The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Minutes 12/15/2005 R December 15, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, December 15, 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 8:30 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Community Development Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Department Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15,2005, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 3,2005, REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - NOVEMBER 29,2005, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CU-2003-AR-4647, Mitchell D. House, represented by Donald J. Murray, AICP, of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., is requesting a Conditional Use to allow for the establishment of an eco- tourist facility in the Rural Agricultural-Area of Critical State Concern/Special Treatment Overlay (A- ACSC/ST) zoning district pursuant to Section 2.04.03, Table 2, of the Collier County Land Development Code. The subject property is located approximately :y. of a mile west of S.R. 29, on the north side of U.S. 41, in Section 25, Township 52 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Heidi Williams) CONTINUED FROM 12/1105 1 B. Petition: PUDZ-A-2004-AR-6417, Ronald Benderson et aI, Trustee, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, of Roetzill & Andress LPA, requesting to rezone 1- 75/Alligator Alley from PUD to Commercial Planned Unit Development CPUD. The proposed PUD amendment requests the following: to reduce the size of the preserve/water management area from 15 acres currently required by the PUD to 11.4 acres; to delete residential uses as a permitted use; to provide a new list of commercial uses comparable to those allowed in the C-1 through C-4 Commercial Districts, with SIC codes; modify the PUD Master Plan to depict the footprints of existing land uses and conceptual footprints for undeveloped tracts; to modify the circulation system; to establish a maximum number of square feet allowed to 265,000; to relocate the existing western entrance 50 feet to the east; and to reduce the 50 foot perimeter setback to 25 feet. The property, consisting of 40.8 acres, is located on the north side of Davis Boulevard in proximity to the intersection of Collier Boulevard and 1-75. The subject property is located in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Mike DeRuntz) CONTINUED FROM 11/17/05 9. OLD BUSINESS - TIME CERTAIN 10:00 AM. - LDC Amendments 2005 Cycle 2 10. NEW BUSINESS - Set hearing date for the EAR based GMP amendments, possibly during the week of February 20-24 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN 12-15-05ICCPC Agenda/RBlsp 2 December 15, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's 8:30. Let's start the meeting. Rise for the pledge of allegiance, please. (Pledge of allegiance recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Madam Secretary, would you please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is not here. Ms. Caron IS. Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is absent. And Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Is here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. We made it. Addenda to the agenda, we have a cancellation in the Petition B -- Item B, Petition BUDZA 2004-AR-6417, the Benderson rezone, 1-75 Alligator Alley from PUD to commercial planned unit development has been again continued. Do we have a date that we have continued it to, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Petitioner's requested it be continued to January 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other addenda to the agenda? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Something, Mark, on new business. The thing you handed out showing all the legislation for the Planning Commission. Can we talk about that in new business? (Commissioner Midney enters meeting.) Page 2 "---.-~."..-.," December 15,2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. We're going to probably have the time so that'll work just fine. The booklet that I had passed out last -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to just discuss that at the meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Nineteenth? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're going to discuss it at today's new business. Brad had something he wanted to talk about on that regard. Hearing no other addenda to the agenda, we'll move on to the Planning Commission absences. The biggest issue we have coming up is next Tuesday. We have the AUIR review. You should have all received your books yesterday. And, by the way, let the record show Mr. Midney's here. Is anybody in this particular meeting today not going to be present next Tuesday? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it starts at nine o'clock, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It starts at nine. It could be a two-day meeting at the rate of what I've seen already. So who knows. It'll start at nine and we'll just go from there. As far as January -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will not be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In January at all? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. I have a doctor's appointment on Tuesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Tuesday. Okay. Mr. Adelstein won't be here during -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On Tuesday I'll be here late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If you don't mind, I'll come in late on Tuesday. Page 3 December 15,2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, if you have to come in on crutches, we'll still take you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll walk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So next Tuesday we have a quorum. As far as the first or second -- first and second meeting in January, does anybody have concerns about that? It'd be the first Thursday and second -- third. I'm sorry. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Approval of minutes from November 3rd, 2005. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, the BCC recaps November 29th. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The board -- motion for denial for the rezone for Brianna Breeze was supported by a vote of 5 to O. The board also -- the Board of Zoning Appeals approved three variances. The Koller variance was approved 5 to O. The Hall variance was Page 4 December 15, 2005 approved 4 to 1. And the Forner variance was approved 3 to 2. And there was also a rezone for the Manchester Square PUD. That was approved 5 to O. And on the summary agenda the board approved the unified development plan or UDP for Benderson. And that was approved on the summary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: UDP for Benderson. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. That's that triangle parcel where the board -- it only goes to the board. It's a -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You did not see that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I was wondering. COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yeah. Cause we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I couldn't figure out why you mentioned it. It sounds like the Benderson we continued today, so that's why I was -- MR. BELLOWS: No. No. This was a separate one. It's a conceptual site plan that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: This particular one required board approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report, a couple of items. First of all, for a while this panel did not have court reporting and we got into the habit of the chairman swearing people in. Ms. Ford very nicely reminded us last month or last -- two times ago that that's something the court reporter does and can do and for the BCC I believe the court reporter does it. That's a tradition I would like to go back to and continue with from here on out. So, Ms. Ford, if you don't mind today and let your colleagues know that as far as I'm concerned, then I'm -- as chairman I'll let that continue from here on out of you guys doing it. So thank you. Ray, do you have any contact with the Municode web site to find out when the tables are going to be on the web site because it is kind of inconvenient to want to know the zoning and what things are Page 5 December 15,2005 allowed in each category but you have no way of doing it on site -- online anymore. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And we are working on it and there seems to be glitch that Catherine is working with municipal code and we'll hopefully get that resolved. We're also in the meantime trying to get you paper copies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, the paper copies aren't critical if we could have the electronic version. MR. BELLOWS: It should be able to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're going to give us paper copies, you're going to have to keep them updated because that's what we're going to have to rely upon so... MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I thought it was just in the meantime until we get the glitch repaired on the computer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, on that same thing, the -- the illustrations on Municode, they're really done like on a -- like a bit map system. It's very difficult to print. It's very difficult to reduce to one page and stuff. So ask if they -- there's something they can do about the illustrations that they would -- like a J pay would automatically adjust to whatever page size you're working with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course that may be by design. If you can't get it printed, you may have to buy the whole book from them so... COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe reasoning to their madness. Ray, last meeting I asked you to look into CD Plus as far as getting summary printout sheets to us as to where staff stands at the time our packages are disbursed on each particular item because we have had issues come before us where the CD Plus results are different than the results being presented to us. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I discussed this with Susan Murray, the zoning director, and there was concern raised that some of the Page 6 December 15, 2005 comments in CD Plus are -- are general comments that are being resolved and sometimes verbally and not always reflected in the latest updates. And if you were just looking at some of the comments in CD Plus without knowing the entire history, that may not be updated or reflected in the comments, that may generate confusion. And so it was our opinion that it would not be wise to pull out those things out of context. The staff report is designed to reflect the latest in staffs' comments in this regard. And that it would be more -- cause more problems if we were to attach comments that may not always be updated or reflected to get to the point where the staff report IS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is CD Plus a public record? MR. BELLOWS: I believe it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So do you want me to submit a request for public information every time I want a copy of it? How would I go about doing it? I understand what you just said, but I understand also that is not the case that comes before us. I know, in fact, that many times the transportation department has not looked at some of the things as thoroughly as they come before us and disagreed with the staff report. But you'll find it in CD Plus. You won't find it in the staff report. I've asked the county attorney at different times if they reviewed things ahead of time. I haven't gotten there -- I've gotten the response they're reviewing them here at the meeting. I'd like to know who has actually sunk their teeth into this thing and looked at it and commented on it ahead of time. I didn't think that was an unreasonable request since it's a public record anyway and since it's readily available from your office. If you want to give me an e-mail address or a web site address where CD Plus can be brought up on my computer, I'll accept that. But I think we have every right to see that additional information. So if you want to gurgitate a little bit, if there's a reason why we are being Page 7 December 15,2005 -- that's a refused issue, I'd like to certainly know it. MR. SCHMITT: Well, can I -- I'd just like to discuss this for a minute because I just -- I understand your concerns, Mr. Chairman, but staff does its work through staff business. The summary -- the __ the report that you get is a consolidation and a final determination made by staff. I somewhat am led to believe now that what you want to do is review CD Plus comments and -- and -- and verify whether or not staff is doing its job. And I question, isn't that well beyond the scope of this board? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, that wasn't anything to do with verification. It was trying to understand better how we got to a certain point. I understand the staff does things and provides a report to us. I see no reason why we can't understand the process to get there. And in doing so, we might be able to find other issues that are of more interest to us that may not have been interesting to staff. There's no reason why full disclosure should be avoided in this hearing at all. So I don't know why it's such a concern. MR. SCHMITT: I have no problem with it. But when you make -- cite an example of transportation, everybody signs off on a project in CD Plus before it goes forward. Now, if you want to kind of peel back the onion and say, Gee, why did transportation approve this in April and then we're before you in October and all of a sudden they're raising issues, I understand that. But to what point does that get you in regards to reviewing what's in front of you? All -- all we're doing is -- is -- is spending time debating what staff and staff did not do and really not what's in the reports. So I'm trying to understand. I could certainly give you the information, but do we want to go down that road every time we're -- we -- we -- we __ we have that issue in front of you in regards to zoning? Because your charter, as you well know, is -- is basically and ultimately to make a recommendation to the board based on is -- is the rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. Those -- a lot of times those comments Page 8 ~._--_..~ December 15, 2005 -- and absolutely. Everything is done. Now, the county attorney normally does not sign off in CD Plus. They -- they -- they sign off normally in the -- in the review process. Because it's -- it's similar to what we have. We have a different process for the Board of County Commissioners and it's called Novis Agenda. And everybody approves that electronically through -- through the Novis Agenda process. I -- I'm just trying to figure out, we certainly can provide that, but I'm just trying to figure out how -- how in depth -- what -- what -- what are you looking for as far as in depth? I understand -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- it doesn't -- I don't think it's a matter of looking for anything. It's a way to understand how the particular proj ects came through the process, if there are any issues in there that I was -- for me as a planning commissioner or anyone of us might have been interested in that we might be able to look back at CD Plus and how it got to a certain point. That will either help us in understanding it better so we don't have to ask so many questions or it might raise more questions. But either way it'll be vetted in the public process and I don't see anything wrong with that. Any option -- MR. SCHMITT: Well, I don't either. Then it tells me we're not giving you something in the staff summary report that you're not getting. Because the staffs -- the staff report is a -- a consolidated staff response. And -- and -- and that's -- that -- that staff report is approved by the staff. It's -- it's -- it's reviewed by the county attorney before it's sent out. And I guess I got -- I'm trying to understand what is it we're not providing you. The CD Plus is going to be a -- a -- nothing more than a list of comments that were made based on the 18 or 20 review areas that were reviewed during the rezoning petition, variance or whatever. And -- and whether it's utilities, transportation, storm water and -- and it's a history. Of course, you're well aware of what -- what you get Page 9 December 15,2005 and it's a history of comments, rejections, corrections. Are you looking for the entire list of -- of historical documentation that outlines the review process? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the summary. Just the last portion of it that comes up after you've gone through your first or second review prior to the final submission of the staff report. Joe, I honestly don't -- I didn't think this was a problem. I thought that anything that we would have requested that would help us understand better would be a benefit to you guys as to how you got there. So I'm a little surprised that there's resistance to it. MR. SCHMITT: It's -- it's not a problem. It's just -- it's not a problem giving you the information. We're certainly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we're already there. MR. SCHMITT: It's a matter of now putting -- adding that -- you want that added to the staff summary as an -- as an addendum to the staff summary? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You give us a package. Just add it to the pages in the package. Or just give -- if you could supply us with an address, a web site address, we can tie into it. That would be fine. I mean, that way if we have additional questions and we want to do additional research, we've got an avenue to look at it. I don't know what would be wrong with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Joe, during the planning process -- review process, aren't the comments available to the applicant? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what Mark just wants is to look in that same window. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, I understand. I-- COMMISSIONER CARON: And that can be done online; correct? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. That can be done online. I can provide Page 10 December 15,2005 you that. I -- and it's not a matter of providing it. I'm just trying to understand during the public review process -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see under your-- MR. SCHMITT: I've somehow now got the feeling that we're not giving -- we're not providing you something that in a -- because the staff report is a consolidated report that basically synthesizes and summarizes the entire staff process. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if Mark's curiosity goes beyond that, let's honor it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See-- MR. BELLOWS: I just wanted as -- for the record, Ray Bellows. I just want to remind you that there -- the CD Plus comments may generate meetings where issues are discussed more thoroughly and resolved it. But those -- information's not updated in CD Plus, so you're not getting the full results of discussions under a first inquiry noted in CD Plus. And that could cause a lot of misdirection in -- in your review time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it might cause a question at a public meeting that could get answers out and the public could understand it better. It might help the rest of this board understand how something evolved as well. I mean, I'm going to get the CD Plus one way or another . You guys can argue against it, but I'm going to ask for it. We have a right under the ordinances that puts this board into place to ask for additional studies. Developmental services is the staff of this planning commission. I'm asking for the report. So why don't we just report. It's real simple. Okay. With that I have no other comments under chairman's report and we'll go into advertised public hearings. The first petition is CU-2003-AR-4647. Michael D. House represented by Donald J. Murray and it's on Jan's Trams, I believe the name of the project is called. Ms. Ford, you want to swear the individuals in. Page 11 December 15, 2005 (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Ex -- ex parte disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in this board have any discussions with anybody concerning this proj ect? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ANDREA: Good morning. I'm Robert Andrea of Coastal Engineering. I'm representing Mitch House of Jan's Trams. We're requesting a conditional use for an ecotourist facility in an agricultural area of critical state concern with a special treatment overlay. This property is located approximately three-quarters of a mile west of State Road 29 along US 41. From the last meeting we had questions of parking. We did increase the parking. We've now gone -- gone to eleven spaces. And the way we got there was this use was not really listed in the LDC so we had to go to the next similar use. And we picked through help of staff a public assembly area not otherwise listed in the tables of the LDC. And with the buses that we are using and the boats we are using, they hold a capacity of 30 people. So we picked the -- the one spot for every three seats which equates to ten spots and we have provided eleven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that your -- are you looking for questions now? MR. ANDREA: Yeah. If that's satisfactory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's as far as you're going with your presentation and if that is, that's fine. I just want to make sure I don't interrupt you. MR. ANDREA: Yeah. No. That was the only issue I had outstanding so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Other questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- go to the conditions. Do Page 12 December 15,2005 you have Exhibit D in front of you? MR. ANDREA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way that Item 5 is worded it appears that could have essentially 120 seats in action at the same time. Can we -- if you want to use the count you just gave and you're claiming that each of these boats are 30 -- either the bus or the boat, 30 is the maximum seats in it, you're only going to be able to operate one at a time. MR. ANDREA: Yes. Actually, that is the intent. The other two vehicles were basically going as backup. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or the other three vehicles in this case because there's -- MR. ANDREA: Right. Right. Each tour will run at one time. There will first be a tour of the -- of the bus of the tram and then those people will be transferred to the boat and they'll be taken on the boat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. ANDREA: So there'll only be 30 people at one time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So could we reword five to make that clear? The way five is written now, you could have 120 people. MR. ANDREA: Yeah. The way it's written there, but that's -- that's not our intent. Our intent is to only run one at a time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So can we put that in there somehow? MR. ANDREA: Sure. Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you ever been to Disneyland? MR. ANDREA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have rides there and put people on these gondolas and things and after one set of people is on, by the time they're at the end, there's more people already on behind them. And I think the problem that I see here is that if you have people getting off one item onto the second, it wouldn't be abnormal to want to go start Page 13 December 15,2005 another group on the first item so that you can keep the rotation going and actually generate more revenue and have more people flow through the facility. Are you planning on doing anything like that? MR. ANDREA: I'm sorry. Repeat that again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you've got a swamp buggy and a pontoon boat and the first level of involvement is the swamp buggy, the people that are on the buggy, 30 of those people get off and they go into the pontoon boat for the second course of the event, while they're on the pontoon boat in a different part of the facility, will then you be bringing people in under the -- and start moving them into the swamp buggy so that they're ready to go onto the pontoon boat when the next -- when the first group gets off of that so you can keep rotating? MR. ANDREA: No. We did not have concessions for that. The -- the bus driver's going to also be the boat driver. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to -- when staff gets up here, we're going to have to ask how they can regulate this. If you're required to have seating for 120 people but you're committing to only use 30 at a time, I'm kind of curious to see how that's going to be regulated. Ms. Caron -- or, Mr. Murray, you were first. Did you have a question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I -- it was the same question, Mr. Chairman. I'm -- I'm befuddled. You have two -- two backups for -- for -- for and acknowledged 30 people and it just seems odd. From a business point of view, it seems that you'd want to take as many people as you could. So I would imagine that in the future, although your plans today may not be within your package there to do this, what the chairman has indicated is what went through my mind too. If -- if you had that many people coming and they wanted to benefit from the amenity, it would not be logical for you to Page 14 December 15,2005 accommodate that. And I just think if that's the case, then we ought to be out front about it and have that clear. Otherwise, it seems it might be recommended that we constrain you to doing that and, therefore, limit your business plan. So I strongly recommend you review that thought before you proceed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I think -- excuse me. I think the board misses the entire point here even getting into a discussion of their parking. Clearly this proposal does not meet the requirements of the growth management plan. And we should stick to that discussion and we should not be recommending to the BCC to go against their growth management plan. This applicant cannot provide the conservation easement which is required and we should get back on point and discuss the growth management plan issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ms. Caron. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are you saying that if I want to come with my wife and my children to this place I can't drive in? I mean, I have to get on the bus to get in? Can I drive my car in and park it at the site? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The buses are part of the tour. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that. MR. ANDREA: Yeah, you can -- MR. HOUSE: Mitch House here. Just to -- just to clarify things. We have other businesses which are tourist based out there such as air boats. We have a portion of our people who also want to get out and do something that's a little slower, go out through the grassland stop. Look around. Not just doing air boat tours. This is not a stand-alone business. We're not trying to push this solely to make it stand on its own two feet. This is an addition to another business which is there. And we have a few people who want to do this. We're not out trying to make it a stand-alone business to Page 15 December 15, 2005 just draw people to this. This is an addition to the air boat tours so the people want to do a little longer tour, come in. Do the air boat tour. They want to go a little slower. Actually get to slow down and look at things a little finer and go into a tour. There's not going to be a lot. There's not a high demand. It's something that's just -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's not the question. You're not answering the question I asked. MR. HOUSE: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Can I drive my car with my family and bring it inside -- MR. HOUSE: You could. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- to your area? MR. HOUSE: You could. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I can't -- I mean, I will be able to do that? MR. HOUSE: Yes, sir. But the boat's only going to leave about three times a day. And we're not trying to push an every-hour-on-the-hour thing. We're not into that. The people do not exist there. So if you was to drive in, you may have to wait an hour, hour and a half. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. What I'm trying to say is, if people are able to do that, will there be enough parking spaces for me to put my car? MR. HOUSE: Should be. MR. ANDREA: Yes, there will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff, I'm sure, will comment on that issue when they get their turn to speak. The other thing, Mr. -- oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, I'm sorry. Last week there was discussion about that people could park on the grass in case there was overflow parking needed. I didn't hear you mention that today. What do you have to say with -- with regard to that that we were Page 16 December 15,2005 talking about last time? MR. ANDREA: Well, what we did is -- is we added a couple spaces along the right side of the -- the bank there. And if need be we do have some extra area for three or four more spaces north of the spaces I put on the right side of the property. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So there's not going to be just parking on the -- the grassy area of the berm like we were talking about last meeting? MR. ANDREA: Well, it's actually -- it's -- it's the lime rock based road that is there. It's the grassy area. We can park the extras along that bank as far as we can without impeding into the road. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So we were talking last week that there might be room for as many as 500 cars. And, obviously, probably you're not expecting that many people, but you're saying that there's not really a problem with parking. That in case those 11 places are used, that people can park on the lime rock -- lime rock road without getting in any body's way? MR. ANDREA: Yeah. Based on Mitch's estimation of clientele coming into there, I don't thing that that's going to be needed. It's-- it's not going to be a high-volume business. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. And a follow up to Ms. Caron's question, you still -- is there any possibility that a conservation easement could expire with the lease, you know, instead of it? Because I understand the landowner does not want a permanent conservation easement on this land in case this business ends and then they'll sort of be stuck with this easement even though that -- that business is finished. Is there any possibility of a conservation easement that is dependent on the lease? MR. ANDREA: That's what our wish is. As far as the legalities of it, I'd have to defer to the client's attorney. MR. BASS: Yeah. Hi. Ray Bass again here. I'm the lawyer representing Mr. House. The answer to the question is that's what we Page 1 7 December 15, 2005 always offered and that's -- that's absolutely what we will be getting to comply with what we think is an appropriate compliance with the growth management -- Growth Management Act and that is a permanent conservation easement within the easement -- within the lease -- permanent conservation easement within the lease. That's correct. Which would obviously expire with the lease. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. For the engineer, is there the ability -- these cars that are parked parallel, how will they turnaround to get out? MR. ANDREA: We believe with the -- with the 24-foot road and the extra space, there's adequate room to -- to turnaround there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If they drive on, what would happen to them if they head down the Carnestown Road, is there a turnaround down there by the station or -- MR. ANDREA: No. The point is to not to let -- not to let private vehicles down that -- that -- the area that you see here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the situation falls if there's -- a 12th car shows up, it's starting to park along side the lime rock road, you're saying you can get a couple more cars on there. We had testimony last time that we could get, like Paul said, 500 cars down that road. If people line that road, how will they back out? MR. ANDREA: That would -- that was -- there is a 60-foot-- 60-foot-road easement along that area, but there is not 60 feet of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the top bank -- the top of the bank is nowhere near 60 feet. MR. ANDREA: Correct. So we will not have the space to -- to get them up there when we don't want them up on the north side. Basically any -- any extra cars will have to come back to the site. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or accidentally stop up on Tamiami Trail. Is there a place where they could start stacking out Page 18 - .. ~'.""'--'~._-- December 15,2005 there by mistake or -- MR. ANDREA: There's really not going to be any extra space to stack them up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a minute ago somebody testified that this is in addition to additional businesses. Are these businesses there now? MR. ANDREA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What -- what's there now? MR. ANDREA: Mr. -- Mr. House has an air boat tour in the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's across the street, isn't it? MR. ANDREA: I believe it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's on the south side of US 41 across the street. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not on this site? MR. ANDREA: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here the lease on this property only has 18 months left on it. You're going through this effort for 18 months? MR. BASS: The answer to that question, Mr. Strain, is no. Mr. House has had this property under lease for a number of years. They -- they have a long-term working relationship and business relationship with Collier Enterprises. And whenever they've asked to have the lease renewed, they have renewed it. I know what the -- I think probably I can tell you, I think I inadvertently represented to you last -- last meeting that there was a five-year renewal on this. That was my mistake. But, yeah, the literal terms of the lease do expire since there's no extension for renewal on the lease. But, Mr. House, how long have you had this under lease, fifteen years under lease, same kind of lease. In anticipation of this question coming up because the county -- the assistant county -- assistant county attorney and I had a discussion Page 19 December 15,2005 about this earlier this week, you know, we have contacted Collier Enterprises to ask them if they would, just to satisfy the concerns of the commission, to give us language and an addendum that would give us a five-year renewal on it and all that. But the short answer -- that's the long answer. The short answer to your question is yes, because Mr. House has no doubt about his -- his personal and business relations with the landlord that they will give him another lease. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But as far as today goes, your lease expires in 18 -- about 18 months? MR. BASS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your lease also requires you to be basically subordinate to the rules, laws, regulations and permitting issues involving Collier County and local, state and federal agencies. I'm wondering how that condition fits with what you're trying to do here today in regards to the inconsistency with the GMP. MR. BASS : Well, the lease doesn't need -- does not need to require that. That would be the case in any event, any -- any lessee of that property would take it subject to all of the things that you just mentioned regardless of the language of the lease. And you're asking, how does it square with the -- with the question about the permanent conservation easement, we have been talking with the assistant county attorney about that for -- on and off for three years. This is not a new issue. They have one view. We have another. Ultimately we think it's going to have to be decided on by the Board of County Commissioners. And so we're asking that if we otherwise meet with your approval to pass along with that as a condition that -- that -- this is a legal issue and has to be resolved by them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then maybe the county attorney can enlighten us on her thoughts on this matter. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. For the record, Margie Page 20 December 15,2005 Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. The comprehensive plan does require a permanent conservation easement. And as you stated, the lease would be true, whether it stated it or not, that they have to comply with the rules and regulations of the local government. We did in our office do some research and there are no cases really on this point, but we did find out some information just resorting to a black letter law in Florida Jurisprudence and Am. Jur. And Mr. Bass is correct that I believe that if the lease gave them the authority, you know, to grant an easement, they could grant one. They use the term "right-of-way" in the legal encyclopedia for the term of the lease. But our comp plan requires permanent. And it's our position that permanent means permanent and that would go beyond, you know, the term of any lease and be permanent. So that is our position that it would be inconsistent with the comp plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as far as making it consistent with the comp plan, the method to do that is amendment to the comp plan? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: A method would be to amend the comp plan or also for lessee to seek permission from the lessor to grant the permanent easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Before we go on to county staff report, is there any other comments from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Thank you. Heidi, could we have your input on this, please. Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: Good morning. For the record, Heidi Williams, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development Review. The staff report was pretty thorough in our last meeting so I'll just touch upon the three remaining issues and they've mostly been discussed already today. I think your concerns in our last meeting were in reference to the Page 21 December 15,2005 parking issue already discussed. Mr. Andrea and I did talk about the criteria for parking in this location. The nearest thing that we could come up with was one parking space per three seats. Then it would be up to some type of criteria in our conditions of approval to ensure that what is shown on our conceptual site plan meets with the need on -- with that tour. We are certainly willing to draft some type of condition that would limit the four vehicles to being used one at a time with no overlap. And it sounded like the applicant would be amenable to that. The second condition was the county easement that goes to the Carnestown Transfer Station. It's my understanding that the county attorney has looked into that issue and can possibly comment on that. And the final one is the major issue of the permanent conservation easement. Staff maintains that it does need to be an easement in perpetuity and not with the lease. But certainly I defer to the county attorney on that as well. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And we've already expressed our opinion on that point. As to the easement document, there was a nonexclusive easement granted to the county for ingress and egress to the Carnestown transfer facility. "Nonexclusive" means that other people can use it so long as it doesn't interfere with the right of the easement holder to gain the access. And we have, you know, no information that would indicate that that would interfere. I know Ms. Williams was going to attempt to contact solid waste staff on the point to see how often that was used. I don't know if we were able to obtain that information, but -- MS. WILLIAMS: I did not obtain any information from that staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there any questions of staff? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If I could get back again, what do you think was the original intent of requiring a permanent easement? Page 22 December 15, 2005 I know in this case -- I guess the way I'm looking at it, what we're trying to do is protect the environment in this situation. But to me this project seems like a net plus to the environment because you're getting people to learn more about the Everglades. It has educational value, employment, getting rid of exotics. The EAC, which is our environmental advisory group, voted unanimously 8 to 0 in favor of this project. And to me this thing about the permanent or not permanent easement, I don't see the point of it. I think that this proj ect seems to have more value to the environment than it does not value. So what was the intent originally of saying that this had to be in perpetuity, because I can see how this could derail other similar ecotourism projects that might be beneficial. MS. WILLIAMS: Well, I certainly don't disagree that this project has merit as far as environmental education tour. I don't know the history of the growth management plan where it concerns the area of critical state concern. But as a staff member, I am required to apply the provisions that are adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. And that is a very clear provision in staffs' eyes and we have to uphold that. And our recommendation does remain that it needs to be a permanent conservation as stated in the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Right. I can see that, you know, you're trying to follow the letter of the law. But our role as an advisory group is to try to decide what is best for the county. I mean, not just to follow the letter of the law, but to actually decide what is the best decision. And I think we just can't be just stuck because the law says this because it's within our power to grant an exception if we think that that's in the long range for the -- for the good of the county. MS. WILLIAMS: I believe that would be a growth management plan amendment to provide some type of interpretation to that provision. The Board of County Commissioners does have the power Page 23 December 15,2005 to interpret it that way. And subsequent -- you know, prior to this hearing, we've had the condition that should the board find that a permanent conservation easement is not required or should the -- the applicant be able to provide one, then we do have conditions that -- of approval. I believe we're up to 22 conditions placed by the Land Development Code, the EAC and I anticipate additional stipulations should this panel find. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So this panel and the Board of County Commissioners could override that part of the LDC in this one case? MS. WILLIAMS: The Board of County Commissioners can interpret the growth management plan. Staffs' interpretation is that a permanent easement is required. It is possible that the board could find otherwise. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: If I might, first of all, Florida law requires that all development orders are -- must be, shall be consistent with the comp plan. That is mandatory. Your Land Development Code also has a similar requirement that any development orders be consistent with the comprehensive plan as well as the Land Development Code. When you get into statutory construction, which this is, this comp plan is an ordinance of the county. The intent is the primary guiding principle to control the construction. And the intent lies with the board and also the staff that provided input to the board when the comprehensive plan was passed. It's my understanding -- and I don't -- environmental staff in not here, but it's my understanding in discussing this issue with them and conservation easements generally, that permanent meant permanent to ensure that it's protected for good, forever, in perpetuity. That's my understanding from environmental staff. Certainly the board is entitled to examine the provisions and determine what their intent is. Page 24 December 15,2005 Another option which doesn't necessarily help us here is that in the future the plan may need to be adjusted, you know, to allow for a situation like this. And so it would -- it would be up to the board to determine the intent. Because under the law that is the primary and cardinal rule of statutory construction. If you cannot determine the intent, then there are other principles of statutory construction that one can resort to. But that, again, is -- intent's the primary. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. And so right now I've asked for the intent and, you know, it's sort of like a question mark, but the reasonable -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I stated what I was told by the environmental staff. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But it could -- someone could come to the interpretation that this could be allowed if it was interpreted in that way? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I would have to defer to environmental staff and also the board when they pass this what they meant by permanent. Because they are the ones that understand what the intent was. I'm stating my understanding based on talking to environmental staff. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. MS. WILLIAMS: And if I may also add briefly. My understanding is that our regulation for the area of critical state concern very closely mirrors what this state has required for that area. It is a cooperative effort and not strictly created for this district by county staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad and then Mr. Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Margie, I guess. Is this an allowable use within a conservation easement? I mean -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: This is an allowable -- a conditional use in this area. But in a conservation easement, that's set aside strictly for conservation purposes. Page 25 December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: And usually in favor of the county, but with no responsibility for maintenance. And it's an area set aside that people don't just tramp through or -- so you couldn't go through it or do anything. It would just be set aside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- the easement isn't overlaying the property. The easement would be a separate -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. It's only a small part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's not the whole property. MR. SCHMITT: The easement basically prohibits the planting of nonnative vegetation and other activities. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: And be cleared of exotics -- exotics and maintained that way without exotics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Can I just explain. About two years ago we put the requirement in the -- both the comp plan and -- and the implementing guides in the LDC for a permanent easement. What had happened in the past in developments, the requirement for preservation preserves, that what -- what's happened was they would, I guess, use the word they would "morph" into something other than a preserve. They would -- it would soon become somebody's backyard and then would roses and other types of things planted back there. So in the platting and plan review process the requirement for the easement specified the area that was -- it delineated the area that was in preservation and then specified certain parameters. Like a management plan, the homeowners association or whomever would be responsible for that. That's really the basis of the conservation easement. You're -- you're in an area out here now that is not a development, but the law still says there has to be a conservation easement. Now, where you go with that is certainly your -- I leave that up to Page 26 December 15,2005 you. But I just want to explain what -- what -- what mandated that was the requirement to ensure that when preserves were placed in developments, they didn't become something other than preserves. And there's probably one of the most famous is what we went through about two years ago in this thing called Euros's (phonetic) at Glen Eagle. Is it Glen Eagle? No, not Glen Eagle. It was -- well, regardless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twin Eagles. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Twin Eagles. That's right. MR. SCHMITT: No. No. That was the one over on Davis. The upland -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Was it Briar Wood? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That is Glen Eagle. MR. SCHMITT: Glen Eagle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's right. I know which-- yeah. MR. SCHMITT: So that was part where we -- we -- we had things in preserves and the preserves eventually morphed into part of the golf course. And -- and so we now said let's -- let's make sure that when a preserve is a preserve it is -- it is so dedicated on the plat and that's what created the overlay requirement for the conservation -- conservation easement. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think that's a key distinction that you brought up, development, and this is clearly not a development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, I think you were next in your comment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. My question has to do with the words "permanent" and the phrase "in perpetuity." And you've spoken to a permanent easement and -- and I can understand the word "a permanent buffer," if you will, or permanent whatever. The word eludes me at the moment. But in any event, are they interchangeable? Is it -- is permanent the same as in perpetuity? And Page 27 December 15,2005 I think that may be a serious question there. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The term is used in the comprehensive plan as permanent. And the ordinary meaning of "permanent" is permanent. It's -- goes on -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What is is. Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You use the ordinary definition. MR. SCHMITT: But, Marjorie, a permanent easement, that easement always can be vacated for other reasons. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's why I'm raising the question. MR. SCHMITT: If, in fact, the permanent -- the conservation easement exists and for some other reason now you wanted to come in and put a road through over the -- over this easement, you have to go through the legal mechanics of removing that easement or doing some other type of -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. And if you had a development and you wanted -- and someone wanted to redevelop it and they would change buffering and they would change preserves and so forth again -- MR. SCHMITT: Provided you're within the parameters -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- of the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whereas in perpetuity, does it not bind you to have that fixed? Is there not -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would say that in perpetuity, yeah, it could mean forever or for as long as the regulation is in existence. I don't know that anything truly is in perpetuity -- you know, in perpetuity. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that, but in terms of the word versus the phrase. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: But, again, we have to be guided by the intent here. And that's what was represented to me by the -- Page 28 December 15, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm trying to understand. Is the intent in your mind the same as in perpetuity? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's -- it's for the protection of -- of the -- of the area, yes, I think in perpetuity. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I just need -- and I understand it's a stretch in that because of many factors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, did you have a follow-up question you had started on a minute ago? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm all good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Just on this and then I have another question. Isn't there other regulations protecting this area? I mean, is it -- MS. WILLIAMS: There will be multiple reviews at the time of the site development plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does that mean it's in an area that obviously you're not going to go out and be able to -- you know, isn't it covered by some sort of conservation protection otherwise? MS. WILLIAMS: The district it's in, the future land use district it's in is a conservation area. It is very restricted on what uses can go there. This is one of only a few that can be done in this area. And it does have to follow this review process. I believe there are state agencies that will become involved. Perhaps you can speak for that one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I'm saying, you know, this -- the easement we want which is really designed for something else, this land is going to be protected otherwise. MS. WILLIAMS: I don't know that this was designed necessarily only to prevent development from impacting this. As part of the area of critical state concern, very little development is permitted in here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Page 29 December 15,2005 MS. WILLIAMS: Only 10 percent of your land may be impacted and then the state just asks for a portion of what's not impacted to be a permanent conservation easement. So I'm not sure that the intent here -- I don't think we can necessarily determine the exact intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. And because it is ecotourism it would be against them if they went around and kind of changed the -- you know, what it looked like anyway. Let's go to No.5, the vehicle thing. I'm uncomfortable with the way that's worded. It's -- you know, why we have to discuss two buses, two pontoon boats. Their backup and all that really has nothing to do with -- with how they operate or how we give them regulations. So could we change that to -- and its vehicular use shall be limited to -- cross off the "to." So it would be limited to buses. Cross off everything down to "and" get rid of the two pontoon boats. So it's, the vehicle use shall be limited to buses and pontoon boats -- pontoon boats in parentheses, equipped with four-stroke outboard engines with no more than 30 seats in simultaneous operation. Because the way that's worded, that's dangerously looking like approval for 120 seats on the site. I mean, so, essentially, remember code enforcement will be the one dealing with this. They have to have something that they can go out there and they can count 60 seats in operation is a problem. One boat in operation. They -- everybody hops off the boat. Jumps on a bus. That's no big deal. MS. WILLIAMS: I do agree that that limits and addresses overuse of the site. The reason that stipulation was written the way it was is because the Land Development Code requests that the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of what the appropriate number of vehicles and seats are. So it really was transposed and filled in with the applicant's request. I -- I feel that this does meet the request of the Land Development Code for a specified number of seats and vehicles. Page 30 December 15, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And that's the intent is they only have parking for 30 seats. I think it's not appropriate to provide parking for the building because that's -- the building is an accessory use for the tour operation. MS. WILLIAMS: That's acceptable to staff. I would request that the applicant confirm that that is also an acceptable change. MR. ANDREA: Again, Robert Andrea, Coastal Engineering. That is acceptable to us. That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Scott, I want to make sure you weren't going to get involved in anything so if your cell phone just rang, that was why. MR. SCOTT: Good morning. Don Scott, Transportation Planner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have reviewed this, I would assume, at transportation? MR. SCOTT: It's funny because when it first came up I looked at it and I said, I don't remember this at all and it goes back to 2003. So it was reviewed and signed off. I think it was nine -- September of 2003. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you familiar with that area of US 41? MR. SCOTT: Yup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what the speed limit is out there? MR. SCOTT: I believe it's 55. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I travel it constantly to take my boat to and back Everglades City. My hardest point about driving a boat and a big truck is to get behind a tourist who decides all of a sudden to hit their brakes and move into one of these places and they do it all the time. I notice there's no decel or accellanes shown on this diagram. Is that something you would recommend? Page 31 December 15, 2005 MR. SCOTT: Well, there's a couple of things. First of all, we would review that as part of the site plan side of it, but also we're doing the PD&E study for the widening of 41. You know, depending on how long they're not -- it's gone on for a couple of years. Obviously, if it's a need, yes, we would ask for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on what we've seen here and you've heard here today, is it -- do you feel it would be a safer situation to have deceleration and acceleration lanes out at this particular site? MR. SCOTT: Not acceleration lanes but decel-- essentially a left-turn lane in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Left turn. How about a right-turn lane in? MR. SCOTT: And a right-turn lane in, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: Well, we don't -- and FDOT I don't think permits for the most part acceleration lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. FDOT at one point I found in some writings in consideration of a caution light was thought of or recommended, do you have any comments on that? MR. SCOTT: I don't -- it's funny. I don't believe that they would use that for this type of -- for this type of use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't believe DOT would use it? MR. SCOTT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the neighborhood informational meeting it says here three people attended. Issues discussed at the meeting included a potential that the Florida Department of Transportation would require a traffic caution light at the project entrance. You don't recall anything about that? MR. SCOTT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: I mean, if you think about it up and down, you Page 32 December 15,2005 wouldn't want them everywhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just wanted to make sure that if it was something that you needed it was there. I don't -- does anybody else have any more questions of Mr. Scott? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don, there's 34 feet of pavement. How is that lined out? What is happening? That's a two-lane? Is it two on one side and one on one side? MR. SCOTT: Are you talking about on their site or-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. At least their plan shows 34 feet of pavement. What is going on with -- MR. SCOTT: They're saying it's 24 feet of pavement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thirty-four feet plus or minus existing pavement I see. Down at the -- I'm sorry. I'm out on 41, not on -- MR. SCOTT: Oh, there's -- there's -- I believe there's paved shoulders on the side so it's -- there's 12- foot lanes and paved shoulders on each side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And, Mark, the way the sign's positioned, it appears all the business is going to be coming from Naples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is another interesting argument in regards to a left-turn lane in because otherwise you'd be backing the traffic up. But if the resident -- if the tourists come from Miami, which a lot of them do, and they want to pull in here, they're going to hit their brakes just at the last second to get into this place unless there's a decellane. And I've been behind too many of them that have done that. Of course they drive way too slow on US 41 looking at stuff in the swamps so... COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a scenic highway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything else ofMr. Scott? Page 33 December 15,2005 Thank you, Don. I hope Tuesday you're prepared for a long and detailed discussion. MR. SCOTT: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Okay. Are there any other questions of staff? Of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Are there any public speakers? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just one thing. I'm sorry. Can we vote this in to replace the exhibit that's in the packet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Thank you for bringing that up. We have an exhibit regarding a new site plan for this. Is there a motion to vote it into evidence? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray. Seconded by Mr. Schiffer? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this will become the new Exhibit C replacing the old Exhibit C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, with that, Ray, there are no public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Page 34 December 15, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then we'll close the public hearing. Is there -- we'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I'd make a -- make a motion that we accept the proposal with the additions -- with the changes to Exhibit D, No.5 that Brad Schiffer entered and just because it's the right thing to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to the-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. I would second it subject to EAC recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's been a motion made by Commissioner Tuff. A second by Mr. Murray (sic). We're open to discussion. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: One amendment anyhow. That subject to the staff recommendations and the recommendations of the County Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, staff recommendations, the Planning Commission, Mr. Midney suggested the EAC. There are some others left over from our last meeting. One is that no visible vending machines will be seen from US 41. And the other one is the discussion here that there be left and right turn lanes into this facility. I would strongly suggest that being an added stipulation. I'm suggesting those as added stipulations in the case this passes. I would -- I am not in favor of it, the conditions as Ms. Caron has stated. I think those could have been -- those could have been cleared up prior to coming before these boards. And if they couldn't have been, they didn't need to be honored by today's meeting. So are there any other -- any other elements of discussion? MS. