. If you don't meet the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I'm wondering-- ,- MS. MURRAY: -- setback requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, between you two gentlemen, do you see a need to have C in there? MR. JACKSON: I think it's to -- this is previous language, so it's three years old, four years old. The only thing I could think of is to try to prevent that used car lot view. You know, instead of cars, they're boats, and the building is set so far back you don't see any building and it's this big used car lot or new boat sales effect. To get away from the Wal-Mart, Home Depot sea of asphalt in front of you is to bring the building up and bring -- you know, make it address the street is the only intent that I could see on this one here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't -- wasn't -- that wasn't my concern. It was the process that it seemed to be trying to explain that already seems to be in the code, so -- MS. MURRAY: Well, let me ask real quick. Is this a -- new boat sales area shall not be closer to the frontage line than the primary building they serve. Is that a rule that's already within this draft? 38 September 30, 2005 -- MR. JACKSON: That's existing rule now. MS. MURRAY: Okay. MR. EHARDT: That's in the existing Bayshore overlay. MS. MURRAY: Okay. In other words, there's a separate rule that says you're not going to have boat sales area closer to the frontage line -- MR. EHARDT: Right. MS. MURRAY: -- than the primary building. Okay. It's -- it's repetitive just saying this. I mean if you want dimensional deviation from that, that goes through the variance process, which is already pretty much spelled out in the code as to what applies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can keep some momentum, why don't you take a look at it with staff and maybe there's better language that could be found. MR. JACKSON: Okay. - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under F, it's talking about landscape buffers. Is that -- Susan, since this is existing language, are those above and beyond what's in the LDC, do you know now or is there -- again, is that something that is more repetitive than worthwhile? MS. MURRAY: There's -- an additional landscape buffer is required around the perimeter seems to imply that in addition to the perimeter, existing perimeter landscape buffer requirement, you're going to have another one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to find out. Is that what you think? MS. MURRAY: That's the way I would apply it. At least just from this reading. It doesn't talk about a width requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. MURRAY: So there would have to be a width requirement, but there is already an existing buffer -- perimeter buffer requirement. ..'- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is it the intent, Mr. Jackson, to -- that you need these double buffers? 39 September 30, 2005 - MR. JACKSON: No, I don't think so. I mean you're looking at the -- they want to put up a fence around boat racks and then they're going to put these other buffers in. I don't know that you need this many type of repetitive buffering in there. We can work that out with Miss Murray and come up with something that's acceptable. I think it had to do with they're trying to screen that one existing facility that was there now. And there's one other facility that needed to be screened, but it's -- it's off the beaten path, back in the residential area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could take a look at that, it might be helpful to your area. I think six has the same application we discussed already in five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one quick question on five. What if somebody was selling used boats, would they pass all these requirements or -- MR. JACKSON: I think somebody put the word new in there. I -, think it just ought to say boat sales. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because when you read this, it says new boats only, doesn't apply to used boats. MR. JACKSON: That's existing language. It should just say boats because if it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's your intent. MR. JACKSON: If it's one year old or last year's model or today's model, it's still a boat sitting in the same place. So somebody could say they're all used and put them up there and, you know, and by -- circumvent the thing. So I think we'll take the word new out and just clarify it as what it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be a better move. Yes? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: In B -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- it says all boat sale activities are limited to new boat sales. Are you excluding used? Does that exclude used? 40 -..-.,".-.....,-- September 30, 2005 MR. EHARDT: That was -- it did -- it does right now, in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's suggesting, though, just take the word new out and say all boat -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that one you take the whole sentence out. MR. EHARDT: That would be easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Okay. Let's move onto 43. Any questions from the panel on page 43? If not -- minimum setbacks. You have two family dwelling units and townhouses at ten feet, and your diagrams on the following pages reflect that, as well. My concern is that staff six months, a year ago, put into action a concern over the depths of parking for cars and garages, and we had to have at least 23 feet back and put front-loading garages so that people don't block sidewalks. Looking at your diagrams, on the following pages as well, I'm not sure that i~'s clear that you have that 23 feet. MR. EHARDT: If you go to page 46, the diagram I had there before I think had 20 feet on the right-hand side, the setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. EHARDT: That was a mistake. It should be 23 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then your garages are always 23 feet back, in the back of sidewalk, so there's no overhangs onto the pedestrian. MR. JACKSON: Correct. And that was pointed out to us at the DSAC and those changes have been incorporated in our electronic copy, and of course you had an earlier version. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On page 43, under multifamily, three or more dwelling units. This is under minimum setbacks. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, may I, before you leave 42, just ,-- -- I don't know if this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. 41 <--~.,- September 30, 2005 --, MS. MURRAY: -- is of concern to you-all, but Catherine pointed out something to me and I think it's worth bringing up. Back on page 42, under number four, in the second sentence it says that EZA, in addition to the findings in Chapter Nine, shall consider whether or not the literal interpretation of the previous provisions of this LDC imposes a financial hardship on the applicant. That is different than the standards we normally apply, and I -- I didn't know -- it's been a while since I read the compo plan on this one. I didn't know if that was in the compo plan or not, but that's normally not something you consider when you're looking at a variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is part of existing language. So if it's not -- if it's in error, why don't we clean it up, since we're cleaning up this whole section anyway? Is that generally the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean could it have been the intent because it's a CRA to now include that as a criteria? I mean we are trying to fix a -- MR. JACKSON: Well, this -- this specific statement is into the waterfront district. So it's the specific sections of the -- within the -- the CRA, within the zoning part of it there. Only thing I can surmise is it was written because of probably a specific owner or two lobbied to have the language put in there that says you want me to change this, I'm going to show you that it's going to cost me a lot of money and hurt my business. That's just a -- me surmising what may have happened. If -- you know, Miss Murray, how do you feel about that? Is that going to be a violation of what you have now? MS. MURRAY: You know, I don't know why it was put in there or not. I guess I'm just pointing out that it's different. Normally you -- under planning theory, you don't consider the financial hardship because that's not the primary criteria you're looking at. You're looking at land-related hardship, and then our code has impact on health, safety, welfare, as well as some other primary -- 42 -..---. ^,._..-----~._.._.....,,_.."- .....- September 30, 2005 - MR. JACKSON: For the waterfront district, Miss Murray, I have no problems taking this out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, wait. Before we -- I mean this is an area -- none of these properties have SDPs. Everybody's having to get an SD P. So as you bring stuff up to present day code, this could be an issue. And -- in other words, I think since we don't know why it's in there, why don't we try to go back and find out why it was put in there before we take it out? Unless we think we're-- MS. MURRAY: I don't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- smarter than everybody in the past. MS. MURRAY: I don't think we'll be able to do that. I'd just bring it to your attention as something different. If you-all want to leave it in, we can leave it in and if not, we can take it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, if your -- if your advice is that ,- this is something outside the normal of what's usually considered for these kind of applications, then I think consistency in the code is rather important. I'd certainly like you to at least suggest some alternative language. And if we disagree with you, we can always disagree with you at that point. Right now, I'd rather not see us inconsistent in any parts of the code that we don't have to be. MS. MURRA Y: If you wish to consider it, I would just maybe make a change that makes it a very minimal consideration. In other words, they could present the information to you, but, you know, in that -- Patrick may have a comment on that, but I don't -- I just -- I don't want it to imply that it's got to be a primary consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rather than -- MS. MURRAY: That's totally different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rather than move too fast today, why don't you just -- this is going to have to come back. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just bring it back with 43 -.-...-.<,-- " ""_"'__m__''''"_'~_.~__'_''"_ September 30, 2005 --- any kind of recommendations that you'd have, and we can all consider it at that point. I was getting into page 43, and I was talking about the multifamily dwelling units. And the issue is the -- not the front yard but the side yard. These multifamily dwelling units, I believe, can be 40 feet high? And-- MR. EHARDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the Side yard setback is five feet, unless abutting single-family unit and then seven and then it's seven and a half feet. Is that -- MR. EHARDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to go with a 40- foot high building with a five-foot setback. MR. EHARDT: That's what we have. That's what was in there before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean I'm -- I'm just surprised. I haven't -- that's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Smart growth, isn't it? I mean the intent is to build an urban area. This is not a urban area, this is downtown. MR. EHARDT: I would leave ten feet -- if you had two side by side, I would leave ten feet in between. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I think you're going to find some fire code issues that's going to have a prudent design or pull it back if he wants windows and stuff but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just wanted to point it out. On the maximum height of principle structures, same page, it says three habitable floor are 40 feet, then it talks about the building eve, et cetera. Is it no more than 40 feet? Is it -- I mean normally we see this kind of language, three habitable floors but no more than 40 feet or something like that in order to indicate how high someone could go because -- 44 ~~_.~., '"".~- ,~,~--"'"''''''',,,''-' _......~--" . September 30, 2005 MR. EHARDT: This was original language. I guess we could reflect the thing we had before for the mixed-use district for, you know, 42 feet and keep it consistent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd-- MR. EHARDT: -- on that basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --like for something like that to happen. MR. EHARDT: And then keep the -- the way we measure it consistent, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then you might indicate whether it's owned or actual in the -- as you-- MR. EHARDT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- clean the language up. The last comment I have is the last section, left-hand side, where it talks about parking standards. MR. EHARDT: Right. - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just, again, it's the criteria that's going to be need to be laid out there. MR. EHARDT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's all I have on 43. If no one else has any other questions, we can move onto 44. Do you want me to lead or you guys got any? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your C 1, you struck out the language about the visible parking area and added new parking language. Minimum off-street parking is one space per dwelling unit, parking should not be visible from Bayshore Drive. Does it matter about how large a dwelling unit is? Because we get into pretty large units in this county, and there's more than one car per house, per unit, usually. And I'm thinking that if you have a -- multiple bedrooms on a lot of square footage, one space may be really - insufficient. I don't know if you've given it thought. MR. EHARDT: Let me review that and come back with you. 45 ,---><+--~..- September 30, 2005 ,- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EHARDT: Let me look at that, if I may. MR. JACKSON: May I -- Mr. Chairman, may I ask Miss Murray a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,ofcourse. MR. JACKSON: For a residential RMF6 single-family home, what is the current codes requirement for parking spaces for single- family homes? MS. MURRAY: For single-family homes? MR. EHARDT: I think it's two. MS. MURRAY: I think it's two. I don't have the book in front of me. MS. FABACHER: No. I think it's a per unit in a multifamily. I think it's if it's one bedroom, it's 1.5. MS. MURRA Y: It is for a multi, but you were asking for single, right? MS. FABACHER: But he said in an RMF, so-- MR. JACKSON: Well, you know, any residential area, if it's a single- family home, it's got two or three bedrooms. What is the parking requirement when a builder builds a house? MS. MURRAY: I don't know off the top of my head, and I don't have the book for it but I can certainly look that up for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could check it-- MS. MURRAY: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and if you feel that you -- this needs to be adjusted, you might want to look at that. MR. EHARDT: What -- just as a suggestion, we had mentioned on that previous page the language about the reduction 25 percent, which we're going to be working on. On the other side, we had some different things that we struck out, but we said county standards. .- Now, what we could do is go by the county standards and have the ability to reduce it by the percentage that we can come up with in 46 -,-- _.~--- September 30, 2005 - language to -- to vary that. That might be a -- strike -- strike it from the other one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might work. If you go down to the bottom of that page, it talks about the first habitable floor street facade may not be greater than one-foot over the minimum first floor elevation designated by the NFIP. Does that conflict at all, Susan, with the crown of road measurement that we normally use? Because we normally require FEMA or 18 inches above the crown of the road. Now, would this then have an impact on the 18 inches above the crown of the road if it strictly went to FEMA, do you know? MS. MURRAY: It may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you could check that. MS. MURRAY: Yeah, let me check. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See if it has any impact before we make it into a recommendation. - MS. MURRAY: There's -- yeah. There's two different measurements, as well, so I just want to make sure that we're including them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I have on 44. Nobody else has any, we can move to 45. Item C, the garage floor shall be -- not exceed 24 inches above the elevation of the right-of-way from which it is accessed. The right-of-way is usually a wide piece of property and has vegetation in it from the crown of the road to the curb height to the sidewalk to the grass areas. I don't know where you'd be measuring from if you left that statement like it is. And I know that's existing language, but you may want to clean it up so that nobody questions it. MR. EHARDT: Crown of the road or similar to the elevation of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On A4A, front porches may encroach -, seven feet into the front yard. Do the front yards get any closer than seven feet to the right-of-way? 47 ---~.__.- September 30, 2005 - MR. EHARDT: The front yard set back, and this is ten feet so you can come out seven feet, and if you don't have steps they can go three feet, so you'd be right at the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right at the-- MR. EHARDT: -- the sidewalk line or property line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EHARDT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my concern there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And on that point, because of the floor height you're setting, the steps would never be higher than 30 inches anyway, so they would never be involved in setback, correct? I don't see how. MR. EHARDT: I'm sorry, say that again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're establishing the height of the first floor to be one-foot above FEMA, which is going to be, ,........ essentially, close to the crown of the road anyway. I mean -- or -- MR. EHARDT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- within that range. So the steps would always be under 30 inches. MR. EHARDT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And with porch, what you really mean is the columns supporting the porch would be measured to; is that right? Or do you actually -- could somebody build a flat, roofless porch up to the property line? MR. EHARDT: I'm not understand -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The porch would be a roof porch, correct? MR. EHARDT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That you're referring to. MR. EHARDT: Yeah, yes. --- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. I'm okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you go down to 4 E, second story 48 September 30, 2005 -, porches are encouraged but no enclosed room is permitted above the front porch. Is there -- the word enclosed, does that mean can you have screen enclosures? Is there somewhere there's some safety measure in how that is determined? MR. JACKSON: Yeah. In D above that it says you can screen it, but we'll -- and then it -- the porch is -- we're trying to prevent, you know, somebody taking and completely enclosing the upper porch there and, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. JACKSON: -- putting glass and walls, that type of thing in there. The screening of -- I think mosquito abatement is good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. D referenced the front porches. That's why when you said second story porches, I just wanted to make sure the same application -- MR. JACKSON: Yeah. -'< MR. EHARDT: That's fine, I agree. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can second story porches be in the rear as well, or on the side? MR. JACKSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all the questions I have on 45. Does anybody else have any? Ready to go to 46. We're knocking them dead here today. Any questions from the -- you want me to just move into mine? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a question. This is where mine says it's a minimum of ten feet back, and you were changing that to 23; is that what I heard earlier? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item F is where the 23, I think, was being changed. MR. EHARDT: Yeah. If it doesn't have a garage, it could be ten feet back. - COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. EHARDT: If it has a garage, it would be 23 feet back. 49 _~~__~,"....,w ,,--,.-.- September 30, 2005 ,- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If it doesn't have a garage now, it may have a garage later. You want to make certain that you have enough geometry there for the three extra feet, so you want to look at that. MR. WHITE: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: Is it anticipated that the seven feet of encroachment anticipated for the front porch would be the maximum, or would you be able to get another three feet for steps? MR. EHARDT: I'll make it a maximum. If I have to put that, seven feet would be the maximum. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Talk into the mike, sir. MR. WHITE: Okay. MR. EHARDT: I'm sorry. Seven feet would be the maximum, and I will show -- state it that way. MR. WHITE: Inclusive of steps? MR. EHARDT: Exclusive of steps. MR. WHITE: In, inclusive of steps. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. He -- he said that steps could be in front of that, Pat. Because steps would be below -- MR. WHITE: So-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- 30 inches. MR. WHITE: So there'd be the total of up to ten feet-- MR. EHARDT: Right. You could use -- MR. WHITE: -- of encroachment. MR. EHARDT: You could use the setback area in this particular district is ten feet off the right-of-way or back of sidewalk line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. EHARDT: And that can be -- seven of that can be used for the porch and three of that could be used for steps, if it's -- if that - much step is needed. I guess you were saying it may not need that much. 50 ___,.. '<H. September 30, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what I'm saying is if you put a non-covered porch, just a -- you know, a sitting deck with no roof on it, you could theoretically build that out to the property line, as long as you're lower than 30 inches, by our code now. So -- and the reason I think the steps wasn't an issue is because they would never be higher than 30 inches, thus they would never be required to meet setbacks or anything anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not-- MR. WHITE: I'm assuming in asking the question only with respect to structures that would be greater than 30 inches. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's -- are we all done with 46 now? If we are let's, move onto 47. Under 6A, ownership of an accessory unit shall not be transferred independently to the primary residence. What about occupancy? I mean you have an accessory "- guest house, I don't believe in Collier County you can lease those out. Is that still applicable in this district? Are you intending -- MR. EHARDT: I wouldn't -- I would not want to lease or any rental, anything like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, Susan, our code would still-- in the use of a guest house would still prevail over this language? MS. MURRAY: Correct. MR. EHARDT: I think we had a different language in there before, and someone suggested to use guest houses, more in matching with what you had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under E, talking about maximum height of structures. Containing a guest house over a garage is limited to a maximum of 20 feet. You're going to put a garage and a guest house in a 20- foot high building? MR. EHARDT: I said the overall height was 26 feet. You might ,--- have a pitch roof, and you might be able to get something in -- you know, dormers and things inside that, but I'll check those dimensions. 51 .~--. ,~-,,-"-- September 30, 2005 I went over it several times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's zoned height then, or actual? MR. EHARDT: 26 is actual, the 20 would be zoned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you -- just to catch up. When you do any -- when you refer to heights, if you always use one of those words in the front of it, everybody will know what you're -- MR. EHARDT: Actual or zoned? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. EHARDT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think everybody will know what you're talking about then based on our code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, could we discuss that a little bit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since the last meeting I kind of - retreated and went to back to my Miami traditional neighborhood friends who are kind of leading the world on this, and the eve height is a really good way to measure. I think what we might want to do is invent a third definition of height, rather than abandon that, because I don't think they can describe what they want with the two definitions we have now. In other words, we have a definition now which is the actual height, which is to the top, you know, everybody uses the word hip roof for top. Okay. But -- then we have the zoned height, which is, in many cases, depending upon your roof. What they're trying to control is the facade height. They're trying to control the face of all these buildings on the street, which I don't think can be done by the zoned height dimension. MR. EHARDT: We're also trying to match up with the language - that's in the compo plan of these, you know, story heights of 14 feet. And if we try to measure that -- if -- if -- let's say 50 -- and it can do a 52 ~ .,d___ September 30, 2005 _. three story building, that's 42 feet. If that's the height to the midpoint of a hip roof, that means I can't do three stories there because that roofs going to push that top -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. EHARDT: -- story -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. EHARDT: -- down some. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I think in essence what you do is you'd cause everything to have flat roofs, and I don't think that's the intent either. MR. JACKSON: All right. Mr. Schiffer, when we left the last meet, Mr. Strain -- the last word I got from him in direction was that it would be okay -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that -- that we would measure first habitable by story height, and then all we needed to do was come up with a maximum height or actual height for the roof, - whatever that would be. And we discussed that this morning and looked at it. F or instance, properties that are in the area that are zoned C4 right now, if they build to C4 the maximum height by code is seven to five feet. So if -- in our mixed use you can go up to 56. So -- and that's just the facade height to the eve. So we're planning on recommending and writing in the code first habitable floor, facade height up to 56 feet, four stories. And then the maximum height would be no higher than what you could build if you were C4 because some properties may not flip over to mixed use. They may be C4, and you have this mixed use next to it and then you would have similar type roofs, you don't have too many towering above the others. So that's what we're toying with right now. We really prefer and from the development services advisory committee was to measure first habitable floor to the eve and it's - because it's easy, it's simple, it's right there, it's one measurement. And then you don't have to play with the various kinds of roofs that 53 <.~"~~._._.. September 30, 2005 .-~, could be designed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's more predictable, I mean for the street facade, which is what you're trying to do. MR. EHARDT: I would -- I would just, you know, say that when we say in C4 -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but by saying C4, that the maximum height is 75 feet, the actual height of a hip roof building is more than 75 feet. I just want to make sure everyone understand that. Because you're measuring to the mid -- median of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- MR. EHARDT: -- between the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean -- MR. EHARDT: I'm just saying there's no -- right now I -- I -- I believe you do not have a maximum height of building in your code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. EHARDT: It's a height that's measured to particular places .,--~- -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. EHARDT: -- on the type of roof that's there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Depending on the roof. We do have a definition that's useful in PUDs. The -- but the concern I have is for you to actually control the facade with our two dimensions, you would have to come up with a different height for each different building, you'd have to limit roof pitches, you'd have to limit -- I mean a roof, the depth of the -- I mean the geometry of it would be -- I mean I think that's why in some of these new urban situations they are controlling the eve height. I know the City of Palm Beach, to get rid of the mega structure problem that we have -- and we still have to do this here -- controls it by eve height, buildings, residential buildings. MR. JACKSON: And when I went over and talked with the CRA manager over in the City of Naples in their Fifth Avenue South area, that's how they measured it. And when you walk down that area 54 .._- September 30, 2005 and look at it, you don't really notice that most of the buildings are about the same height because the balconies, the windows, the treatments, the roofs are all different, and so you end up with this very interesting set of buildings that produces the results that you all know that happens. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And at a pedestrian level the roof is almost irrelevant because it's not even visible, unless you're across the street or something. So setting the height of a building by its roof structure doesn't make sense in an urban area, I don't think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and, Brad, I'm not concerned about the -- how the height comes out. I'm more concerned with the consistency with the code that so everybody reading the code doesn't have to go to different definitions for different sections of the code. But if staff has a way of making that work, then maybe Susan can render a thought on this whole matter. We have currently, I believe, -- two definitions for height in the code, and I don't believe the original language here was consistent with either one of those. And that's -- MS. MURRAY: Probably not. Because it was adopted obviously before the week changed from -- and to -- referenced zoned and actual. The last time we talked about this I remember the concern from Brad was he didn't want to make them strictly abide by that because then you were getting into design issues and kind of forcing design on a certain building. Is that still -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no, I-- MS. MURRA Y: -- an issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- can say it differently. In other words, when you're designing an urban area, which our code prior to this is a suburban code, you're concerned with the facade heights of the building, the face of the building that's on the street. -, And so what they've come up with, which other people in the country use, is a system of measuring it to the eve height. 55 .__.~,",- September 30, 2005 - That doesn't -- in a suburban code -- I think the solution should be -- is that we come up with a third definition of building height via the eve method. I think we're going to use that definition when we try to combat the mega structures, mega homes and stuff, because that's how other communities do, is that we should add that third dimension. Not try to make them design a street facade using our -- our definitions, which are suburban. MS. MURRAY: I -- I thought about that a little bit more, Catherine, and I talked about that, too, after the last meeting and don't have an objection to that. I think it makes sense. I think you're going to see a lot more of this type of development. I think we ought to maybe look at it trying to be consistent and -- and develop something that addresses it. If they want to do it in here as part of this overlay, I think that would be fine, too, and we'll just use the standards of the overlay to ,"'.- measure building height. I mean if -- we're going to be using other standards, so just including height in there isn't really going to throw -- I don't think throw anybody off. MR. EHARDT: I -- I would say, too, I just want to reiterate that, you know, we're trying to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan that talks about three story and four stories, measured by this 14-foot increment. And like I said before, if you have a hip or gable roof and your maximum height's 56 feet, you're -- you're not going to get three stories or four stories. You're going to push -- that top floor is going to be smaller. MS. MURRAY: I think-- MR. EHARDT: And you're -- you're -- MS. MURRAY: Yeah. MR. EHARDT: -- kind of denying -- MS. MURRAY: It's unfortunate that the comprehensive plan is -, that specific because I -- I think probably what the comprehensive plan should have said is just as you described, that, you know, there is 56 _____._._m...__.....~_."__ -"~- September 30, 2005 ~- -- you're wanting a -- an urban appearance and that the rules should be drafted, the zoning code should be drafted to -- to encourage that. You're kind of stuck with going with the -- you know, what the comp plan says at this point, unless you change the compo plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but he's not changing the story. The-- MS. MURRA Y: No. You're just -- the way you measure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what we should do is just add a definition. I'll certainly volunteer to work with you guys to come up with it. I mean it's written all around the country. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that staff -- if staff can work out something with you-all, why don't we just approach it that way and come back to us? MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes? - MS. F ABACHER: I just had a comment. Our understanding the mixed-use district in the -- in the triangle, it's possible to let the roofs be any size they want, but you're talking about mega structures. Here you are on Bayshore Drive and most of the structures surrounding right now are one story residential, behind in the back there. You're talking about a building here -- if you let it be 56 feet to the top of the eve -- and each floor, Brad, remember needs -- has to be 14 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MS. FABACHER: No? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean that's what we consider by the compo plan what a story equals. It could be twice the 14 feet. That doesn't mean everybody -- MR. EHARDT: It appears to be a little bit different-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guarantee -- MR. EHARDT: -- but the maximum is three stories and that's-- -, MS. FABACHER: Well-- MR. EHARDT: -- 44 -- 57 -._~_...'" ~"."~ ~.J."..., ."~~_'_"._'_"'~ ..._"___ _,".~"__ September 30, 2005 '-"" MS. FABACHER: So -- so you're-- MR. EHARDT: -- 56. MS. FABACHER: -- saying that we're -- he -- that the designers are not held to a 14- foot story. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know any designer that -- there's -- very rare, 14-foot-- MS. FABACHER: Well, then-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- is very -- MS. FABACHER: -- why does that need to be in the regs.? Because that confuses people and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it's -- MS. FABACHER: -- you can-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, now. MS. F ABACHER: I was saying that you could build to a maximum height and then you let your stories fit in and -- if you ,- measured our old way. But let me just say this. If you measure to the eve and you allow yourself to have 56 feet -- suppose you got a depth of 60 feet in your building, you're on a four to 12 roof, that gives you another 20 feet. You're go to have a 76- foot building along Bayshore in a neighborhood where everybody else is in a one floor building. And you don't think that's a monstrous building? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean by code now that -- we could build that now. I mean C4 zoning, we can build 75 feet height. Remember, that's the -- MS. FABACHER: Yes, but the-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- zoned height, that's not even the height of the -- MS. FABACHER: But the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the roof -- MS. F ABACHER: But the RNC is supposed to be C1 to C3 ,_c uses, and that's -- that is -- the maximum height is 35 -- what is it? 50 feet in a C3. 58 ......_<-~~."~,.~--,-.._-_.,..-.--._,._...."._".__.,.-..-......-.....,.-.."'---- September 30, 2005 _.w_ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think it -- and, you know, maybe the best way to answer is the -- MS. F ABACHER: I mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- illustration. MS. F ABACHER: I'm not -- I'm just trying to clarify that this is supposed to fit in with the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the concerns that Brad's expressed, you've expressed, and Susan's talked about and are -- and the rest of the panel today are on the table, and I don't think we're going to be able to work this language out at today's meeting. So why don't we let you-all work it out, and when you come back to us, we'll take a closer look at what you're providing at that point. MR. EHARDT: If I may make just one comment is that the 56 feet height limit is if it's a mixed-use project. If it's strictly residential or strictly commercial, then it can only be to the 42 feet. And that's - from the language in the compo plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think some of these heights even to me as a designer seems high. The 14- foot floor to floor comes from the compo plan. You can't blame them for that. I mean -- MS. FABACHER: I'm not-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- they're just -- they're saying -- MS. FABACHER: I'm not blaming them at all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what we should do in the compo plan is get rid of the concept of stories and stay with height. MS. FABACHER: But, Brad, if you're saying -- no, this is good, because if you're saying that that just defines -- a story doesn't mean you have to build. It doesn't say you have to build your story 14 feet, does it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not exactly sure what it means. It means that when these guys want to do four stories, they _. multiply four times that number. MR. JACKSON: Yeah. 14 feet for me was a definition of how 59 .'.___._w+_'_ September 30,2005 ,- tall that building can be, but there's other restrictions that are going to keep those things from being mega structures because right now parking is limited, land is limited, most of the place is built out. So you're going to end up with your two or three story buildings in most of the locations because of the physical limitations for parking, landscaping, and storm water management. Now, there are other factors that will control this height. Height by itself will just -- will -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, even budget, too. You wouldn't build that massive a roof that wouldn't be seen from a street. MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think heights had enough breathing room today. It's time for the court reporter for break. We'll take a ten minute break and resume at 2:40. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're running a couple minutes - behind. If you'd all take your seats. Okay. We were on page 47. We finished the debate about height. I have some questions on the page, ifno one else does. Okay. And for the record, Commissioner Adelstein has left. He was not feeling too well so shouldn't have been here in the first place. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to put one other matter on the record before we resume. And that is that each of you have a handout. That handout derives from the firm Planning Development, Incorporated. We had received it earlier today through one of their employees, and I believe these are the comments and suggestions of Michael Fernandez from that firm. They're not for your immediate review or consideration today, but I would suggest you take them under advisement and perhaps for the next meeting. And if you have any questions, you may choose to contact Mr. Fernandez -- I have his business card here if you care to -- -- or to work through the staff to respond to these comments, if you choose to. 60 September 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Onto page 47. I understand that some of the existing language was from the GMP. Under 6G, I notice it's all crossed out. Is that language that was original and it's crossed out? MR. EHARDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I guess my question would be if it's in the GMP, how can we not leave it in in regards to that issue? MR. EHARDT: Oh, wait. I'm sorry. That was new language. I'm sorry. That was new language, I forgot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: If it was existing, it would be in black, not underlined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, do we normally count guest -, houses as any form of density? MS. MURRA Y: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that suggestion isn't even needed then. Under 7B, this is a clean up issue from existing language. The fence is not opaque but provides an open view. I guess there could be a lot of debates on how much of a percentage of opacity . Maybe if you were to attach a percentage to that, it IS open vIew. would help clarify it for the future. And the same with D. It talks about fence materials shall be a wood, vinyl composite, stucco block, or metal. I was curious, I noticed stucco block was inserted. How do you get an open view with stucco block? MR. EHARDT: It might be a combination. You could have some metal with some, you know, columns or something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was understanding. So if ,- you put an op -- a percentage in there, then -- MR. EHARDT: Sure. 61 ^_ .""n'.'~_,_~ ~-_"'"'~."'_.-'^~~',,-----._._- ' September 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that will work out fine. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Or a combination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I had on 47. Does anybody else have anything? If not, we'll head onto 48. MR. EHARDT: May I add something on 48? Because I just talked with David Weaks, he had to leave, and this was an oversight. If this -- this section on bed and breakfast is only allowed in the mixed-use developments which are in the C -- NC category or the waterfront category. So I just will be moving those into that section. I'll be glad to take any comments you have on what's written here, but I'm just saying that's the section they belong into. They fall into the category in the county of hotel/motel. And those are uses more in the commercial zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EHARDT: I just wanted to clarify that. .- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to make that change? MR. EHARDT: Yes, sir, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that same section, C, I notice you -- the parking, instead of -- for like -- for a six unit bed and breakfast, you only require four parking spaces. Am I reading that correct? MR. EHARDT: Which item is that? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four. MR. EHARDT: That's what I was saying, I didn't want to get -- overdo the parking in those particular locations but -- because I was thinking of a residential. But since it's moving to a commercial zone, we can make it one per -- per unit -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EHARDT: -- would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- that's where I was going. MR. EHARDT: Okay. ,~-, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On number seven, an on-site manager is required. Is there any parking? If there's -- if you guys in your district 62 ~----_..- ~--~" _~~_..'m_...~o"^_"_" ...".."_~,. . September 30, 2005 ~-- feel that you want to make sure there's enough parking, an on-site manager needs to have parking space. You might want to take a look at that. MR. EHARDT: Well, I guess we were thinking it would be included in the two spaces that come with your unit, plus a number of spaces for each unit you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EHARDT: We've been-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you'd still get it through. Number eight, doesn't that go without saying? If you have a bed and breakfast, it's got to comply with all-- MR. EHARDT: Again, that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the licenses -- MR. EHARDT: That was original language, I'm sorry, be glad to take that out. - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to just clean it up? If it's already -- it's redundant and it just lengthens our number of pages we have to type and read. MR. EHARDT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Towards the bottom, under 40219A, it says the -- the second sentence. The multifamily buildings shall be compatible with the building patterns of traditional neighborhood design. Susan, is there some way that we'd be able -- someone would be able to determine how compatibility weighs in with building patterns? MS. MURRAY: No, not -- not without specific criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I think that needs to be addressed in some manner so there's some-- MR. EHARDT: I -- I don't know of any way to address it. I've tried -- I've looked at different things trying to address that. I'd just - soon strike that and let the setbacks and the criteria we have here for lots stand -- 63 ,~.- -_. -- September 30, 2005 ~~'- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're right. Because If you can't address it -- MR. EHARDT: -- based on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's not going to be applicable anyway. MR. EHARDT: Just let it -- doesn't apply to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just on that, quick, Mark, what if you reference the architectural design theme that -- I know it's in the commercial district, but you could reference that if that's the intent. I mean do you want to theme that area or -- MR. EHARDT: We weren't going -- we were only going to apply the theme basically to the -- to the commercial areas. If we want to do it to the residential, I can certainly do that, but we didn't want to be that restrictive on residential. So we left it mainly for the - commercial type uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only questions I have on that page. Does the rest of the panel have any? None. We'll move onto 49. Forty-nine, under A, 4.02.20A. I know this is existing language, but lately we've been giving it more attention. References mobile homes. MR. EHARDT: That needs to be struck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EHARDT: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then you already know where I'm going. MR. EHARDT: The same in the table below, I struck it also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. EHARDT: And the same the table below that table I struck it also. - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I circled all of them so if you struck them all, we haven't got to worry about it. 64 ------ <"'-'''"-~ ~ ~---._-~-,,~------ September 30, 2005 ,- The third line in that top one that I started talking about -- actually, the second sentence says all new development in this subject shall be compatible -- we're back with that building patterns thing. MR. EHARDT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you wherever you're going to -- however you're going fix that, you may want to look at that, as well. And that also appears, towards the bottom of the page, under 4.02.21, again, A, and you'll see the mobile home reference in all that. So, those are the areas that might want to be consistently cleaned up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just before we leave residential -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't think we can change it, but isn't it odd that the lower density has the higher number and the higher density has the lower number? I mean our one is our highest density for housing, our five is our lowest density, right? MR. JACKSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean I don't -- I mean I -- if we were going to do this again, I would -- MR. JACKSON: Well, that all-- that all depends. I mean ifmul -- land that's -- according to the numbers that I've seen, mobile home lots or mobile home zoned or RV zoned is five -- 7.25 units per acre, RMF6, which is R1, is six units per acre so actually can be more dense that -- in that number for mobile home lots by what -- what I pulled out in the code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. JACKSON: So we're just -- we would just try to sequentially number those. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I understand that. I don't think we should go back, but it -- I mean it is reverse of what's normally - done where R1 would be lesser, R2 would be higher-- MR. JACKSON: Correct. 65 -~,.~~--" ~.,.,-,^, ."_...nY.'h.,_____..___...~__ September 30, 2005 ,.-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- R3 -- too late now. MR. JACKSON: We were working with existing code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I understand. MR. JACKSON: Or existing numerology. Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move onto page 50. This one was interesting because in D 1, this time it was left in or not struck. There should be a minimum one residential dwelling unit. Is that -- well, I guess, Susan, you answered that we don't count guest houses. So even if you were to have the one residential dwelling unit, you could still have a guest house; is that -- MR. EHARDT: I -- excuse me, I want to make sure. Are you on the RNC, at the bottom of the page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. EHARDT: Okay. We understand the history from this. There was a particular business near the Bayshore area several years ,- ago, many years ago, that was operating illegal. I think -- I'm not sure what she was doing. I mean illegal in the sense that it was an illegal home occupation. She had people coming for business and so forth. And this provision, this RNC category, was put into the original overlay or one of the amendments. I can't -- maybe amendment number two, I don't remember for sure. And -- to allow that business to continue there, to make her, quote, conforming in a sense and allow that business to stay there. There also was some other parcels along Bayshore, further south, that also had this designation that still exists in the present overlay that's on the books right now. We felt -- in this overlay we're eliminating that further RNC category on Bayshore, and it's just going to go to neighborhood commercial. MS. F ABACHER: Thank God. MR. EHARDT: Do you follow me so far? - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. EHARDT: Okay. And what we would like to do is 66 ,--~.~..- -,' '.....~'" -- '-"""'- September 30, 2005 ....- eliminate the category completely and just leave that particular business that exists up there as a legal nonconforming use -- if that's legally possible, I don't know -- and just eliminate this category. Because we don't want to have this category -- someone could come in and I guess ask for rezoning to that category, we don't want that to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have plenty of legal nonconforming uses in the county after we changed the codes. Why don't you get together with staff before the next meeting and see if you can classify it that way and we can get rid of this? MR. EHARDT: I would just -- you know, just as soon strike that particular element out of the whole thing. And just -- and she would just stay that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I suggest if you work with staff, you might be able to find a way to resolve that, get us through it. ,~ MR. JACKSON: And that is new -- new discovery here at this meeting that -- that's why we're talking about it here. We've been trying to eliminate it. So that's new discovery language. We'll go ahead and come back to you with it, and hopefully it will completely be eliminated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I had other questions. I'll just skip those. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a zone on the map for that somewhere? MR. EHARDT: Right now -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. EHARDT: -- under your present code, there is. There are two areas that are zoned on -- on the old -- on the existing Bayshore overlay there are two areas that are designated RNC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But on your proposed map, it's - not? MR. EHARDT: On my proposed map, there's one that's left. 67 ._,....__..0 --, .......,--...." , September 30, 2005 .- But since there's just one, I'm saying let's eliminate that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is it, though, just for reference? MR. JACKSON: It's on Becca Avenue. MR. EHARDT: Up near Bayshore. MR. JACKSON: It's-- MR. EHARDT: It's north of Haldeman Creek. MR. JACKSON: Yeah. MR. EHARDT: It's hard to see on the small one. MR. JACKSON: Maybe it's Weeks Avenue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I-- MR. JACKSON: I think it's south of what -- that main shopping center. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. JACKSON: There -- there's a strip mall shopping center - south of the Gateway plaza area, and it's -- I think it's the corner house there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it a beauty parlor now? MR. JACKSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. JACKSON: That's it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know where it is. MR. JACKSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In those -- if you're going to strike this, I guess I'll save any further questions I had until you find out if you can strike it or not. Under 40221C -- and it's the Roman -- or the first letter A, the second sentence puzzled me. It says a portion of the subdistrict, which has C5 as its underlying zoning, needs to opt this art village subdistrict with the following standards are to be used. Needs to opt. "- What -- what is it you're -- are you telling people they have to or they mayor they shall? 68 ..',~--~----"". '" H_"__;._"'~._.. ._-'--,~------~._.",-_. September 30, 2005 - MR. EHARDT: Should be -- should be may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MURRA Y: Should be may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So needs to opt you'll replace with the word may. May opt needs to -- MR. EHARDT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under B, dimensional standards, your front yard build to line there is five feet from the property line to the outer wall of the building footprint. Basically, a five-foot setback. Most streets -- and I'm not sure in this area, and there's nobody from transportation here -- have a ten-foot utility easement outside -- on the first ten feet outside of the right of ways. And that's for cable, all the other kind of private utilities. Is that occurring here? And if it is -- MR. EHARDT: This is on private property. In some cases there aren't streets there yet. They're just swales with pavement and -, drainage on the side. If an urban street section goes in, this would be five feet behind the -- it would be five feet behind the property line. So it would be on private -- it would be private property, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, these easements are on private property . MR. EHARDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your right-of-way line begins your private property line. MR. EHARDT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And where you have to have private utilities; Sprint -- telephone companies, cable, they require and Florida Power & Light requires ten feet back from the right-of-way line in a lot of areas. And I'm just wondering if that's going to apply in this area or where would you put your utilities? Because you're generally not allowed to put them in the right-of-way. ^"-, MR. EHARDT: I'd have to -- I'd have to consider that. I don't have an answer for that -- 69 .----~~_.".... .-. .--"---..-.- September 30, 2005 ,-, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EHARDT: -- right now, but I'll look into that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't mind. MR. EHARDT: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm onto page 51. Is everybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask Dave a question. Dave, the intent of this -- this area -- because I've been at some meetings, and I thought one area you were going to have it where artists could live and they would be able to have an employee come, they could have a studio in the backyard, which sounds like the area that we just got rid of, the RNC. Is this the area where that would occur now? In other words, an artist would live above a -- could be a two story work space and have a gallery or -- MR. EHARDT: We had -- we had considered when we were doing it, the first draft -- first couple drafts we went through on this of having this artist village be basically a residential area where you could have a business, a studio, or something connected with that residential. After further discussions with some people in the art community and so forth, they decided they'd like to have a more permanent commercial type use. So the basic intent of this is to basically have commercial related to the arts, uses in this area. But you can have a studio or an apartment on the second level. You can't have just a residential development in this particular area. Or you could have just residential and commercial together on a parcel land along the Bayshore area, the NC commercial. It doesn't have to necessarily be on top of each other, okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. EHARDT: But in this area, in the artist village, you have to ._.. have commercial businesses rule, and you can have an apartment or some other, you know, living unit above that particular area. 70 .. ~<O_.._~__ September 30, 2005 - COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I know that there's only like one strip of this zoning on -- coming off of Bayshore, and I can't read the name of the road. MR. EHARDT: Van Buren-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. EHARDT: -- is the street. On the north side of that is existing C5 commercial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. JACKSON: And on the south side is residential, part of a mobile home park, the one block frontage. We were trying to create now this pedestrian street frontage along there for the arts. Now, Mr. Weaks isn't here, but he's informed me that that residential component, in order for it to go to commercial, has to be linked to the commercial that's on Bayshore. In other words, you have -- you have neighborhood commercial ,>-, on Bayshore. If there's a residential lot next to that commercial, then it can go to commercial, and keep sequencing down. You couldn't go on the Van Buren Street in that residential area on the south side, take two or three mobile home lots, and do a commercial build independently, unless it was connected to the commercial use on Bayshore. Am I -- it's very convoluted, but that's the way they interpret it in the compo plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying, now that that southern properties, they have to be -- I guess through the domino theory you can connect it through commercial. MR. EHARDT: That is correct. Unless -- or if someone brought the whole thing and did -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. EHARDT: -- commercial, he'd be fine, yes sir. ._. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, one time I went to a presentation you had, and the area to the south of that, which you now 71 ----,"_.., September 30, 2005 ,- call R5, was to be artist village two, pretty much the same as that residential, commercial we just threw away. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I thought that's kind of what an artist would want more than anything, is the cottage, the studio in the back, the people stopping by to buy art and -- MR. JACKSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- apprentices coming to learn the trades. MR. JACKSON: We didn't change any of the setbacks design criteria allowing the mobile homes to be removed and single-family homes built there, multistory or -- that would fit. What we could not do is control somebody going in there and what they did with their property. That if they went in there and took a mobile home out and put in a nice two story house, that they -- they -- we could not require ,~, them to be the artist there. And so it got -- it -- Brad, it fell into the too hard category, too large. And we weren't sure that we would get the synergy that we needed to do. I need to talk to you off line because I don't want to divulge it here, but we have alternate plans to make it much more comprehensive and something that will actually work. This is one of those things that you hope that if you designate it, they would -- it would -- they would come. We didn't have the feeling that they would come, and -- because of the artist community didn't quite feel that this would be the synergy that they wanted. So we restricted it only to Van Buren because it had C5. And the other restrictions that Mr. Weaks told us, it had to be attached for commercial for it to roll from residential to commercial. So what we've got is we've got a -- we've got a problem making it work. It's a >., great idea. So we've got an alternate plan that I'd be glad to brief you later that we may want to remodel this a little bit. 72 , . ,-_.~~-~-~"~,_.~. '"' .. . ^,__"",._uw' September 30, 2005 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page-- MR. EHARDT: I may -- I may also say that in talking to some-- we had five or six, I think, of the artists come into Mr. Jackson's office, and most of them wanted some bigger space. They wanted bigger studio type space, which a commercial type thing would allow us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 51. I have a couple questions. Maximum density, 12 units per acre. That is not -- that's only consistent with the 388 available density units. How -- is it -- you're in the CHHA, you're in the coastal high hazard area area. I just gotta make sure that by stating this here, you're not increasing the density to that area at all. How is the 12 units derived? MR. JACKSON: Well, we -- we will not -- we will not be increasing the density within the overlay area, but we will be increasing the density in that particular area of the -- of the zoning. In other words, we have the pool that came out of the botanical gardens -- we talked about this last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. JACKSON: -- and they're going to go somewhere in this -- somewhere in this overlay area. And wherever they go, there will be an increase in density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I thought. So, basically, what you're using is your base density, plus whatever's available from the pool until the -- MR. EHARDT: To get up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- pool is used up. MR. EHARDT: To get up to 12, yes. And if there's not any left, they can't do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just -- I know you had the -. footnote, and I'm just wondering if that's the clearest way that needs to be said because I'm just concerned that in any coast high hazard you're 73 ._-,-- ~~"_+,.,,,....,,__,,.,__>_.,.,,".."~~'_n'_~"_ September 30, 2005 ,- not allowed to increase the density. You're supposed to -- MR. JACKSON: Unless you use the affordable housing density bonus -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. JACKSON: -- correct. And -- and that is stated very clearly by the zoning and planning staff when people come in. And right now -- we talked last time about -- or the incentives there for the redevelopment community to come in and do it, and we monitor that and it's -- yes, that's 388 units will go somewhere. They'll be disbursed first come, first served basis, and when they're done, they're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: Unless somebody comes in, like I said, with an affordable housing density bonus that's approved through the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last-- '-'" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that point, real quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, Bob Vigliotti asked a good question last time. Could one developer come in and take all those units? MR. JACKSON: Ifhe has enough land. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why wouldn't it be to everybody's best interest to spread it up the street? MR. JACKSON: Well, that's -- how do you -- how do you do that without being preferential? I mean how do you -- I've struggled with this ever since it was brought up. You know, do we sell them, do we give them away? What's a first come, first served basis? And right now the compo plan is silent on how they will be disbursed. Right now in Mr. Weaks' judgment, they'll be first come, first served. The -- you know, writing these rules about who gets what when -- and how, you maybe end up denying somebody -- you know, that Burt Harris thing about, you know, development rights and if the pool and 74 ~--~ ""#,_........_,,,......".._H.....'__c September 30, 2005 ,- the density is available, how can you deny them that access to it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but the intent of that is to spread the -- across the street. If one guy comes in -- and there's a couple big pieces of property -- and takes it all -- I mean I know -- I mean isn't that greed will somehow be reinforced by our statutes or -- isn't there a way -- there's gotta be a way we can distribute it, gotta be a way we could max it. MR. JACKSON: You would-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You just lower the 12 down to six or some number like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a way. The point is that right now it's going to be grab -- someone's going to grab it, and wouldn't it be a shame if it all went to one proj ect, all went to one parcel, all creating a massive density on one part of the street, when the intent is to spread it across the street? _. MR. JACKSON: Well, I don't know that it was the intent to spread it anywhere, Mr. Schiffer, but right now -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the Botanical Gardens -- MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. From what I. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- gardens -- MR. JACKSON: From what I know -- from what I know, from what I know of what's happening in the market right now, there will probably be a large chunk of it taken initially, and then there will be a hundred plus units that will be available to go other places. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What do you mean, taken initially? By whom? MR. JACKSON: I mean spoken for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: By whom? MR. JACKSON: By -- by a development project. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So 288 -- ,- MR. JACKSON: Spoken for, asked for, and allocated to that development project, a large number. And then the rest of them 75 "---~-"- <...._,~~ -~-,-"~-,_.._.._,._,----...^,-- September 30, 2005 - would be available for other projects. And a lot of it's based on, sir, is -- is how much land do they have? I mean how much land do you have? Right now the largest parcel we've got, not counting the Botanical Gardens or Sable Bay, which is not in the overlay, is one parcel there at the intersection of Thomas and forty -- Thomas and Bayshore. The rest of them are -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're going to increase one parcel, essentially taking 70 percent of the pool, and that's going to create a highly dense neighborhood. I mean is that the goal for these things, or is the goal to provide -- remember, what we wanted is this to be a vibrant street life with these units on the -- on -- in other words, all this stuff we're writing is not going to be relevant because there's not going to be any residential units that would be available for these top floors. MR. JACKSON: I can't argue any -- any of your points in any - other ways that right now they're first come, first served. There is no policy for numbers written anywhere, any guidance that legally drives me to go and allocate them any other way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would seem that inasmuch as it's the community redevelopment, if you want to spread the wealth around the community and have the community essentially grow together, rather than having any significant densities placed because of the way that was done, I think that certainly needs to be looked at much more carefully. MR. JACKSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, David, have you looked to see where the units are going to come from? Where's the density going to come from? You say, you know, everybody's planning these things or showing illustrations of residential on top, you're not going to be able to get that density because you gave it all away at the "0__ corner. I mean where's the density -- how is the person going to get the units on the upper floors if they can't draw from this pool? 76 ~.._.,^.,;"..._._.~.....",. .,,_~~,~,-,-"--~'~~"---- September 30,2005 ,- MR. EHARDT: Well, if it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Underlying zoning. MR. EHARDT: They go to the underlying zoning -- well, no, it would -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: If it's commercial, there wouldn't be any. MR. EHARDT: Yeah, you're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So there's no -- you're really -- these are -- MR. JACKSON: Well, Mr. Schiffer, we also have the other problem, that either -- that there aren't that many large parcels that can handle that density and be able to handle the size of the building, the parking, the landscaping, and the storm water management. They just physically can't put all those things together in the lots that they've got that's left in the parcels. So I mean it's a poor man's look at it, but if -, you sit down -- I've looked at it and it -- you just can't go and get that much density up and down Bayshore in the Gateway triangle because the parcels aren't large enough to handle the density and all the other requirements that the code requires. It just physically isn't going to happen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's -- that's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: We think that's a good thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, that's my point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. COMMISSIONER CARON: So-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Nobody wants it. MR. JACKSON: Correct. So I mean the market-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. MR. JACKSON: The market is going to take care of itself is what I'm saying. ~,-", COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You're going to have the -- the fat cats are going to take it all, and -- and 120 unit mixed-use 77 "~_.<'-'-""~""'~_.'--"---' -- -~,~- September 30, 2005 '-'" development is totally out of character with what you're trying to do on Bayshore, as far as I'm concerned. MR. JACKSON: No, sir. Right now we've already got a 218 unit going in. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I think that was a mistake, looking back on it, but that -- MR. JACKSON: Well, no. That's a-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That was affordable housing. McCabe's thing was -- build -- is affordable housing. MR. JACKSON: God bless America for the market and the American way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Not to get off the subject, but last meeting we spoke about charging a fee for these units, and you were going to try and find a program. Where are we with that? -~ Charging a fee -- we discussed it last time. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- for the units, and you said you were going to discuss it and -- MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. And we -- yes, sir. And that is still on the table for discussion, sir. And it's supposed to be brought back the next time you set a time certain for us to be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And you're working on that program? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. We're discussing it with a lot of people and a lot of input there. We have no conclusions at the moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said you have one large development that may be taking quite a few of these. I think Brad said - 70 percent or some number. Who is that? MR. JACKSON: The -- the name of the development or the 78 -. ,-,,,.~.~..__. _.._--,~-~._.~."~.~-,-.._^.~- September 30, 2005 -- company? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either or all. Whatever you -- any information. What is this development that's coming up that's taking those? MR. JACKSON: It's going to be -- it's called Arboretum, Arboretum Village. It's in the SDP process right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Now, wait a minute. Time out. Patrick, that's coming before us on Thursday. Is that something we should be -- MR. JACKSON: It's 40 -- 48 -- 39 plus acres. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's in our packet for Thursday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not discussing it, I'm asking a question. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. It's Arboretum Village, it's property owners that's -- it's several partners together that own the current land -- right now, and they're acquiring a five-acre commercial parcel to be included with that to make it a mixed-use project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if they -- their plan then is to take a sizeable number of the 388 available pool? MR. JACKSON: Correct. They -- they would like to ask for 260 units, which would be allowed by the number -- by the acreage that they have after their underlying land use 200 units that they're currently allowed to have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I -- I appreciate that. At some point between now and next Thursday I'll try to find out how they could be coming in to take something that isn't approved yet. MR. EHARDT: May I -- MR. JACKSON: Well, they haven't. They haven't taken anything. They haven't been allocated. They have -- the plan hasn't even been approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought Brad just said it's coming into us next week. 79 "__.-...._.~~....."~..,'_._"_.._..,"__..~.___,,.._'_.<~~,.<o_"__..>_............,.''''''.~_'"'''''',_._'f~'''___."'''',..,,"~~~,,.''",'',."._,'~"-,,-""""',.,..,,."'_""..... r ....-..---_. ,--.-.,--..-,..,.,.-.,-,,-,..- September 30, 2005 - MR. JACKSON: It's in the review process, it's not approved. They're -- they are -- they are requesting, and that request is on the table. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me go back to a conversation earlier. Is David -- when you said that, you know, it's going to be first come and first served and everything, have you studied any way to proportionally spread this thing out? Because when you described it, you made it sound like it would be bad if small units were given, but I really think that this would be a much more successful program if it was like four here, three here, two here. That way people with these small properties could add units to it. I mean maybe it only means one or two to a property, but that's how we're going to get the kind of housing we're going to want on that street. If it's all combined into one housing project or one multiuse -- MR. JACKSON: Well, but-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it misses the point. MR. JACKSON: If they took 260, there'd be 130, or 140 units still left in the pool, okay? Not counting the underlying land use that they have available to them, also. And just in my observations, there -- because of the other factors, the amount of land that they'd have to amass, the amount of area for parking and landscaping, storm water, that they will get salt and peppered throughout the rest of the districts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because -- because if like a guy has one acre, now he can have three units, maybe get a fourth affordable, where he could have had six or seven, based on this geometry, he won't have that option. Let me ask one other question. Why is this new to this version of the -- of the Bayshore? Why wasn't this in the other version? I mean this is -- MR. EHARDT: I don't know. .,,",-. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did this apply back then in the old version or -- because the old version's clear. You have 12 units an 80 "..~--,-,- <_..~..,.~ ,~_,_...,_..___._h_"_,,,,,_,"_,,,~,~_______ September 30, 2005 .......~ acre, there's no exceptions, no -- MR. EHARDT: They would have to go back -- the comprehensive plan, the growth management plan is what rules, even over the Land Development Code. And so they would have to go -- some lawyer could go back to the compo plan and say I'm allowed 12 units per acre, whether it's related to this 388 acres. So we decided to -- in this time around to include the language in there so people were clearer, they knew what they had or didn't have. I -- you mentioned something about the mixed-use district, the C4. You can do residential in there. There's a footnote when we talked about the 388 units. I think it's repeated several times in here that if it's commercial property, the base zone is four units per acre. That's the county's overall zoning, minus one, because it's the high hazard flood zone. So you can get residential, even if it's commercial property in the mixed-use district. ,---- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Right. MR. EHARDT: Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have a comment? MR. EHARDT: If you so choose to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What we're talking about is ascribing a value to something here, and that may eventuate -- we will find that out, but there's also a question when you -- you're talking about retaining a list, assuming that a great number were used under the current thinking, you would have a residue. And that residue would reside somewhere in space waiting for -- to be used. Does that mean then that as people aggregate properties that they can then come to the bank and obtain as many units as they can in order -- so in other words, you're encouraging high density, you're encouraging whatever you can achieve, and you would just use those out. That's what your first come first served, that concept? MR. JACKSON: Well, that is -- I mean I don't specifically have a preference either way, Mr. Murray, but, yes, that is one of the things 81 ---~,~-_." September 30, 2005 '" that you either end up trying to make a -- a very impact catalyst project, of which this first one would be very much of a catalyst project, or you take and salt and pepper it everywhere with minimal impact to the entire area. Looking at it, taking everybody's concerns into it, that -- I don't see a problem currently with the -- being able to come first come, first served. Forty acres is the largest open piece of parcel that we have right now and that there would be enough parcel -- enough units left in the pool to be added with the underlying base use of -- for commercial properties that they would be able to -- to make significant projects. You know, I've struggled with trying to find a way to rule this and to say you can have it, but you can't. You know, then where do you -- you end up being preferential and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then my concern, just to add so that you can give consideration to it, was is that it effectively ",_. drives the value of property, and the aggregation drives the value by acquiring additional units which can create an aberration in that whole community that you -- you need to plan out, you need to think, I think, further than just that. MR. EHARDT: I -- you know, one -- one maybe easy solution -- I don't want to over simplify it -- is that no one development can take no more than ten percent or 15 percent. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Unless you consider aggregation and -- and that's another question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron? MR. EHARDT: Or assign so many to Gateway and so many to Bayshore. I mean you could do it that way, too. And then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You mean Gateway-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that's the thing. There are larger parcels in -- in the Gateway area. ,-- MR. EHARDT: Possibly is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it not correct in -- in the 82 -""..~_..".,,,,..'~_...'-'^"~"~'~~'~'---"------ September 30, 2005 _. Bayshore that you may only have one large parcel, but over in Gateway you've got larger parcels. MR. JACKSON: No' ma'am. It's the other way around. Bayshore has the largest assembled parcels of land mass wise. And in the Gateway, they're all very small and chopped up. I think the largest parcel we have is about 2.3 acres, and in the Bayshore area we have 9.6, a 30, and a ten and a 20-acre parcels, and we have several six or seven-acre parcels. Vacant parcels, vacant at the present time. And in the Gateway area the largest parcel that I believe we have is -- is a five -- four or five-acre parcel that's vacant just north of Davis Boulevard, and that's it. COMMISSIONER CARON: But that's only vacant, right? MR. JACKSON: That's vacant. And any-- MR. EHARDT: Someone could redevelop. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. And that's the whole point. MR. JACKSON: Correct. And that's part of the mixed-use incentive program here, is for people to take diced -- sliced and diced parcels for -- that are, you know, heavily impacted for a lot of different reasons and if -- their option is if they want to assemble them, they can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, quick. When does somebody claim these units? Is that time of development order, I mean SDP, permit, application? MR. JACKSON: Again, there's no -- there's no rules on those. MR. EHARDT: We have to seek to the planning department because that's their -- I guess they or zoning's going to account for it. I don't know how they're going to do it. I'm just trying -- we're just trying to match it up with the comprehensive plan that those units are ,.-.., allocate -- that those units can be allocated. MR. JACKSON: A natural progression, it would seem to me, 83 ...._'-".".~._- ._~-,-<-_._.~..,-~---_...._,,~_....~,--._--._-_.. September 30, 2005 would be somebody says they want X number of units, and they submit their plan and those units are include the in the plan. When the plan is approved by the county, at that point those numbers are deducted from the pool. And then you've got a remaining amount, and then the next plan that comes in, it's the same process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You already know who -- those 388 units are all spoken for? MR. JACKSON: No, sir. None of them are spoken for. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I thought you said you had a list, a waiting list. MR. JACKSON: I don't have names on a list. I have had several people who would like to take the opportunity to use the 12 units per acre mixed-use density bonus and have come to my office and said I am looking at this proj ect. '-",- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So you have a list of people who have made inquiries? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But not an allocation? MR. JACKSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, it just struck me that it seemed like from your reaction it was that we were raining on your parade in some fashion or another. Have the CRA people that you work for, have they made any commitments to people that this is a done deal and they can have these units? MR. JACKSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We've got a developer coming in here on Thursday whose project includes a bundle of them. MR. JACKSON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's a little chutzpah, I'd .--- say to -- when the proj ect -- I mean the whole scheme hasn't even been approved yet. 84 ---~ ---.~.."..,- ,___~__O_~~_"_"'__N_~"""___"_ September 30, 2005 MR. EHARDT: The -- if I remember correctly, that particular parcel's not even in the existing overlay right now. So you're reviewing it based on the old overlay which it is not a part of at the present time. I just want to make that clear. Because you haven't approved this one yet. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No. MS. FABACHER: I was going to say Commissioner Schiffer and Commissioner Abernathy addressed the concern that I had as to what constitutes coming. When you get there, you could call them up on the phone and say I just bought 26 acres, and I want -- I want to reserve some of those and then you not build for four or five years and then someone would come in with an SDP-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think-- MS. FABACHER: I would think bringing in your SD P that could be approved would be considered coming. You know what I'm saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's a lot of concern on this panel's part. If you could take a look at how you're going to address that, as far as value and other things, especially with Mr. Vigliotti's request, that will definitely be needed. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Let me ask one last question. This 12 number that Dave seems to insist on, what's magical about that? Twelve units per acre. MR. EHARDT: It's in the comprehensive plan. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That's the max? MR. EHARDT: That's what they called for in the Bayshore, Gateway overlay land use portion of the comprehensive plan in Collier County. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That would be the maXImum. MR. EHARDT: Twelve units, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, that doesn't mean you 85 ,------~, .__...~__~_.,_.."."~,..~,."~"~4;""_",,, .......... ,_,_"_'_0 <~,,-- September 30, 2005 ,-. have to apportion them that way. MR. EHARDT: No. You can -- I mean you can get three or four. It just says that's the max. And I have to show what the max is in the ordinance to reflect what's in the plan. Is -- is the allocation of this something that's related to land development, or is it more of an administrative thing between the CRA? I'm just curious if it needs to go in here or if it says it somewhere else. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you dragged it in with your footnote. MR. EHARDT: Well, I was just trying to explain to people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think part of it's just the fairness of the whole thing and -- MR. EHARDT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how you're -- first of all, this program's going to cost money. Staff has been asked to produce a number, which we hope to get when you come back with your rewrite. It'd sure be nice to see if there's some way to offset that number. That's a suggestion. So let's move onto -- I think you've gotten a taste of our thoughts on that, let's move onto page 52. I had a question on Cl. It just says county standards. Does that mean that -- there's no number two, there is a number three. MR. EHARDT: In this -- in this case, I didn't translate from before, but we were saying county standards, as long as we had the provision to reduce it by, you know, some mechanism. We have criteria reduce it by 25 percent is what we were thinking of. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, then why not county standards subj ect to something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just need to finish this section then, ",,,,... right, and bring it back? MR. EHARDT: Well, we need to -- the next page, number seven 86 ......."."_,q~__."M _,,_~"","._._.~_.___, ."....__m,"_..~.,,___...... .." ___.,,_.._~ September 30, 2005 is the thing that needs to be addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But you also -- MR. EHARDT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- need to make sure that under C1 that you -- county standards, except for, and state whatever it is you've got to do. Number five talks about the process for request again. MR. EHARDT: Excuse me. Could I ask one thing, if I may? Under the neighborhood commercial -- this is the art village, neighborhood commercial village, we did allow for spaces -- we did spell out some spaces for residential parking and for commercial parking. Remember, it was in the earlier. I would like to repeat that here. I didn't do it this time, but I should have. Repeat that there, and then still have the option it could be reduced if that -- if that's okay. We didn't have any comment on that. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any clarity you can add-- MR. EHARDT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to this would be -- MR. EHARDT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- helpful. MR. EHARDT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty-two, anything else on page 52? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what he's saying is instead of county standards, you're going to do the four per thousand and -- MR. EHARDT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 53. Did you have something, Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just seven is the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, seven, it needs to be cleaned up. 87 . ._ ,._<.._...._.~__~_~_..._......__'~.. < ......_"..__~..M_._._._..___.."_...~.__ September 30, 2005 - MR. EHARDT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just above seven, parking lot shall be designed for interconnection with adjacent property. A lot of this is existing, so I'm assuming that can only happen with new development -- MR. EHARDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- right? MR. EHARDT: That's correct. And this would apply to the mixed use -- and, again, I apologize for my writing, but it applies to the mixed-use category as well as any existing C 1 through C5 that might be applicable there if they don't opt into the neighborhood commercial district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got nothing else on 53. Does anybody else? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty-four? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Halleluiah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think this -- the top of 54, the same issues we've already discussed. So if you'd address them somewhere else, just address them there, as well. And that is involving the setback for utilities and things like that, fluorescence. MR. EHARDT: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have an overall, now that we've finished -- hard to believe this. We finished the Bayshore review. There are some items in the Bayshore review that I don't know if you've addressed, and maybe you can respond to them. Overall water management for the overlay. Did you think of that as a master water management system, or are you still providing water management at every site or how -- has anybody given that some extensive thought? MR. EHARDT: In the -- in the Bayshore area, it would be with every site. The Gateway area, the CRA has retained -- actually, it's 88 '.,....,,-. ,--,'0'.,"--0.' September 30, 2005 -, our firm, do a storm water management plan for that area. To build a new pond, to get some new out -- out -- outflows to get across 41 and Davis Boulevard to get the water out of there faster. And we're working on that right now. It -- we can make something work there, but we're -- you know, it would be helpful if we had more land for storm water. What we'd like to do is eventually come up with an overall storm water plan, at least in a triangle area, so individual people don't have to do their own storm water. They may buy into it or something like that or pay a fee to help defer some of the costs that the county might have. But instead of having a bunch of small ponds and ditches, you have one major facility or maybe two major facilities that can help address that, if it's -- if it's possible. We're still looking into that. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would like a clarification because of what you just said. - MR. EHARDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I recall -- and I may be wholly in error here, but the CRA' purpose is to create an envelope under which all needed infrastructure is -- is contained within that and -- and payments to achieve that are by the CRA. Are you saying then there's a mix here, that the county besides the CRA would be involved? I thought that it was all under the CRA. MR. EHARDT: Well, the present -- the present contract that we're working on right now related to storm water is through the county's storm water department. No -- no CRA funds are involved in that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. EHARDT: Because they recognize that as being an issue in that area that's been there -- been an issue for a long time. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. Thank you for that. ,_0 MR. EHARDT: And they're trying to resolve it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought it was the other way 89 ""'-'~'~-"'" -~.__..,,,._..,,"..__."-_..-..,..__.._,_._- September 30,2005 around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Overall, from the Bayshore there's some global issues that I just want to remind you of. One is the water management -- I think someone needs to explain that to us by the time you come back -- the sidewalks and the issue about the connection of the sidewalks to one another and how the parcels are developed out. I think we talked about that early on. Staff needs to produce some cost figures for us. They are as important to see what the cost of the overlay's going to be. Now, the maintenance issue that you had in here that -- MR. EHARDT: I'm sorry. I didn't think we had any sidewalks or anything in Bayshore that we talked about. I know Gateway we did. Are you referring to that one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had a detail in the Bayshore -- well, maybe -- maybe -- you could be right, it could be Gateway. - MR. EHARDT: I think it's in the Gateway. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you did. No, I -- I just get them mixed up sometimes. MR. EHARDT: I do, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The -- I talked to Don Scott. I remember I had a question last time about the TCEA, I think it is, overall in east Naples area, and it turns out his department has not done a study on the impacts of these res -- of these -- this overlay amendment. I -- would hope that by the time this comes back, we've got some input from transportation. I would implore you to get together with them and go over whatever it is you're -- you're impacting their area with and talk to them about it. Because he felt that they would have to do some kind of study to see how this fits in. And that, I think, would be very important. .-.-. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, is -- would the planning commission like to have transportation staff maybe available to 90 - '--""- -"" --~~'--"'-"""'^- September 30, 2005 ,- answer specific questions or give an overview at next meeting? Would that be helpful? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think at the next meeting-- MS. MURRAY: Or some -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're not-- MS. MURRAY: Or a meeting after that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At some meeting. Yeah. When they come back with all the rewrites and final conclusions, I would hope that prior to that time they -- they've gotten together with transportation to at least know the direction they're heading in is semi-acceptable to transportation. And I certainly would like to see someone from transportation here to address some of the issues. I had asked Don Scott to attend today, but he had already committed to two other meetings and didn't know this one was in the works so -- I don't have anything else on Bayshore if that's -- everybody else -- is satisfied, we can move onto Gateway triangle. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Was it advertised? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bayshore and Gateway both, yeah. We can do them both, so -- this one hopefully will be -- I don't know. Trying to get through it. MR. JACKSON: Well, for the most part, there's a lot of things that are repetitive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That are the same. MR. JACKSON: Especially in the residential area. So any word that the same thing pops up in residential, just -- we'll just copy it off of the other one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's just start moving through it, and we can compare notes as we go through. The -- page one is the LDC amendment request that staff produced. And, Susan, the same issue here is fiscal and operational 91 ~"'",---^"--'''-''- ._,~,_._._..,".,_..",_v~~_.,....",_.",...,._....___~_ September 30, 2005 ,- impacts say none. Like the Bayshore, we need to get that -- at least some kind of value in there. MR. EHARDT: Let me clarify. I produced that page, they didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, really? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you'll have no impact with fiscal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That looks like the format they use. So you just copied their format. MR. EHARDT: Well, they gave me a form to follow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy is that different. Okay. Boy, could've fooled me. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did. Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On -- if we're on the same page. ,-~, Mine is marked 74, so I don't know for sure but street wall, semi-opaque, and then I have a note here landscaping, see page 108. And when I looked at 108, it was -- MR. JACKSON: That was brought up in the Bayshore area that -- to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on the wrong version. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Am I on the wrong version? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need 8/17/05. It was passed out-- MS. PABACHER: This is 8/17. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You've got it. He's got it there. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I've got it. My problem is I have all my flags on this. Okay. MR. EHARDT: I will -- we're addressing that. It will be similar to what we have in the -- in the Bayshore one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. EHARDT: And definitions and abbreviations, we're adding 92 - -." ...~".,-,.._~.,' '>,"".'-.. -"-"-~"""'- ,.._,,,~_c,,,"~______u~"'_"_"'""""'_'___""_~ ,. ~""'-~"'''-- September 30, 2005 ,- in the word applicable under that definition section, also. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I think I can remember most of the issues that we've already digested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we move to page three, which is the first -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I have a comment on page two, the illustration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? Comment on the picture. Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you see the car with -- no. The -- see the way the roofs are here? And the reason I have this comment is Donna -- we had some conversation with Catherine about what roofs -- this is kind of what we'd be developing. In other words, the majority of the roof is going to be flat. You're going to have feature roof elements over feature parts of the building. You're not going to have this huge -- no one would -- it would be a waste of money to build this huge roof. So I mean I think that when we describe the facade height, you can see here how it's important to block these facades out. The -- the height dimensions and the height requirements that go to roofs is almost going to be irrelevant in a setup like this. So, anyway, the reason this illustration is good is it does prove at least what's in my mind when we talk about roofs. It may not be in yours. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Speaking of that car, it looks like a Tucker. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway, let's move onto page three. Any members of the panel have any questions on page three? Well, I do. I'm trying to shorten them. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Oh, yeah, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. 93 ,- -"'~-~'- -,-,.~~'- _."~- September 30, 2005 ~- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On -- on the -- the one where it says this district, you're encouraging on-street parking? You're encouraging on-street parking, not off-street parking? If it's pedestrian friendly, do we really want to encourage parking on the street? MR. EHARDT: In certain areas I would, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In certain areas. MR. EHARDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is one of the areas that you want to encourage it? MR. EHARDT: I meant certain streets. I'm sorry. I don't want to encourage on-street parking on Davis Boulevard or Airport Pulling or 41, but interior-wise I may encourage some on-street parking. That's what we have in here, yes. And that -- that precludes that, you know, we would -- that the CRA maybe jointly with the county would redevelop those areas in -, the true urban section streets with curbs and gutters so forth. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, based on what you're saying, would you know that our code is sufficiently clear enough to carry forth what you intend? MR. JACKSON: I don't know what you mean by that, Mr. Murray. Can you clarify? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm basing my question on his response about in certain streets, in certain areas. Is the code sufficiently clear so that his intent is carried out and that -- that anybody can see? Because this language doesn't tell me that, okay? MR. EHARDT: I can clarify that, I can clarify that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe you need to make -- maybe you need to state what streets they are if those are the issues that you brought it down to. MR. JACKSON: We can be more definitive, and we will, sir. -, The -- just as a side-bar on this, is that the project you were talking about, the Bayshore that's going to be coming to you here in the next 94 ....,- " ~~-~._~."_...,." ---~,.. , -_..._._-_.__._-...~-...,...".._..._,._--- September 30, 2005 -, day or so, you're going to see that the interior streets of that project is heavily used for parking, on-street parking. The concept here in the mixed-use development side, Miss Caron, is that if enough parcels are assembled to make a good catalyst proj ect, that there may be some manmade interior streets, and we would encourage on-street parking for those -- those objects. So I think that what we did here is when we put on-street parking was that the transportation department discourages it. We wanted to put in here that it was okay to do, but we didn't want to get too specific. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I just wanted to pass this along to you. As a member of now what is the ad hoc residue of the smart growth committee, we've actually now, going forth with both residential and commercial, mixed-use approaches are encouraging more off-street parking in order to -- and within enclaves where -- where you're going to actually create a little town center type ,- of thing. We're actually going the opposite direction of what you're suggesting there. Just for information. MR. JACKSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Okay. On page three, just for clarification, these -- the overlay requirements will not affect planned unit developments in the triangle, correct? MR. EHARDT: Right. MS. FABACHER: But-- MR. EHARDT: We said current and future land use, PUDs. MS. FABACHER: Meaning that if you have a PUD, you do not need to follow this design requirements. Okay. MR. EHARDT: You follow -- MS. F ABACHER: That's -- I'm just asking for clarification. MR. EHARDT: Right. -, MS. FABACHER: And then -- but in the Bayshore overlay-- MR. EHARDT: I need to add that to it. I didn't. 95 September 30, 2005 - MS. FABACHER: Is that the deal with the PUDs? MR. EHARDT: Yes. MS. FABACHER: The PUD's will not be included? MR. JACKSON: We've had discussion on that, and I -- I'm trying to recall what the discussion was because David Weaks did ask us to make a clarification on that, that any -- any PUD that now exists, it's already done and approved, you can't retroactively go back and do that, unless they do a major PUD change and amendment to the thing. But a future PUD we could put in here that they would have to apply to the design guidelines. MS. FABACHER: Well -- or they could rezone -- rezone themselves to be MUD or whatever mixed-use district, and then they would apply. MR. JACKSON: Yes. And that-- MS. FABACHER: But you're saying as a PUD they could just ,.---. do whatever they want still. MR. JACKSON: Correct. And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But a PUD is another zoning application that has to go through public hearings, and if they came in and wanted to change radically from what you're recommending, they may not get approved. MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's just like them anywhere else in the county. They're going have to come in and be somewhat consist with what the public's looking for in the area that they're applying. MS. FABACHER: Right. My just -- point is there's a lot of PUDs down in Bayshore, and so do they have to follow these guidelines or not? That's the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how -- the new ones I thought they said they'd be looking for that. - MR. JACKSON: Yeah. Existing ones would not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. 96 ____-->.'.....~'-~.~..,,--w... "...~., ~_.~_.M_"~_...,'" ' .~--,-_.~._-",..__._.~."..,.~._'- _,",~'-"..'- .. -- ~..,..,_._---- September 30, 2005 -- MR. JACKSON: But the new ones would have to follow the design -- MR. EHARDT: Well-- MR. JACKSON: -- guidelines. MR. EHARDT: Right now -- right now it's not written that way, but we can write it that way. MS. FABACHER: Right now it says-- MR. EHARDT: We've been going back -- MS. FABACHER: It says-- MR. EHARDT: -- and forth. MS. FABACHER: -- current and future PUD's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. MR. EHARDT: I understand what it says. MS. FABACHER: Yeah. Sorry. MR. EHARDT: We're going back and forth. We'll come back -- with some clarification on that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is it also your intent that when a PUD would come back in for a major change, that the emphasis would be placed on them conforming to the current overlay zoning restriction? MR. JACKSON: Correct. But I mean not meaning that they had to tear down a building to move it closer to the road, but maybe the architectural elements are if they're making an addition, it would move around. But it -- you know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The intent remains that the story is the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page three, the very last sentence -- and this probably follows a lot and it continues on the next page. We had made a lot of remarks in regards to the Bayshore operation. I think they would all apply here, as well. The process for requesting to -- opt in -- MR. EHARDT: Opt in. 97 .~----,-_. -""""'#__ -W'" ,,-----_.__...--"..~..- -~. -, n'_n""'___ September 30, 2005 .;,-.. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- all that. And then if you go on the next page, you'll see the same issues about tracking it, how it's recorded, things like that. And we brought all those out at the Bayshore, so if you just take that into consideration. After pages three and four, which is similar to Bayshore, we get into the actual uses. I don't have any questions as far as the rest of the panel goes, all the way to page 30. So I don't know what the -- if you guys -- do you have any specific questions? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I just want to be sure here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's the same as Bayshore, just that rather than go to Ibid hall of fame, you know, can we cut the things -- and I think the virtue of that is that it does give -- you can understand it better because there's only a few conditions. MR. EHARDT: Right. Well, I want to -- MR. JACKSON: Let's -- here, let me solve that. I'll solve that. -, What we will do with this is we'll take that on board, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. JACKSON: And then when this -- when this gets approved, when we go and they incorporate it into the LDC, we'll work with Miss Fabacher here to put it in so that it conforms with their standard formatting. Because that's just an administrative formatting thing. Is that acceptable? MR. EHARDT: Does the way -- the way we have these footnotes conform to the existing way the use table is done now? That's my question. And I thought it did. MS. F ABACHER: And I -- I would need to get direction probably from Susan on that. MR. EHARDT: Well-- MS. FABACHER: He's talking about in our current-- MR. WHITE: The ones that are -- ..,.~_. MS. F ABACHER: Right. MR. WHITE: -- in-- 98 '~"""'-"^"'''----~-~---'----''""'''>'-'-"''-'~''----'--'..__.-- ...,'. ."..".~^,-,..,'._~- September 30, 2005 -- MS. FABACHER: That's what he's asking. MR. WHITE: -- the 8/17 version continue to use the Ibid -- I guess you'd call it notation. MR. EHARDT: Right. MR. WHITE: But that isn't what we talked about doing. So the answer is, no, they're not in the form -- in format that the present code uses. MR. JACKSON: Okay. And as I said, rather -- for sake of time, this is an administrative thing that we can handle out when this is passed and make it conformed. MS. F ABACHER: Okay. What we're saying is in the current table, if it says -- if it says one condition and it's identified as P3, then every time that condition occurs you still use the P3 and you don't go P4 the next time it occurs and call it another footnote. It's the same footnote. ,- MR. EHARDT: I guess I need to see your table because the one I have doesn't show it that way. It says educational facilities are exempt, and they repeat those word three times right in a row on the same page. MS. FABACHER: Well, it may be inconsistent. MR. JACKSON: Again, this is administrative. We can solve this off line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to say, why don't you work it out and bring it back to us so that it's consistent with the current code and then we haven't got to beat it to death here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: At the end -- and, also, Dave, you're going to kill the only allowed and make it allowed, correct? MR. JACKSON: Just like the last one, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. JACKSON: That's why I said there was repetitive redundancy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. 99 ".- ,_........'-~,-"._""_.._"_..,_._,,.._~-~,.._-,._->..._~ -,_.,~~- September 30, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rest of the panel is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Seems-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moving forward. I'm on page 30. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Chapter Four? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chapter Four, page 30? Are there any questions from the panel on page 30? If not, I've got one on B3. And I know this is existing language. Outdoor display and sale of merchandise within front yards unimproved properties are permitted. In some of the cases it seems like the front yard is the property line or the -- do they -- the building will be built to the property line. So if you're going to put it in the front yards, would you mean you want to put it in the right-of-way? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You have to have a front yard first. -, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess it's except -- except if it's built to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what happened is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- property lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- three was the old language. Your new language changed the front yard, so now you don't really have a front yard where you can put this stuff. So you may want to go back -- MR. EHARDT: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and strike three. MR. EHARDT: When we get done today, we may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, just keep -- MR. EHARDT: Leave space to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Keep three in the back of your head-- MR. EHARDT: I will, yes, sir. -, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as something that might need some work done. On page 31 -- lOa -"-~"---~. '" _.-....~.."..~--~.."..~'~-"'........__..._->>"-_. " ,.~- September 30, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- dimensional standards. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: In item three in the first box, Davis Boulevard, where you say county designee consider appropriate -- what do you mean where it's designee consider -- I'm sorry. That-- that goes back to designee. All right. Apologize for that. The next one was number four. The county or its designee shall maintain the streetscape or sidewalk easement. Is that -- would that be standard in our code, or is that something we're burdening the county with something new there? MR. JACKSON: That's something new. And that's another subject for discussion with county transportation and -- that point of it that -- and we had some discussion about that today, Mr. Ehardt and I ,- did, concerning whether we asked for easement or we let the property owner landscape it up to codes as written and they maintain it. And so that's where we're at on this one. I know that there's a fiscal impact with the county if they have to do the maintenance and then again in right-of-way you have to get the easement legal issues. So right now -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I guess that harkins back to my original question having to do with who's responsible for certain elements. MR. EHARDT: Right. Let me -- if I could -- if I could take a minute to kind of explain what Dave and I were talking about today. I think there was an issue that came up that on Davis, Airport Pulling, the major roads around the triangle area, under the existing sidewalk there are some utilities that exist under there now. And trying to do trees and so forth as we showed in our section -- in those particular 0_"'_" locations might be a problem. My suggestion was is those sidewalks right now, at least 101 September 30, 2005 ",.,,,~ measuring with a measuring tape several months ago, are anywhere from five to five foot eight, maybe six feet, depending on where you're located. My recommendation would be -- is that we would leave that sidewalk there, that the private property owner, which is -- basically his land's behind that sidewalk lines, he's probably -- sidewalk's probably built to the property line, that we'd have basically six feet for the easement, five eight, whatever it might be, and from there, to make up the 16- foot area, that would be done by the developer of that property. And he would do the landscaping, put in the brick pavers and maintain that stuff according to a plan or some design guides, okay? Therefore, the easement that the -- all that would be taking place on private property, but yet we would still get the same effect of allowing the sidewalk and people to work -- walk further back away from a very heavily traveled street. So that's something that we were ._, discussing today that we'd come back to you with. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think that's a better solution to that. MR. EHARDT: And that way the maintenance and the building and everything would be done by the private property owner, and the county wouldn't have to get involved. Now, the only thing is I know they're trying to do street lighting along Davis Boulevard, and they don't have enough room to put the lights in within the right-of-way because there's no room because you have to have -- DOT requires a certain setback of four and a half feet from face -- four feet from basic curve to a vertical object. If you do that, you put the street light right in the middle of the sidewalk. So they're going to have to try to go on private property to get a two-foot, three-foot pad to put a street light in there because there's no room to do it. Something like this happened, at least it'd offer the ...."""- opportunity at -- as the project redevelops, you would have room to allow the county or someone come in to put streets lights in those 102 "._--,,-~,.~-~..,.-.~..,-,.,. . ".-.'''-'' --,--_._.~..~.,. -_.~- September 30, 2005 locations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And just another point of that, the sidewalks then will be irregular as they meander down a street. And that's okay if that's the intent, is to provide -- MR. EHARDT: Well-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- a pedestrian friendly walkway, ultimately. MR. EHARDT: Right, right. I think you get -- you get -- I know the transportation group talks about having decel lanes that are required in certain size developments and so forth. And you do that now, you meander the sidewalk because not all the developments require that decel lane, so the sidewalk does move. So we don't see this being any different than that. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I would have -- the last question I would have is having to do with the corner properties and how they're treated, in terms of a facade to a minimum distance. I guess I'm referencing number one in that lower box. The front yard build to line shall mean an alignment which dictates the front yard setback from the back of curb to be followed by buildings or structures fronting thereon and shall mean that line to which the building facade must be built, not a minimum distance. And my question was how are corner properties treated? In other words, that's the same? MR. EHARDT: It would be the same. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The measurement would be the same? I'm wondering. MR. EHARDT: It would be on the type of street that intersects it. And I think I talk in here about other streets, and I think there was nine and a half feet for the sidewalk area that I had. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it wasn't clear for me, that's the reason -- MR. EHARDT: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- I'm raising the question. 103 "-'-~'- ' -,_....,._- '"~ ,- .----...- .---- ..____....__"'""..*_...._._~,'."'..'" __".0.._- ..... .. -_._~-.__. September 30, 2005 ,.,,''''', MR. EHARDT: Okay. I will clear that up. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That would be my comment, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To try to understand your set -- your property line setback here, is the intent to have the building on the property line or setback from the property line? Your setback you refer to is from the back of curb. MR. EHARDT: Yeah. What I was -- what I was trying -- the intent was -- our basic intent was -- both -- all those streets are very heavily traveled, but we would like to encourage mixed-use development; commercial, residential, things that happen. We felt we needed a more protective street environment to do that. And one way of doing that is getting a wider sidewalk area for pedestrians to walk and some landscape and some other elements that protect the pedestrian from the automobile. The intent was that we would -- and we put back of curb line because all those streets that I mentioned there have existing curbs that are on there right now. Putting the building a certain distance back from that curb line. Not from the property line, because that may vary a little, but from that curb line so we've got that 16- foot dimension. And then whatever from the property line to the face of that building, that's where we're saying now would be the streetscape and landscaping zone would go in there, if you're following me. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now I do, yeah. MR. EHARDT: Now, I would hope, maybe with CRA money and so forth, that even that existing sidewalk that's four or five feet behind the curb line that exists there now could get redeveloped or redone, at least as far as some paving design or some different materials when the development takes place. If not, you're going to have a concrete band and then have this nice -- and that may not be " that bad, but there may be a way of doing that. I've done a lot of work with the DOT in Jacksonville on streets in 104 ..-_....,~,."-_.'""-~,_.,,"-"-.~---~.~-_.~..,~,.. .. .. _._-..'.._- September 30, 2005 - the downtown area that are major highways, and we -- the city has opted to -- basically, the DOT did the curb inward, and we did the sidewalks and landscaping and the street lighting behind the curbs. So there's ways of -- but they have their criteria. They want things set back a certain distance and so forth so cars don't crash into them. I'm all for that, but I also want to protect the pedestrian, too, being able to walk along there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But similar to your -- to the Bayshore layouts, have you talked with the electrical company, the gas company, the phone company? MR. EHARDT: No, I have not. I think someone brought up the thing about the underlying utilities on the sidewalk area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did. If you could possibly check into that -- MR. EHARDT: Okay. .-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- before you come back to us. MR. EHARDT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hate to see you go forward with a plan that is well liked but find out that you can't do it because these other utilities have got to be in a certain location, and that wasn't figured out. MR. EHARDT: So let me just understand. You were saying -- mentioned something earlier, I'd just like if you could clarify, that some utilities are not allowed to go into the right-of-way? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Private utilities generally are along the ten-foot outside of the right-of-way. You've got FP&L, you've got-- MR. EHARDT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the public right-of-way is supposed to be for the public utilities. In cases -- I know of occurrences where they're in a public area. I'm not sure what old east ~"'~"- Naples was built like, but I think it ought to be checked out because the standards that roads are built to today require those easements on 105 " "~;""""----,-"""-"-~~,,,",,-,,,,-,,,"',"_.,.,,.._.- .-"...., "",'~"" --'"-'- September 30, 2005 the outside of the right-of-way. And I'm only familiar with the newer ones, not the older ones. So someone -- MR. EHARDT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- ought to take a look at that. MR. EHARDT: I think the biggest limitation that'd have, if we had to do some trees and so forth and how -- depends on how deep those utilities are. In that case, you may do some type of a raised planter with the landscape. We've done that in areas where we've had conflict with utilities below. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a conversation with FP&L in reference to something, and they typically bury theirs ten feet deep, so -- but you need to verify that with others. MR. EHARDT: Yeah. If it's -- if we got three feet, we can do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last -- the question I had on that page, you referenced that this applies to new buildings and structures, is there a certain percentage of renovation where this kicks in? Say a building comes in and they -- they want to purposely keep ten percent of the building up so they don't qualify as a new building, have you thought about that? MR. JACKSON: Yes. Last conversation we had last meeting was the 50 percent rule that the county has, and we're going to talk about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember everything that we've -- MR. JACKSON: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- already discussed. MR. JACKSON: I remember everything. It was a 50 percent rule. And there was some discussion about that, and we didn't come to conclusion on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. We did discuss it. As ,- long as it was brought back up. MR. EHARDT: Our intent was basic -- in this thing was to apply 106 '---.-.- _' "~_,~_,,.__"""_ _" ",_ " __...m'" .. , September 30, 2005 '-"- to the mixed use and the commercial categories with these criterias, what we're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 32. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In your second box down, at the front property line, number one, you say and in most cases this will be the right-of-way line, right-of-way of the street. So my question was posed, okay, in what other cases will it not be -- what -- what is it that we can get in trouble by not considering? It's a-- MR. EHARDT: I think in -- in this case I don't think it would-- it would be a thing. Because basically what I'm saying is that you might -- we're going from back of curb to establish this 16- foot dimension, a certain portion of that is public right-of-way right now. If there's a little sliver of it that's not, we would just ask that that ,-, particular, you know, development match the existing sidewalk with what we're talking about. Bring the existing side -- bring the new sidewalk from the 16- foot setback up to the existing sidewalk that's along the roadway itself. I don't know if that -- if I'm saying that right. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I understand -- MR. EHARDT: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- you're trying to consider that there are -- strange situations may -- may -- MR. EHARDT: Well, staff -- I think some -- one of the comments was from staff had brought that up one time. I'm assuming the property line and the right-of-way line along those streets are probably the same. You know, I'd be surprised if they weren't, but there may be a little sliver or something that's not but I -- someone owns it. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Well, how would you achieve - relief then if -- through an amendment, through an easement, through what? What would you do if you had to -- if you were -- I mean what 107 .,.""~"- ~"",_,-~-,,"^-,",,,,---~""'-"~~'.._. ..--. .....,-"._.."'._,_......-..__.._~...-"'--".,.- September 30, 2005 <,"'- -- what provision is going to be made in -- if it is one of those cases that it's not? MR. EHARDT: I think what I -- I'm trying to think of an example. MR. JACKSON: The only way I could address that would be we'd have to take it case by case basis because I don't think there is a rule of thumb that would apply across the board. Is that -- when you end up with these meandering strips and meandering lines, that we need to look at that case and then address it with the person doing the redevelopment in that proj ect and find some way to resolve the issue of a -- what would be probably a naked no man's land there and somebody has to do something with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it would be an SIP or an SDP, right, in that situation? MR. EHARDT: Yeah. I'm trying to think -- ~- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wouldn't want to think you'd get to that -- that point and then -- MR. EHARDT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- sit in a quandary. MR. EHARDT: I guess someone'd, you know, have to come up with an ownership map that shows the right-of-way of Davis, Airport Pulling or 41 and where their property is, and hopefully the lines, unless the surveyor messed up, would probably be the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can't imagine that existing, so let's not -- MR. EHARDT: Okay. I can't either. The other thing is if somebody owned -- if somebody had a piece of land that had a little L piece that ran in from on this other guy's piece of property six inches wide, I guess. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So my question would simply be ".-, then do we want to keep that in there in most cases? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean I could give you an 108 .~.. '~~"<",_""~',^"'..,. .,~,."...".,..,. 1 .. A '_""_',~_"_"""__'""'"_~~>.','_._"'," .. ,.,.--.-- September 30, 2005 - example. There was one where I knew these people had a one-foot spike strip that prevented one property from accessing a right-of-way, that could occur. But that just -- that's what makes life fun, so why spoil it by putting in a way to get around it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if that satisfies the rest of us, leaving it in there, it doesn't bother me, but it was a question that came to my mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your -- on that same -- on the front setback in this chart calls for 9.5 feet. Number one defines that 9.5 feet as a streetscape zone. On the previous page you had 16 feet and number one provided for a streetscape of eight feet and a sidewalk zone of eight feet. Number two on this page says the developer will build the streetscape and sidewalk zones, but where is the -- -- MR. EHARDT: These-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- sidewalk zone-- MR. EHARDT: These-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- supposed to go? MR. EHARDT: These are -- these are other streets within the triangle. We've got the major streets and then we've got other streets -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. EHARDT: -- in the -- in the mixed use -- that's what this applies to. You wouldn't have -- you don't have enough room. The basic right-of-way, from what I can tell from measuring the maps and so forth, they have are about 60 feet. And I had -- I think earlier I had a cross-section in there which staff wanted us to eliminate that showed how this sidewalk and so forth would work, and I get -- time you get roadway and so forth, street curb and gutter, nine-and-a-half-foot, and --, can you do a little landscaping. It's just not as in -- it's not as wide as you would have on Davis or the major roads. That's all I was trying to 109 ><...",,,'--<"---'<--"-~,--~-,. ""...- ..~---- September 30, 2005 .- do, is differentiate the two types of streets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. No, I'm not-- MR. EHARDT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- complaining about that. MR. EHARDT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But my question was do you have a -- do you really have a sidewalk zone if the whole 9.5 feet is a streetscape zone? MR. EHARDT: I can -- I can change it. I can reword -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I-- MR. EHARDT: -- that, yeah, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just clarify it because I didn't see a sidewalk zone called out here. MR. EHARDT: I guess I would call it sidewalk -- in this particular case -- I think I may need to term it -- term -- redo my terminology since we're -- gotten away from this easement and so forth, which I can clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Pedestrian walkway, pedestrian through way. Excuse me. MR. EHARDT: Sidewalk with landscaping, basically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the next element down is -- on your number one it's at the front property line, and then you're talking about the front build to line and that's at the right-of-way. Yet on the following pages, on your details, you show awnings and things like that going into the right-of-way. I don't think you can do that. I mean do you know if you can enter -- go into the right-of-way with an awning? You ought to check it out is what I'm suggesting. I'd be -- MR. EHARDT: I mean that's similar to what we had on Bayshore where you could proj ect out five feet -- ~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. EHARDT: -- beyond the rough. 110 .. .__.._.0_- September 30, 2005 .~-. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there you weren't-- MR. EHARDT: You have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were setback a ways, here you're right on the -- so I -- you may want to see if transportation agrees with you. MR. EHARDT: Does staff know or anybody know? MS. FABACHER: Well, I don't know, but I'm getting quite confused on this, about the front -- the front property line being the build to line. Because didn't we just say that you were going to have that five-foot sidewalk, and then there's about a strip there left of right-of-way and you were going to extend the sidewalk up into -- MR. EHARDT: This would -- most of these streets at the present time are -- don't have sidewalks or curb and gutter, and we're planning for them having that at some future time. MS. FABACHER: Right. MR. EHARDT: So I want to locate the buildings where the end of the right-of-way would be. MS. FABACHER: No, I understand. MR. EHARDT: Okay. MS. FABACHER: But we talked a minute ago about putting in an easement or something because there wasn't enough room left in the right-of-way to accommodate the size sidewalk you wanted. MR. EHARDT: That -- that was on the major commercial streets. MS. FABACHER: Okay. MR. EHARDT: On the interior streets I don't -- I think nine and a half feet is fine. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 32 is the smaller streets, page 31 is your bigger streets -- MR. EHARDT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if I'm not mistaken. 111 ~""~"~'._,",. '~N"""'-".__'''''--'__'"'_ '....,._,..~~- September 30, 2005 - MR. EHARDT: I said other streets in a mixed-use district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a 32 question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if it makes you comfortable, Mark, the building code does make provision for awnings that go in the public right-of-ways. If it's allowed, it's covered by the building code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The building code? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. It's not uncommon, especially in urban areas, to have awnings in public right-of-ways, but obviously there's height and structure and -- MS. MURRAY: I'm sure there's some transportation standards. Obviously they'd need a right-of-way permit, I'm almost certain, but we can check with transportation on their standards for that. -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Susan, this one, my question on the . . setbacks. There's landscape IS mInImum a requirement -- and we're going to get to that, and maybe it will be moot at that point. MR. EHARDT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But wouldn't the setback trump a landscape requirement? In other words, if we have a setback that's allowed of five feet yet there's a ten-foot buffer, wouldn't we be allowed to build a building, even though there are suburban code now of ten feet -- I mean at the setback line, or would the buffer prevail? MS. MURRAY: You -- unless there's some provisions that you -- allow you to do that you are going to have to fit the buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in this case these things -- unless we do something to rework the buffers, these would not be available. .- MS. MURRAY: Right. The setbacks are the minimum. So if you've got a wider buffer requirement, you're -- you're still going to 112 September 30, 2005 meet the minimum setback at ten, even if you -- and -- even if you put it at five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what you're saying is the buffer's going to shove the building -- MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Which I think again -- MR. EHARDT: Then -- okay. I-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, here's what I'm saying is we -- again, we're back to the suburban code, now we're trying to do an urban overlay. In the suburban code, we have buffers; ten-foot buffers, 15- foot buffers. If you have a zero setback or you have a five-foot setback and you have a ten-foot buffer, I mean I think there's stuff in the code that says that the setback would prevail. But let's go with what -- what Susan's saying. She's saying that you could not push the building back, which means we're going to end up having suburban buffers in our urban building. And we can't put -- you know, the buffers can't have sidewalks going down them, so we do have to clean up some landscapes. MR. JACKSON: Right. I don't think that that's the intent when you bring the buildings closer to the street, is to end up putting something between the sidewalk and the building. And I know you -- I mean traditional urban settings with zero lot lines or very short lot lines, you don't end up putting a -- moving the building just because you want to put vegetation in there because that's not an urban setting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nor do you want to build your sidewalk you just described, a ten-foot buffer, and then your building. I mean so obviously we have to clean the landscape ordinance up, make it a downtown landscape ordinance. MR. JACKSON: We -- I don't-- --- MR. EHARDT: Basically, the front -- the front buffer requirement would be null and void. I mean that's what we'd be 113 ._~--_..,. September 30, 2005 -, saYIng. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we -- but if it exists it's not null and void, and it would be really silly to build this nice sidewalk and then push a building ten, 15 feet back. MR. JACKSON: Well, then we need to put in here then that the -- that the setback overrides. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Prevails. I think so. MS. MURRAY: Why don't you just put a buffer standard in that matches what you want to do? That way there's no question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, he doesn't want -- we want sidewalks downtown, not buffers downtown. MS. MURRAY: That's fine. I'm just saying put it-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And even on the side lots I don't think -- MR. EHARDT: Put zero. MS. MURRAY: I wouldn't recommend no landscaping, but I think what you're trying to do is you're trying to get less than what the current code requires because you want a different type of setting and atmosphere and you want buildings closer to the street and wider sidewalks. So I mean that's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MS. MURRAY: -- reasonable to expect that you would have less landscaping or less other things, but I think if you're talking about changing the standard, you ought to just change the standard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the situations. Two buildings side by side, five-foot setbacks, let's say -- because there's wisdom for fire codes to pull the buildings around if they want. Windows. That side alleyway can't be a landscape buffer. I mean, first of all, I mean what you said to answer my question earlier, we would have two 10- foot landscape buffers, we'd have 20 -" feet of grass between two buildings in an urban area. The buildings are 40, 50 something feet tall. 114 <.."_._._~._..____".,.c.,.~~..-. -'"".~_. September 30, 2005 ,- MR. EHARDT: Yeah. You want that space. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: People cutting back and forth the parking lots across it, our buffer doesn't allow that. I mean we could have one traverse it, but not the length of it. So I mean -- I mean -- in other words, that land between buildings is not what our suburban code describes. We have to have -- MR. EHARDT: Either on the front of the building -- either on the front of the building, either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anywhere on the building. MR. EHARDT: Yeah. Now, maybe in the back you might want a buffer if it was against residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Earlier today we had an issue over the landscape buffers in the code. Why don't you, as part of your exercise to come back -- MR. EHARDT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- take a look at those codes. The ones that don't fit, suggest a modification through staffs re -- discussion and come back to us -- MR. EHARDT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with something. MS. MURRAY: It's easier for us to have -- I mean because this is going to be so different, to have your own code rather than start to subtract out portions of the existing code. That way you -- we get a feel of your overall plan and your intent, rather than trying to just say, well, this doesn't apply or this overrides that or what have you. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have -- I had made a note for myself and didn't comment on it earlier. No alleyways. When we're talking about minimum setbacks on the bottom there, the -- it looked to me like you had zero to five on the side yards and zero to five on the rear yards, which would mean no setback, right? ,.,.;- MR. EHARDT: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No alleyways, not going to have 115 ~_"""_d',"","'_"'.'__ --"'~-'-'--' '--" ,--,.~_.,- September 30, 2005 - any alleyways, not intending -- MR. EHARDT: Well, you gotta have parking. What page are you on? I'm sorry. Let me just make sure -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it-- MR. EHARDT: -- I'm on the right thing. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: 102, but it's not the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirty-two. MR. EHARDT: Thirty-two. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thirty-two. I'm trying to keep parallel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on 32. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. EHARDT: Yeah, they still have to accommodate, you know, parking in that situation. Now they probably -- depending on their size of their proj ect, they may have the parking on the side and not in the back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, again-- MR. EHARDT: You know, build a building the full depth. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Like Fifth A venue, I mean those ten-foot, 20- foot, 25- foot alleyways there are full of chairs, full of life. Those are good. Why would we not want that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I'm trying to figure out why you cut that out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean he says that -- this . IS a -- MR. EHARDT: Well, there's no alley back there now. Are you talking about the rear of the property? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Talking about the side yard. MR. EHARDT: Oh, the side. Yeah, okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My concern would be the side. - You want -- you want pedestrian friendly, you want people to be able to come and go, and you want -- 116 , _...._'"_."....,~_.____.~"">..~_A'.._'."._~, .>. " September 30, 2005 ,"'--. MR. EHARDT: I think I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to entice them. MR. EHARDT: Yeah. I think later on I mention in there that I think for every so many linear feet of building facade along those roads, you have to have a walkway I think ten or -- I have to look. Ten or 15 feet opening. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But how do you achieve that when have you a zero -- you know, zero to five? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the problem is the maximum five feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, you're not allowing somebody to do a ten-foot. MR. EHARDT: Well, I -- well, I wouldn't necessarily -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean you want-- MR. EHARDT: I wouldn't mind two buildings being right next to each other with no separation. I mean that's a very urban situation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And a smart developer would put the walkway in the middle, going past his commercial tenants. MR. EHARDT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You wouldn't want to walk in between the other guy's space. MR. EHARDT: So are we saying it should be zero? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think zero's allowed, but I think the maximum of five feet is maybe the problem. Because-- MR. EHARDT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- maybe two guys would want to put a 25-foot alley between their buildings and do something. MR. EHARDT: Oh, maximum. Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, take the maximum out. ,- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then it -- so it will be zero or five feet, is that what you're trying to say? 117 ~-".__._.._--_.._.._----"--'" ._---"~...__....._-..._----,--- September 30, 2005 ,- Or it would be -- I mean the COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: setback. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. You're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the -- you can say zero because that's the -- that's the minimum setback. I could have one -- I could have anything above zero. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman? This has all become a little too colloquial. We've got three and four people talking at once, time after time. I don't see how this young lady can make heads or tails of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm going to take-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Sometimes when we talk one at a time it's hard to make heads or tails of it. But when there are three at a time, it's incredible. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who has the floor then? ,.-. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You do. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: After all, it may not be under oath but it is testimony, and it ought to be done in an orderly fashion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think zero is good because what that means is you can't have encroachments, you can't have a negative number. You can have any positive number above zero. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't say that though, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if somebody says the side yard setback's zero, that means I can have any setback I want, doesn't it? That means -- MR. EHARDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean I don't think anybody -- like when he says like above ten feet, that doesn't mean it has to be ten feet. ...- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if that's the way it's interpreted, I have no problem with it. 118 ...- September 30, 2005 - Any other questions on page 32? MR. EHARDT: So we'll change that just to zero, and then it's up to the person that's developing that property. If he wants to set it back and make a walkway there, that's up to him. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I think in your rear yard where you have two, are those two conditions, or is that -- again, is that a zero or -- MR. EHARDT: There were two conditions related to waterfront. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm-- MR. EHARDT: There's one parcel in -- in the Gateway area that backs up to some waterfront on the north side of Davis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one last question on 32. Your footnote 71, to allow the maximum use of the waterfront new construction building placement on a lot can vary from the required setbacks. I -- if something can vary, there's going to have to be some criteria by which it can vary. So you're going to have to address that issue, I would believe. And with that, we'll take a ten minute break and be back at 4: 12. Thank you. (A brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, if you take your seats. Before we get back into all this fun discussion, I was going to ask staff if they have had the opportunity to check and see if there's any room time available and when the next dates are. And let's get that worked out before it gets too much later. MS. MURRAY: I need -- MR. WHITE: I believe -- MS. MURRAY: -- Miss Catherine. MR. WHITE: I believe the answer to your question is in part being researched presently. And that is because the understanding is you may desire to go into the 24th. The time horizon that had been 119 ..."~._._-'".- ~ ,--,' ""'..,, , "'---'''''- September 30, 2005 -, looked at was only up to the 20th, so we're trying to ground a little bit further into the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, there's some members here that may have to leave early at 5:00. Let's discuss it again and then we'll go from there. MR. WHITE: We'll just interject, I guess, when we have the appropriate facts. MS. MURRAY: Do we have a specific ending time tonight? Because I -- I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on some of the members discussion, I thought we were probably -- between 5:30 or 6:00. Mr. Vigliotti's gotta leave at quarter to 6:00. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Twenty to, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Mark, aren't we only going over the rest of this, the Gateway, or do we go into -- -, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're going over the rest of Gateway. But I'm not -- we're saying if we don't get through it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll make it by 5:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With you two guys? Come on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Optimistic. MR. JACKSON: We'll get through this. Most of this is repetitive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: If we don't bog down on something we've already talked about, we'll be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to -- we'll try to get through it. It will help if we take Ken Abernathy's advice. And I've got to ask each of you when someone asks a question and it's responded to, before you ask another one, let the person who asked the original question finish his discussion before the next person starts. And we'll .,4_, be -- maybe get through this. Let's start with page 33. Are there any questions from the panel? 120 .~^'_...w_w._...,"..~~_'.~_.. '"'I , ",.-.-....---..,.,..,. September 30, 2005 .- Mr. Murray first. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I would like you to look at page 42 and then look at the minimum floor area. On 33 I think it says 700, on page 42 I believe you'll find if it says 750. MR. EHARDT: You brought that up last time, and I'm going to double-check. I think it's 700, if I remember correctly. We're looking at the old code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But on the newest package it would be 750, that's the -- 700 is to be changed? MR. EHARDT: I believe that's it. I will double-check. I'll make sure they're consistent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. MR. EHARDT: I apologize for that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Sorry to nag. MR. EHARDT: That's all right. - COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you finished? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. On the bonus density, how did they jump 41 and wind up over to Gateway? Is that part of the compo plan put them there or-- MR. EHARDT: The Bayshore, Gateway overlay land use element covers the whole area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So they came in with one -- MR. WHITE: Now, they have a map that covers it. It does not-- let me just make it -- make clear, it does not cover all of the redevelopment area, but it does cover Bay -- what sections we're showing of Bayshore and it does cover all of the triangle area. There's some portions, because of the -- I guess the old Collier DR! and that ..- area down there they didn't include in the land use elements, so we don't include it in the zoning elements in the zoning. 121 >'. ~.".~=-._--".""-"'"" September 30,2005 -, If you looked on my zoning map on Bayshore down at -- on Bayshore I'm talking about. Down south of Tomlinson there's a residential -- I think it's a mobile home park, a real skinny one that goes off to the east. You'll see I put a big X through it. That's because the -- the original overlay that you have right now is in conflict with the comprehensive plan because it doesn't -- comprehensive plan doesn't allow the overlay to go that far down. Okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What did you do-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. It's Brad. Brad, are you finished? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm through. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What did you do at Jeepers Drive, as long as we're back talking about -- MR. JACKSON: What about it, sir? - COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What are you -- what's going to happen to it? Are those -- MR. JACKSON: It's zoned residential mobile home. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, half of them are about to fall apart. There's no -- there's no kind of redevelopment program for that. MR. JACKSON: That's called code enforcement or a good hurricane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I just wanted to ask you if you would do us -- do me a favor, anyway. It might help others. If -- you know this map that we have referenced a lot to show where -- if you would have a blowup and bring it with you-- - MR. EHARDT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- we could then keep on track 122 . .. -,' .~..."- ..,--......--_._,~...'-~~.~~'-,._~..,.~.".". ~...._._,.,._-_......._..._....~.,..~-- September 30, 2005 .- and avoid the mind going into one district as opposed to another one. It would help me certainly. MR. EHARDT: Be happy to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on 33? Let's move onto 34. Basically, 34 is redundancy from Bayshore, so I don't have any questions. Rest of the panel? None. Thirty-five. MR. EHARDT: I need -- if I may, I need to rework those cross-sections to reflect what I talked about earlier about allowing that existing five-foot eight-inches or whatever to remain there and any new streetscape and things would happen behind that in the landscaping, and that would be part of the private developer's responsibility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: And, Mr. Chairman, one more comment. Any -- illustration in any of these documents are illustrative in nature for height, width, breadth, numerology. Because this graphic shows a palm tree there at that location, that does not mean that is a requirement that a palm tree go right there. Because on Davis Boulevard that is right on top of your utilities, you see. They're for illustrative only, for dimensional and concept. These are not guideline requirements. So that has been difficult to get through. People look at it, and they think it's -- this is it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MS. MURRAY: If it's difficult, it might be because they think that's what should be applied. Is there anything we can put in there that makes that clear that -- MR. JACKSON: Terminology at top, Miss Murray, it says illustrative in nature only or something like that. MS. MURRAY: I don't see it. Where? -, MR. EHARDT: I think I had that earlier. For some reason we took it out. 123 ^ -.-.-., "",".,_,,"-""'~.^..,._--~ ,..-.-.'...... September 30, 2005 - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we add something to that effect and make sure -- MR. EHARDT: I think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's clear. MR. EHARDT: -- the cross-section ones -- the two diagrams -- they're going to reflect the words that are in the tables. The one at the bottom is more for illustrative purpose. And I would have to redo that to reflect what I just talked about of keeping that strip there for the utilities and then moving back, which I'll be happy to do. MS. MURRAY: All we need is just a clarification that-- MR. EHARDT: Sure. MS. MURRA Y: -- if you want to use something for illustrative purposes versus regulatory purposes, and then ensure that whatever illustration for regulatory purposes clearly reflects the text in the code. MR. JACKSON: And we will do that, and that is our error. .- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 36. I have one question. Your overhang, it shows five feet out from the building. Do you have a minimum height that you're going to require those to be? MR. JACKSON: If it's on a DOT road, I think it's seven or eight feet. There's -- there's DOT requirements that -- in permitting. Eight feet or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as-- MR. EHARDT: Well, this -- this would -- this would -- height, no. I think it would be if there's a window there it would be the top of the window area. I could state that. The -- now, this would not be -- this particular would not be in DOT under the scenario we're talking about now because that easement is gone. It's private property. We're just asking them to allow the street lights and the landscaping to go on that ten-foot strip through there. So the DOT wouldn't be involved, but -- I'm sorry. ,- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it depends on who owns the right-of-way, wouldn't it? Is that -- is this all Collier County 124 ^'."_ H..____",,___ September 30, 2005 ,- right-of-way that we're -- they're not private roads, are they? MR. EHARDT: No, not in this case, no. These are -- these are sections on the -- on some of the major roadways themselves. MR. JACKSON: Right. It is a permitable item, and when it goes through the permit process those dimensions will be given to them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The one -- the one question or one point I would make, it says here five-foot maximum. Let me see projection -- oh, it's five feet maximum. No. When I first read that, I thought it said minimum. My apologies. MR. EHARDT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on 36? How about 37? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Never mind. Thirty-eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 38. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just in the old one we changed outdoor cafe areas to seating, so just to -- I know it's redundant with the other plan, but number three outdoor cafe seating. MR. EHARDT: Gotcha. Got it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And while everybody's distracted a little bit, there is building code requirements and in the architectural standards on minimum heights and supports and all that for awnings, so I wouldn't worry about us getting to far out of control. MR. EHARDT: Okay. I guess number six would be the same things we've talked about -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. EHARDT: -- before. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean it's -- even though there's a lot of redundant things, it's hard not to bring them up. - MR. EHARDT: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While they're doing that, let me 125 "--- U.~.__d .. September 30, 2005 --,'. move over to -- let's go to F, landscape and buffer requirements on the next page, 39. MR. EHARDT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Somebody may want to go back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where are you at, Brad? MR. EHARDT: Thirty-eight. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just pulled us up to F. You can just -- if anybody has any more questions on 38 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody got questions on 38? MS. FABACHER: I just want a clarification. What were we doing about the outdoor cafe parking areas? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in the old -- in the Bayshore we said outdoor cafe -- instead of areas we used seating shall be exempted, just to be consistent. .-,. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rather than the word area, replace it with the word seating. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. Because I had a question there, too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I guess the question, Mark, up on 39 F, which is landscape, we talked about this. I don't think we need to talk about it, but I think we really do need to make sure that the landscape requirements here are those that you would want for an urban area not a suburban area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they're going to suggest rewrite of the landscape code to fit this particular area. And then they'll work that out closely with staff and come back with a recommendation to us. So -- okay. Are there any other questions on 38 or 39? Mr. Murray? -, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to be sure I've got everything clear in my mind. I want to compare the two architectural 126 <" -,--'^~--,- .~",,,. ~".""-~_._^'''''''--'''-'''' .. September 30, 2005 standards. Okay. Number three still speaks about plate glass. Yeah. Okay. So you put the maximum tint of 25 percent down. I guess this has to do with CPTED; does it not? The current crime prevention -- MR. EHARDT: Yeah. I just think you got a lot of heat down here if you don't have awnings. It's good to have something on the glass that -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I -- not giving consideration to -- MR. EHARDT: Yeah. Well, you want to be able to see through. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See the -- MR. EHARDT: See in and out. MS. MURRAY: Just real quick on that comment. When you say clear glass, you know, a lot of businesses like to put signs in their windows, and we do allow some window coverage. Is that going to be '- different here, or would that be -- fall under the -- MR. EHARDT: We have -- MS. MURRAY: -- sign code? MR. EHARDT: It would fall under the sign code the way we have it right now. MS. MURRAY: So the way you have clear glass then, that doesn't mean to imply that it should be able to be -- MR. EHARDT: The physical material is clear. MS. MURRAY: Okay. MR. JACKSON: Right. I think you have signage requirements that if they put vinyl letters on, it can only be 25 percent of the glass or -- on that type of thing in signage. Now, we haven't detailed any kind of signage requirements at all different than yours. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Well, the implication is you don't -- you want to be able to see through it. And the sign code does allow to - place some signs, so I didn't know if there was a conflict here, if you didn't want people to put signs there or they could -- okay. 127 __..v....'.,.," ~,'____ -""-'~ <_._._~-- September 30, 2005 "'-, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Onto page 40. Questions on page 40? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just again, kill fluorescent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's -- questions that we haven't already addressed. How's that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, here's the queer thing, though, is that if we don't bring it up, what happens if -- you know, I'm comfortable with the fact that -- if everything we said in Bayshore they'll apply here and they can swear to that, but maybe there might be something -- I haven't come across it -- that we don't want to apply here. So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just trying to save time, Brad. If you feel you've got to -- MR. EHARDT: We're moving pretty good. If you have -- go - ahead and say what you got to say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Number five, if you would, please, attach building awnings, comma, canopies or balconies and may encroach. Is that -- is there an extra and in there? I thought it was in the first -- MR. EHARDT: Which item are you on? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Item five, on -- MR. EHARDT: Okay. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- page 40. Is there an extra and in there? Sentence says attached building awnings, canopies, or balconies -- MR. EHARDT: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- and may encroach. MR. EHARDT: Yeah, yes. - COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So you want to delete that and. MR. EHARDT: Right. 128 ,..._~..,-".~._----",",-~"""",.",-",, . ... ...-"'.....,...-"..- September 30, 2005 ~- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's just a little note for you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And follow with Brad's reasoning, the architectural design theme, you're going to rework that language to be consistent with the same concerns we had with Bayshore. MR. EHARDT: Right. I want to make one correction I see in here since Mr. Murray just read that sentence. I would delete the word balconies because balconies are not going to encroach over. They're going to be set -- set step back. So awnings or canopy can but not balcony. So balconies will be struck. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't pick that up. Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 41. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I -- let's see. MR. EHARDT: Stucco finish and Hardy Board, I guess. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Same thing. ,- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your number two, renovated buildings shall make every attempt. Is there a -- I'm concerned that every attempt is unknown. What someone may attempt in my eyes might be less than what I think I could attempt to do, and I'm wondering how that might be checked. Components of this style, if possible. Now, if possible is another real ambiguous term. This is on the top of page 41. MR. EHARDT: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Somebody's going to tell you nothing that the county wants is possible, and others may say everything is. So I would think -- MR. EHARDT: I think -- I think since -- in this section we didn't -- I think that's something I added in this one. I can't remember why, to tell you the truth. The -- we have here was not in the -- the - Bayshore one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. 129 "~.,",- September 30, 2005 -- MR. EHARDT: And I'd just soon -- I think I'd just eliminate it here. Because it -- we want to get the intent of this cracker Florida style but not restrict it that much, so I'll just eliminate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would-- MR. EHARDT: If no one has a problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will clarify it. HI, one sandwich sign is allowed in the public right-of-way. Is that consistent with transportation department's allowances, do you know, or if you could find out? MR. JACKSON: As long as we -- as long as they can maintain the handicapped 36-inch access, pedestrian access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Does that also go back to the other issue about what is the public right-of-way in some of your parcels? MR. JACKSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are we talking pedestrian walkway as -- MR. EHARDT: We didn't -- we didn't bring up the -- I can't remember how it came up. The public right-of-way is -- is there. I don't know. In this case, this sign -- I guess it could be out closer to the curb. It could be on the public right-of-way or it could be on the private property in that ten-foot, you know, strip we're talking about. It could be either place. I guess we could say it has to be on private property and then it wouldn't be an issue in this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There are issues of liability. MR. EHARDT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think you need to question yourself on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way it's worded, you could 0'''''_ stick it in the center of the street. MR. EHARDT: I don't want that. 130 September 30, 2005 -"- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EHARDT: I'd just say it has to sit on private property in front of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you have plenty of room with your sidewalks. MR. EHARDT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 42, any comments from the panel? 2E, you might want to look and take a look at that in regards to the -- your heights and how they're measured, whether it's 18 inches above the crown of road or whatever. I think we addressed something like that in Bayshore. MR. EHARDT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bayshore used a different designation for FEMA. I'm not sure which one is correct. MR. EHARDT: I think I was -- if I remember right, I think we were told at one of the meetings the National Flood Insurance was the correct one to use. This was an old one. I'm -- I just copied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That needs to be corrected. MR. EHARDT: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on 42? Now let's go to 41. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Forty-one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Forty-three. I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm going backwards. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Don't backslide. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Welcome to my world. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll never get through it. Anything on 43? Forty-four? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On -- in the -- in the illustration 131 .__..~ September 30, 2005 .- of the house I guess that is, and -- the porch is 40 percent of the front. That is considered to be 40 percent of the front facade, so you include -- you include your -- as part of the facade the garage, the double garage doors. I wasn't aware of that. Okay. Thank you. MR. EHARDT: And on item F, just for clarification, we're going to change that 20 to 23 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, the 23 feet. MR. EHARDT: And the illustration will reflect that, also. Well -- yeah. The illustration will reflect that, also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 45. Item six at the bottom of page 45 it-- , MR. EHARDT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to -- accessory unit is a variety of different things. A garage is listed as an accessory unit, swimming pool is. So if you were to put a pool in, you couldn't have a ..--> garage or if you put a garage in, you can't have a pool? Is that -- could that conclusion be drawn from the way that's written? I know it's old language. MR. EHARDT: I don't know. This is new language. I'm trying to think of an answer to your question. MR. JACKSON: Maybe we could say one of each type. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure that it's-- MR. JACKSON: Sure. Somebody will have a pool, an accessory unit, which is also -- and then they have a detached garage accessory unit and maybe a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guest house. MR. JACKSON: -- guest house, a lawn shed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, the way I read that, I was wondering if you could do that or not. MR. JACKSON: It was a good point. ,.- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EHARDT: Thank you. 132 __~.,._~h.',.__ M.h~..4 '---"''';---'''~'- September 30, 2005 - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on page 45? MR. WHITE: Spelling of Port-Cochere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry? MR. WHITE: Spelling ofPort-Cochere. MR. EHARDT: I'll check it. MR. JACKSON: Only the French know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 46. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I had something here. Maybe I missed it. Let's see. Never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On number seven, if you could take a look at those open view, opaque issues like we talked about in the other one, just to make sure that the opacity is -- maybe has a percentage attached to it. MR. EHARDT: Oh, on the fences, yes. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on page 46? MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, I think in D it says shall be limited to a maximum of 20, paren, 18 feet. MR. EHARDT: What page are you on? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 46, D at the top. MS. FABACHER: Forty-six,6D. MR. EHARDT: I'm going to change that to -- I'm going to change that to 20 feet. But we're going to look at that, that whole thing on the height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that actually got us through Gateway. With the exception of -- let's talk about the few issues that we brought up that I mentioned to you before on Bayshore that I was correctly told are Gateway. Water management's a big one. Is someone -- that is being worked on by staff and you-all? MR. JACKSON: The -- in the Gateway area, yes. It is a high priority for the county, and it's a high priority for the CRA in the '.''''> Gateway triangle area because that's where the majority of our flooding happens on smaller rain events. 133 September 30, 2005 ,- In the Bayshore area, it isn't quite as much impact. There's a couple streets -- for instance, Jeepers and I think Holly Lane and a couple down in the -- you know, very far south that are limestone roads that they do have some localized flooding from time to time, but it's not that -- it's not a major issue that the county is looking and focussing on. In the -- in the Bayshore area, when a person comes and develops his land, he's going to have to meet the South Florida Water Management requirements, he's going to have to hold his water on and do his quality and quantity issues. In the Gateway triangle we have probably several areas, like mini triangle, for example. It's probably 80 percent impervious right now. And so we are going on Tuesday to talk with the management, South Florida Water Management District people, to see if we can come up with a set of localized rules to permit and maybe come up with a little ,-, water management district, a little cooperative and -- to work our way through that. And we will have to work it through the assistant county attorney's office, also, to make sure the legality and that we also comply with the water management district. We didn't want to address it in here because we didn't have a solution, but we are working on a solution to the tune of many millions of dollars over the next ten years. MR. EHARDT: We -- our firm has met with the water management district, and they have agreed that they could go back and see what the runoff and things were post the development of Davis and 41. And we're finding they're really going -- or at least they say -- we haven't verified it. We're doing a report -- we've run the model to see if we can get an additional outflow across 41 and maybe Davis Boulevard to get the water out of the area. That's part of the problem. It stays there for ..----- long because the -- I think there's only a 24-inch pipe that goes across Davis Boulevard, and there's a lot more water that goes in that dike of 134 - - ..... ~~~,~-----,"'-~._.._.........,,... c~__,__"_"'>___" ....,=,,--,- September 30, 2005 ,- the triangle and Airport Road and 41. And it looks like, you know, we can get some more -- possible we might be able to get some more water out of there faster than we can right now. And they're letting us go back to kind of pre -- preconstruction conditions. Because when they did the amount of storm water that could be handled with the swales and so forth along Tamiami Trail before they redid the project, it was a lot more than is allowed right now. So we're trying to work with them to get some solution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron, did you have a-- COMMISSIONER CARON: And you had a discussion about this with the BCC, correct, on Tuesday? MR. JACKSON: For a single site project. And that was the genesis of launching this, staff and CRA staff to go talk to the management and come up with a plan. We already had a plan -- a - base plan to start -- to investigate it, but right now we need to get the final product, what we're going to do when we get it. And then we also want to provide a solution to those people that have the smaller structures that can't handle the water on site. You know, how -- are they going to be part of a cooperative, is it going to be an MST or MSB or we don't know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, congratulations, really good job. I think this is important code for Collier. I think fast forward ten years, look back, these are going to be two of the more interesting places in Collier. One quick thing about -- I'm still haunted by these additional 388 units. Is there any way we can only allow those units for affordable housing? And here's why, because we're trying to create an artist community. All the artists I know are poor. Even the ones that are - rich hide it well. But if we really truly wanted to make this to be an active area for art, an area where people come to visit, not necessarily 135 September 30, 2005 - come to live, then could we somehow see how we could put those units into only affordable units? Then we might end up with artists. Because -- an example I have working Bayshore that -- the units were set out to be artist units, were done as inexpensively as you could probably do them, but they wound up to be above the -- you know, they're not affordable housing. So I mean normally artists move into an area, it becomes hip, and then the wealthy people move in after. We're skipping the artists on this one. So I mean if we could take these units, force them to be affordable housing, we might actually get artists living in that area. MR. JACKSON: That is a great segue, that off-line conversation I'm going to have with you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. JACKSON: -- addresses that specifically, affordable housing for artists in an artist commune. It's a separate project, and I - can't divulge it because of confidentiality but I can read you in what we've got going on on that one. F or the -- for the units, we're going to have to talk with the BCC, we're going to have to talk with comprehensive planning, we're going to have to talk to the CRA advisory board and the real -- and the large board and see if we can get some reading from all those people in coming up with a consensus of opinion and some recommendations. And I don't have the solution right now. I'll tell you right now, I don't have a solution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we need to make a decision if this panel -- Patrick, maybe you can offer some comments here. MS. FABACHER: Well -- as you asked, I checked for the week -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is another issue. -- MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to follow through with the 136 '.."",,,,--"_.~.._~,-._~, September 30, 2005 - finishing of the Gayshore -- the Bayshore and the Gateway overlay. MR. WHITE: I knew we'd get him at least once. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've got to vote on whether to re -- what -- to rehear this, don't we, Pat? MR. WHITE: If you would desire to have a second hearing independent of any subsequent meetings, then we will need to readvertise for that separate hearing, a date and time, hopefully certain, that you can pick today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that brings up another thought. I really think the best time to have a second hearing is after staff and transportation and water management and everybody gets together with the CRA or the CRA local board or whoever they've got to get together with comes back with a plan that everybody's had more input to so it's more concise when it gets to us and we're not going to spend two days going through it like we have. - MR. WHITE: And it's fine, you can certainly wait to determine when that point would be at some subsequent meeting that doesn't have to be an LDC meeting. It could be one of your regular meetings, to have that discussion as part of that meeting's agenda. Talk about when you're going to have a second hearing, properly advertised, for the CCPC on Bayshore and Gateway overlays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we could vote today to have this heard a second time -- MR. WHITE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and be brought forward on an agenda when staff believes they've worked out as much as they can with th~ parties involved, and at that meeting we'll discuss and set a date. MR. WHITE: That'd be fine. Just as long as you recognize that there's a lag time between getting that ad into the newspaper, having it published, and then the meeting taking place. .-'. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure we'll be advised of that. MR. WHITE: Oh, absolutely. I'm just suggesting to you that 137 '--'.'_..~".""',;",_." September 30, 2005 - depending upon the cycle time back from the consultants and the CRA through to the staff and their review cycle and comment back and bringing it onto an agenda for your consideration, and then the subsequent time to get it advertised and heard may put it at a point where a consideration, as Ms. Murray had said at the beginning of today's meeting, needs to be made about whether it stays with the rest of the train or it finds some other process, avenue, to ultimately have it considered by the Board of County Commissioners. So that's obviously a policy choice. It's not something our office is making a recommendation about one way or the other. I'm simply alerting you to what the logistics of the time line are that you're -- you're contemplating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think that staff can get the comments on the base parts of the LDC that we've gone over partly one day and will finish up the next meeting we have, those could - probably get back to us much quicker than I think they can get through all the Bayshore and Gateway overlay stuff. But that's just my . . opInIon. Brad, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'd like -- can't we pick a date -- like let's take November 9th. Can't we get it done by then? I mean I don't want to let it just go drift. Let's give deadlines. I mean I live -- everybody lives in a world of deadlines but -- that's six weeks. I mean couldn't all this work be done by then? MR. JACKSON: We can have all the administrative changes done by tomorrow, but the part of liaison with the staff and them helping us with criteria and items like that, they're on a very difficult schedule. So it would be encumbered -- you know, that -- those juicy parts of the deviations and numbers for criteria that they're going to give us input on, that's up to when Miss Murray can find time in their ,_. busy schedule to get back with us or sit down with us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, David, isn't there a lot of 138 "'_~_"_...",_"",~~~,.m~_;'^_"",~""""_"__ September 30, 2005 - public interest in this? I mean so would an evening meeting on Wednesday the 9th be good to try to go through -- I don't think it should take us -- that made everybody -- MR. JACKSON: Well, I mean it could be done sooner than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take it one step at a time. Susan, what's your time frame that you need? MS. MURRA Y: Well, a couple things. I think maybe we could take that as a recommendation. I think you gave, what, November 9th? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: November 9th. It's a Wednesday. MS. MURRAY: But come back to you next week -- because we're meeting with you-all next week on a regular agenda item. Let us sit down -- because it's -- it involves more than just the zoning staff, and that's why I need to coordinate with other departments and then .--~- coordinate with David and then understand what we need for advertising and then understand time we need to give you-all to look at any changes. Because I think you're expecting some changes at the next meeting, too. So we need to kind of work back from all those -- that time frame and come up, but I'll take November 9th if the rest of the board agrees as kind of a target date, and then we'll see where we fall out and give you some options at your next regular meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You have to meet with Swiftmud. Do you think you can get ahold of Swiftmud this quickly? MR. JACKSON: Yes. We meet with them Tuesday. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And it will be resolved? MR. JACKSON: You never resolve anything in one meeting with them, sir. But -- but we will have at least some guidelines, some guidance. You know, you'll see where they lead you and that type of thing. My consultant is not available the first week of November. 139 >~.. '~"'~ _..-,".,_._-,~,-,"_._"-~"---_._".".,-",-----,."..<-_.._.,-,~---- September 30, 2005 - Can we try the last week of October? They've got -- he's got -- I mean he's got other company commitments and will not be able to be here, and I think you'd love for him to be here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That -- I'm fine with that. That makes four weeks, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we leave it up to Susan to come back with a recommendation? MS. MURRA Y: If I know that,. then I can put that into the mix and see how everything falls out, and then we'll come back to you next meeting with some thoughts on time frames. MR. JACKSON: And one last question -- well, Mr. Murray wants to go. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I just wanted to ask you are -- are you in any situation of financial matters concerning your contract with your consultant? - MR. JACKSON: We are, but it's more important that we get this -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that's not an encumbrance? MR. JACKSON: It's not over -- it can be overcome. We'd rather not go there, but -- we'd prefer to get it done sooner than later within the time frames that are allotted by the people that are all encumbered by it. MR. EHARDT: I think -- based on our meeting that we had -- I guess it was about a week ago, week and a half ago -- I started making some of the changes that we talked about then. Okay? And some of the changes that I know I can make now, some of these sections setbacks and things, I can start working on those, you know, next week. So when I come back down here to meet with the staff, I will have a lot of those changes already done. Now, there may be a few issues that we're going to need some help on or some direction on, but they can review it when I come back 140 .,.___,...._~'o,.c..,,~__..'" "'~_.,--..,.~".<---_.__.~._...-._".,,~,"-~'-".,.~,_...--~- September 30, 2005 - down. Because I plan on getting it done as fast as I can, based on our conversations today and last week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to go back to what I suggested. I'd rather not put any date on the table right now. Let staff come back to us with a recommendation based on a schedule they can perceivably make. Right now staff is overburdened in this county. We have more going on, and the last thing we need to do is make a mistake on something we're going to have to live with for years. MR. EHARDT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if there's a motion -- does anybody on this panel wish to make a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would make that motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion has been made to rely on staff's recommendations at next week's meeting for another -- future date on -- the -- to finish this up on a second hearing. It's been seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? No one opposed. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one -- one -- if you can give me a bit of guidance. Because there's a lot of underlining, color blue, red, and strikes throughs, how would you like to have this presented to you in the next hard copy on paper? Would you like us to take out those things that you said change and so that you don't end up with multiple strike throughs, double strike throughs, and three colors, or do you want to see that history? - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my preference would be just give us a clean copy without all the colors. We'll just read it like it's 141 -..,..,-",.<,.,._~..~, .-"'-.-.........--" ,-- September 30, 2005 - brand-new and go through it and go back and look at the notes we made today. That's how I would approach it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I -- MR. EHARDT: Well, I -- I had -- way I had started this, if I may just say, what I did is anything that I changed since last week until the copy I've gotten here now that I started making my changes, I made it a yellow highlight. So you could see exactly what's changed from what you got here now. I may have struck through something and added a word or changed a dimensions, but I highlighted it in yellow. I -- I would -- just so there's no miss -- confusion, I would prefer that you see the same document you got now with the changes, we'll highlight -- whatever I change between now and then, I'll make it in yellow if that's -- or I can do it a clean copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever is easiest for you guys. MR. EHARDT: Okay. ,0_' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I can do it either way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe you can use another color than yellow because I use yellow highlighter to make my questions. MR. EHARDT: I'll get pink highlighter or something. I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll get you another highlighter. MR. EHARDT: I think it just -- that way we don't have to look at every section, we can just see the areas that we changed, see if it's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You've got enough direction. Let's just call it a day in that matter. Now, why don't we get down to what's going to happen with our next meeting, going back to the regular land code amendments we didn't finish. Catherine, did somebody find dates for us? MS. FABACHER: Which month are we talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It'd be October. The week of the 24th 142 ._.....~.~-- September 30, 2005 - was where we left off before. That's when most of us can be back here to discuss it. MS. FABACHER: Okay. The only thing available in this chamber the week of the 24th is Friday, the 28th. I know you prefer this to going over to CDES. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine with it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Want to do 1 :00, Friday, the 28th? MS. FABACHER: Let me -- let me say that Mary Joe's advised me that there may be some IT people in here working from 1 :00 to 5:00, but they -- we can still have the meeting, if that's all right with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: 1 :OO? _. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we'll continue the Land Development Code Cycle 2A meeting that started on August 18th to the 28th of October at 1 :00 in this room. Patrick, is that said well enough, or does it have to be refined by your -- MR. WHITE: The only thing that needs to be amended with respect to that, that this is full cycle 2, not 2A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: And just for the benefit of the public who may be tuning in at this, meeting is being continued to hear all other matters, except for Bayshore, Gateway overlay, to these chambers, Friday, October 28th, at 1 :00 p.m. Now, the staff has considered the notion that there may be some opportunity -- I guess it's a new budget year, and there may be the opportunity to advertise it, I don't know. It's not a legal requirement, -" but it is an extended period of time between then and now and there may make some sense to try and run an ad maybe the week or so 143 ^---~~~'~ ~b<__^'.>_',___,_",._____,~_"_""",,,_,_,_,>,o,,,,__,,,.'--" "'_._."___,_....,,...._."H_~_ September 30, 2005 -- before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's staffs call. MR. WHITE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Gentlemen, ladies, are we finished here today? I believe we are. Motion to adj ourn? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor? Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. - (Adjourned at 4:46 p.m.) 144 --..-.-.,....., __.u_~___,__.____~_______ September 30, 2005 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 4:46 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Strain, Chairman "'~~.... 145 --~-- ~,.,,_.~~_.,._-- ._'''''',..~'''--,._... ......~'.......,....~--..._,,--_..-