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Strain, if I could interrupt briefly. Mr. Andrea would like to comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- whoa. Whoa. Whoa. We're in discussion on the motion in the meeting. You had an opportunity to discuss and present your case. I don't know if it's appropriate to have Page 35 __""'~0",·_.,"_._".···.0'''''·~·'' -- December 15, 2005 this kind of discussion during a motion at this time. So I'm not going to let that happen. You had all the opportunity you needed to discuss it. We're going to go on with our motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, just in defense. Are you going to be discussing the turn lanes? Mr. Andrea, the turn lanes? I don't know if we discussed it whether it was obvious to him that this was going to be a condition of the approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You can reopen the public hearing and let him address it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I need to withdraw the motion from the motion-maker and the second. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- those okays mean you withdraw your motion, you withdraw the second. We're going to reopen the public hearing. Go ahead, sir. Let's try to be complete this time. Okay? MR. ANDREA: Thank you. Again, Robert Andrea, Coastal Engineering. I just have a concern with the turn-lane stipulation. I don't know if DOT would even entertain that idea, if there's even room for us to do that. We'll certainly be glad to -- to confer with them, but I don't know how I can agree to that at this particular point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ANDREA: It depends on what DOT tells us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Scott, maybe you can suggest here a comment, please. MR. SCOTT: I would say as anything we do is subject to FDOT permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what we could stipulate subject to the permitting? MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the permitting if reasonably Page 36 December 15,2005 obtained, I mean, I don't want someone to submit a plan that's not even reasonable to be accepted only to get rejected and then say, Well, we tried and we didn't get it. MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So. Okay. Understand. Any further questions or comments before we re-close the public hearing? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing for the second time and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I'll make that same motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff made the same motion, but are you going to make it with the added stipulations that were reiterated including the left and right turn lanes subject to DOT permitting? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Correct, yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the second. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm -- I'm not comfortable with the left and right-turn lanes as part of the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there another second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein seconded this particular motion. Motion was made by Mr. Tuff. Further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion signify by raising your hand. Oh, I'm not in favor. I'm showing you guys what to do. (Indicating. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three -- three in favor. All those opposed to the motion. (Indicating. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion fails 4 to 3. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we have discussion now or Page 37 December 15,2005 do we have to wait for a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the motion -- that motion failed. I mean, if you -- if there's another motion to be entertained right at this time at this point we need to make a recommendation of denial or approval. Approval failed with the stipulations that were stated. Is there another, either a motion to approve or a motion to deny? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question, in the -- in the absence of an approval, doesn't that constitute silent disapproval? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we had that before. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: We've always looked for another motion because it's tacit and it's not -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- you know, it's clear. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. Thank you. I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll make the motion to-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That it is -- that it is for disapproval. That it does not comply with the growth management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation for disapproval made by Commissioner Murray. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to discuss it. The concern is over this -- the conservation easement. True? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's -- here's a regulation that we -- we imposed on ourselves to protect development in urban areas essentially where people are abusing land that was set aside for conservation. This guy's out in the middle of essentially the ecosystem. Why would that regulation even make sense out here? I Page 38 December 15,2005 mean, why -- just, I mean, he's gonna conserve it. He's selling the conservation of it. He's making the citizens aware of the environment out there. I mean, what's the problem that he could cause? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'd just like to say that I think it's -- it's not our decision to make. Perhaps the BCC can make that decision and that may be their right to make that decision, but I don't believe it is this board's right to tell them that we recommend that they go against their growth management plan. If after hearing all the evidence they determine that they'd like to go against their growth management plan, then so be it. They'll have to, you know, deal with any consequences down the line for other proj ects if they decide to do that. I just think that we need to be recommending -- and if you want to recommend that -- and we've had other projects come about the same way. If you want to recommend that you think it's a good project, but that they need to figure out either by going for a growth management plan amendment or having the BCC say, you know, we're just going to throw out the growth management plan for this particular item, then -- then that's fine. But -- but I don't think we can recommend that they go against the growth management plan. I don't think that's our job. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if I could make a comment after Mr. Schiffer responds. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna, the -- but do you think the intent of that growth management plan clause applies to this situation? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I do. I think the intent is pretty clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: "Permanent" to me means Page 39 December 15,2005 permanent. "Shall have" means shall have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a quick second really aside, was this application filed prior to that amendment? I mean, Joe said a couple years ago. Don said -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Three years ago. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Three years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That condition of the growth management plan was in prior to filing of this application, wasn't it? MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I just wanted to make it clear. I -- I think it's a good project. I think the idea needs -- needs to be vetted perhaps a bit more. And I hope that they can go for a management plan change or get the owner to agree to a requirement. But as I read it, we are guardians of the growth management plan. And we have an obligation unless something is proven to us through testimony or other things that we determine, unless it's proved to us that there is a question that that can permit us to approve it, I think we are obliged in spite of the fact that I think it's a good project, to decline to approve it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Brad, and I understand your point and it's well made. And as far as the project itself goes, if it didn't have this issue with the growth management plan, I wouldn't have a concern for it as long as the turn lanes got placed on US 41 because that is a big issue with me. And I'm sure staff probably would have had a positive recommendation instead of a negative recommendation had this not had this growth management plan implication. However, your comments that this doesn't apply out here because this land virtually is undevelopable more or less in its state and it's a part of a general wide county conservation area to begin with are well made, and if it was and if that's true, then why is there the reluctance to provide this easement? It's just another document over land that Page 40 December 15,2005 already can't be developed in the first place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think the reluctance is that this is a leased piece of property. The landowners don't want to lock themselves in. Remember our discussions of in perpetuity here. In perpetuity over something that this guy's just going to run air boats on. Essentially he's selling conservation. I mean, the whole site is conservation. He wants to show the whole county what conservation looks like. So, I mean, it doesn't even seem that we're in any danger. I mean, what can he violate? What's he going to do? How can he possibly abuse what the intent of the conservation easement is. But we can move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just one final thing. I think that the permanent conservation easement it says in the staff report is to mitigate for impacts to land in this area. And that seems to me like the intent. And to me the impacts to land in this area are -- are not going to be any negative impact. So that's why I'm going to vote against requiring it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A motion's been made, discussed. The motion is to recommend denial. All those in favor please signify by raising your hand. (Indicating. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to be deadlocked again. We've got three recommendations and four in favor. So does that mean -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. The denial-- the motion for denial is 4 to 3. So the motion for denial is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Mr. Adelstein didn't raise your hand, did you? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I seconded it. I second all motions. That's not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. He didn't raise his hand. So there's Page 41 December 15,2005 only three of us this time and the rest of us -- the rest of them are against the motion of denial. So we've failed twice. Now -- I might make a suggestion here. In another case what we did is we liked the proj ect and realized it had merit. We went through and made stipulations on it like we have here today. We recommended -- we recommended approval subject to the BCC's finding of a consistency or inconsistency with the GMP and let that decision very clearly go forward to them to be made and we didn't dive into it. I might suggest a motion-maker make that today. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That motion's been made by Mr. Adelstein and it's been seconded by Mr. Tuff. And so we're understanding the motion is that we recommend approval of the project with the stipulations brought forth here as discussed earlier, but we are not addressing the growth management plan inconsistency as that is a policy decision by the Board of County Commissioners and we are not taking a position on that; is that correct? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any legal problem with that, Ms. Attorney? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Only in filling out our conditional use. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I see that as a rather slippery slope for us to decide on projects we like versus projects we don't like. Maybe people we like and people we don't like. And I -- I will vote against it because I have a real problem with the overall philosophy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Donna -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Call the question. Page 42 December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm concerned. I would agree if that was the first motion made, but in as much as we've attempted to do our job properly, I think this is a decent way of approaching it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The question's been called. Let's take the vote. All those in favor now of this new motion, please signify by raising your hand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, one, two, three, four, five, six to one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, how do we fill out the conditional use permit petition under this case? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With a lot of luck. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do we fill it out or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's inconsistent with the GMP. I think you have to say that it's inconsistent with the GMP. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I feel it is consistent, because I feel what the intent -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you can state it that way, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's your prerogative. That's why these are passed out to each one of us so... MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You can put some qualifying language in it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just going to check that. Page 43 December 15, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we will end this discussion today. Thank you, Heidi, for all your patience. The last item on this -- today's agenda -- well, we're going to go. The next item is the time certain ten o'clock LDC amendments. They're 20 minutes from now. We have two other discussions. I don't see Randy in the audience to discuss the item he put on here. Brad, you wanted to move your new business into discussion. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm here to discuss the meeting. What I need -- I got two things I want to ask. Well, I want to add. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's go --let everybody know for sure what we're doing. MR. SCHMITT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to Item 10 on the agenda. Set hearing dates for the ERA-based GMP amendments possibly the 6th or 8th of March. MR. SCHMITT: And the 6th is a Monday and 8th is Wednesday so... COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The 6th or the 8th? MR. SCHMITT: Or both days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What would we do without these little things to tell us what we do every day? MR. SCHMITT: We're looking at -- and, frankly, what's happened here is the availability of this room has become -- this is probably the most demanded -- demanded piece of real estate now in the county trying to schedule this room. And I prefer certainly to have the meetings here so they can be properly televised. But we have -- we have just been having a difficult time trying to get dates and get this scheduled, but I'm in a crunch in regards to certainly meeting state requirements for the year-based amendments. So we're really fixed right now on the 6th or the 8th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the -- my -- as far as my agenda goes, the 6th I have a meeting I can change. The 8th I have open, so... Page 44 __,_..~..,__~.....-w_....."..__.,,__,,· ..'''_0'' .,~_ December 15, 2005 (Multiple speakers.) MR. SCHMITT: No, this is March. (Multiple speakers.) THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All the -- all the Fridays appear to be open. What's wrong with meeting on a Friday? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any objection to it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sixth or the eighth is fine for me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could that -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, we've got to talk on the speaker, gentlemen, and one at a time so the court reporter can-- MR. SCHMITT: You got for what the year on the 20th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. No, for the year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The AUIR. MR. SCHMITT: AUIR, no. We're on the year-based amendments, comp plan amendments. We're at a different issue. This is for the year-based GMP amendments. I wanted to fix a date now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I don't have a problem with either date. The 8th would be best for me. Mr. Murray has no-- either date would work for him. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Either day is fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either day for him. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: As far as I know either day would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What are the two dates that we're Page 45 December 15,2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Monday the 6th of March or Wednesday the 8th of March. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In the evening? MR. SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These would be -- I'm assuming these would be in the morning; right? MR. SCHMITT: This would be in the morning I would -- given the volume of -- I'm sure you're going to be dealing with it would be -- it's going to be an all-day meeting, if not more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I agree. It'll be a long meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern really is preparation for it. If we meet -- since a couple days after we meet on other issues, are we -- is this something we're going to get, like, the last week before the meeting or is this something we'll get quite a few weeks before the meeting? MR. SCHMITT: You'll get it before because I -- I'm working now with the EAC and actually reviewing some of these documents. Probably the two most significant issues you're going to be dealing with are -- are some initiatives dealing with environmental reviews and changes in criteria. And -- and, of course, the whole density issue and density bonus issue that was discussed as part of the year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't like either one, but I'll try to fit it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, what's your-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll -- I'll -- whatever you guys come with. It just looks like these Fridays are all -- what's wrong with the 10th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the staffs asked us for the 6th or 8th. If we can make it and be -- and be here on one of those days. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'm fine. Page 46 ._____"..__""_._.....m"............_.w... .__ December 15, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just try to stick with that for now instead of reinventing the wheel on this, if we could. MR. SCHMITT: Brad, I think it was availability of the room and I do not have any indication that it's available -- open on Friday. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's fine. Whatever everybody wants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 6th or 8th works for everybody? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. The 8th does not. The 6th is perfect. The 8th is not. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sixth is preferable for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's the 6th, then. If that works for staff, we'd like to take it on the 6th. MR. SCHMITT: All right. I'm going to hold the 8th as a carry-over date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you'll probably need to do that. Did you do one for the AUIR too? MR. SCHMITT: Not really. I thought -- I thought eight hours would be enough, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know. Okay. So on-- we'll have it on the 6th of March in this room at nine o'clock in the morning. Is that when we're -- or 8:30? MR. SCHMITT: 8:30. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 8:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have 20 or 18 minutes left. Yes. MR. SCHMITT: I would hesitate to bring this up again, but I'd like to explore the alternatives of discussing CD Plus. If we can take a few minutes to pull it up on the Internet and show you what you can access on the Internet. And if that's not -- doesn't meet your requirements -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Joe, my only -- if I can access CD Plus on the Internet, you can give me a site to access it, I don't have a Page 47 December 15,2005 concern about it. Now, I don't know about the rest of the commissioners, but that's all I ask for. Give it to me in hard copy or let me have an access to it somewhere. MR. SCHMITT: Certainly, Brad, as I'm sure you know, you can access any project and look for comments. It's -- it's public information. Some of those can be 20,30 pages long. But we can show you how to access. We'll give you that information. If that doesn't work, then we'll produce it hard copy for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just send -- if someone sends me the link, that's all I need. And then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just send us all an e-mail and let us all learn about it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I would agree with that, a link and I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. And that's fine. That'll-- if that's where staffs problem is, then just do that for me and that's my access. If I have a proj ect I have certain questions about, I'll go to that link. I'll find out more information and then who knows what it will resolve or will entail so... COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the happier it is -- the longer it is, the happier Mark is so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like to read. With that instead of going into Brad's issue right now because I'm not sure how long that'll take, we do need to take a break before our ten o'clock certain date. Is that okay with you, Brad, we'll do yours -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can't imagine mine will take a minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, fine. Let's discuss your Issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing is reading -- and really it's based on reading the information you gave us last time about the responsibilities of the board. If the -- if we as planners want toe Page 48 December 15,2005 have an issue brought into the LDC, is that something -- the intent would be is we would bring it before ourselves and then we would approve it as a board and then it would be submitted. MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. You have every right to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that what's on the calendar now as Friday the 17th, March 17th, is that the deadline for that? In other words, you have a staff cycle that you have to get information In. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That cycle we should probably stay in line with; correct? MR. SCHMITT: I would -- anything that you propose certainly I would like to get from you if it -- if it's the consensus of the Planning Commission of the board, certainly you can direct staff to make -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And stay in line with that schedule. MR. SCHMITT: I would like to stay in line with that, but I certainly could do it up to the point where when I start -- call it the public meeting, the date where I'm really kind of cutting things off, but is -- is when we go to the DSAC. But you're going to find today I'm going to throw another amendment into this next cycle here that we just got direction from the board. So I'm not saying it can't be done during the cycle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you give us that schedule in your weekly reports -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so we could all find that? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Next question, is there a way that we could get computer access to the Land Development Code and the growth management plan on these terminals while we're in the meeting? Staff could set up -- it doesn't have to be complicated. Page 49 December 15,2005 They could just make a menu for Planning Commission meetings. MR. SCHMITT: It should be available right through the -- not the -- the -- the intranet that you have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But rather than take time because I promised to be quick is somebody could show us how to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe have some IT guy come in and show Brad how to get on this from here. MR. SCHMITT: Yup. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In case we have a question rather than -- MR. SCHIFFER: You should be able to do it sitting right there and then do a word search. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The other thing in the book there it's obvious that the Planning Commission has a wider task than we've actually been doing. We've essentially been gatekeepers when we're really supposed to be planners. How would we get together to meet and plan? In other words, do we have a workshop where we could all discuss things together? I mean, let's say we have issues. There's plenty of issues in this town. There's hot topics. As the planners we don't discuss them. Because of the Sunshine Law we certainly don't call each other up and discuss them. MR. SCHMITT: It would have to be as an agenda'ed item on the agenda or if you want to have a workshop, we schedule a workshop, publicly advertised of course to meet the Sunshine requirements. And -- and properly notice any type of meeting that you wish to have or discuss issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be good if we all sat down and discussed what issues the county's had, what planning we're supposed to be doing, I mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with that, but let me see where Mr. Murray's going first because I did have some Page 50 December 15,2005 comments. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In fact -- in fact, thank you, Mr. Chairman, in fact that was -- I was going to ask what is the mechanism. And -- and I think that the only reasonable mechanism when it comes to my mind at least anyways is to proffer to the commissioners what it is that's in your mind and that accumulating those proffers into a workshop activity gives us the opportunity to vet them out and then they can be brought back for a meeting that would be appropriate to them. Is that a reasonable process? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: Or -- or it can be done in several ways. You-- you as a board propose that the staff we add it to the LDC cycle, you want to have a workshop. And then as a Planning Commission have a j oint workshop with the board to express your points to the board. It could be anyone of those type of ways we could do it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would seek guidance in that because I think with that many opportunities, apparently, they should all be available to us. Maybe something written down so we have options and can refer to that. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I was going to suggest, Mr. Schmitt, is that -- and it was along the lines Mr. Murray was heading, we're all sitting here because we're appointed by the commissioners from our district. I would strongly urge that if we have something that we want staff to work on before we bring it up, go to your commissioner and get a feel for it first. Because there are different political implications in this county that we do not have to dive into. But if we're going into something that is unpopular, there's no reason to waste everybody's time including staffs time and ours on something and a wild goose chase. So before we make recommendations to staff, please run it by the commissioner of your district. Page 51 December 15, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: And I -- and I would want to stress that if you make a recommendation, I'm compelled to have to go to the board with that because even though, yes, we are your staff, I also am the staff of the Board of County Commissioners. And if I'm going to expend funds to do something, it has to be through their approval. As well as Mr. Strain pointed out the worst thing I want to do is get staff going in one direction and -- and the board got me going in another direction. So I -- I welcome that suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we ought to do at this point is think about suggestions and also the premise under which we would have a workshop to discuss the -- that's why actually I put this book together, so everybody would see what we needed to do and could do and we could have a workshop to discuss it openly. MR. SCHMITT: One of the things I would like for you to discuss or at least maybe send me your thoughts -- and I have not talked to my staff about this, but I'll talk to you about it -- there's -- you are basically empowered with one decision authority only and that is for boat dock extensions and some -- some types of things that you think could be relegated to your level of authority without having to go to the board, a certain parameter of a variance or some other type of things. Because, as you have seen, the board's schedules are just incredible in regards to the kind of agenda we're dealing with and are there certain things that the board would like to -- to relegate down to your level in regards to an approval within a certain parameter. And if you want to send me your thoughts on that, I would -- each individually and I could begin to look at and explore some of that and look at it with my staff as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good suggestion, Mr. Schmitt. Thank you. Mr. Schiffer -- MR. SCHMITT: You understood what I was just saying? I mean -- Page 52 December 15,2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Mr.-- MR. SCHMITT: I'll give you an example. At the last meeting we had a variance that was -- it went on forever and you-all approved it. But are there certain things you think if it's within a certain percentage, we -- we have authority -- the zoning director has authority for administrative approval should there be another category that the planning commission could deal with, and if it's beyond that, then naturally it would have to go the -- to the board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe, one thing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your minute's been eight so far, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, other people jumped in it so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figured that would happen that's why I suggested we not start on this track because we're losing our break period because we have to start at ten o'clock with the next item. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe, one quick thing is that other communities, the zoning appeals board is not the commission for that reason. MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that might be one way. The other thing, Mark, is that if we did come up with a recommendation, wouldn't we recommend -- we're advisers to the commission. So wouldn't we be sending it to the commission anyway? I mean, you're saying give staff something to do, but if it is unpopular, all's we could do anyways -- MR. SCHMITT: All of this would have to go to the board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's all we can do anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Brad, what I'm suggesting is we tend to beat everything to death. Why come up with a suggestion we're going to sit here, dwell on for 30 minutes, 20 minutes. Then Page 53 December 15,2005 staffs going to have to deal with it. Just ask your commissioner first if he likes the idea. Ifhe does, at least when it goes there at least one champion will be there to help us with it. That's all I'm saying. Ray, did you have a final comment so we can take a nine-minute break? MR. BELLOWS: It can wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll take a nine-minute break. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item on our agenda is a time-certain item and it's a continuation of a series of meetings that we've had on the LDC amendments Cycle 2005 -- Cycle 2, 2005. I don't remember the last date we heard this, but it's a continuation from the last date and from the date before that and the date before that. At this point, then, we'll talk to Catherine. Are you making the presentation, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Absolutely. I'm sorry. Let me get these-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I've noticed, the commission was just handed a series of handouts and I know that we don't like these and I know that some of these are rather lengthy. One of them happens to be Golden Gate which hopefully we'll discuss and see where it goes. The other one has to do with affordable housing definitions and GAP housing. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chairman, the one that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me finish, Catherine. What I'd like to do is, any of these items that were just handed to us, I would like to defer to the last items we discuss today in the hope that we'll have a break or a lunch period or something where we might have a chance of reviewing those a little more closely. Now, Catherine. MS. F ABACHER: Thanks. I just wanted to say that the copy of the Golden Gate that you got is just with color highlights. It's exactly Page 54 December 15, 2005 the same document as in your packet. I apologize. The color copier is slow. We gave it to you in black-and-white. Michelle would rather you had it in color. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if anybody in the audience needs a copy from Golden Gate -- Cheryl, did you have the most recent copy? Because I don't need this. I already marked up another one. So I'll leave that up there for someone else's use. Oh, and let the record show that Mr. Vigliotti is present at this time. Okay. With that, Catherine, you want to move into the LDC amendments? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. We're going to be on page 1 of the summary sheet. And the first item that you asked to be brought back are the definitions for lots, yards and measurements. And this is also -- has to do with the second item too, the waterfront yards. Staff has been working on this diligently and you see what we've come up with, but we have still failed to resolve some of the major issues we were trying to resolve which is define exactly what frontage is on a flag lot. And what we are asking is that you could look at this, but hopefully we could try and bring something back with some illustrations. We just haven't had time to. MS. MURRAY: Can I speak? MS. FABACHER: Yes. Thanks, Susan. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, zoning director. And I just want to apologize, first of all. The last draft we got was very late to us. It did not address the issues. And, honestly, I'd rather just not discuss it today and defer it till -- I hate to do this, but January 5th. And I -- and you don't have -- you may not have any land use items on your January 5th agenda. You may have very few. It's one or the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MS. MURRAY: I apologize. But it's -- just honestly it's not worth even talking about today. Page 55 December 15, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I do know that there is another draft out there. It's multiple pages long. MS. MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I've seen it. I was able to see it yesterday. And I know that this commission, if they hadn't received it prior to now, may have a hard time going through it. So I have no problem with the idea of continuing it. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But at the same time is there a concern from staffs viewpoint because we had -- I was under the impression we needed to finish these up this year if we could. It's the 2005 Cycle 2. MR. SCHMITT: The -- the board will not see these until January. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: End of January. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then let's-- MS. MURRAY: Our main concern is we want to finish all-- as -- as many as we can because, of course, we want to be able to forward in writing the -- your comments to the board, your recommendations, and that's cutting it really, really close. Because we want to give them as much time as you have to review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we're going to be continuing items like this, then I would assume that one should be the first one and there might be others now that we know we have some time slots, hopefully not many. For example, we were handed two brand new ones today. We might -- we may want to end up having to continue those till the time we have to read them. MR. SCHMITT: That -- that -- that's fine. Because I have to advertise those, but I would only -- they're short. They're based on the guidance from the board in regards to the change in the definition. It's a very short definition -- definitional change. And it's also an Page 56 December 15,2005 application of -- of that definition now to the affordable housing density bonus agreement. Cormac can explain both of those. I would like to do that today just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll-- we'll go forward. MR. SCHMITT: But -- but in order to officially vote, I do have to meet an advertisement requirement. So the vote on that will have to be delayed, but this is as a result, Mr. Strain, as you well know from the last week's meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: And I was directed to try and get this in as soon as possible. Otherwise, it would be delayed until the next cycle which really the board would not see until October of 2006. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then, let's just proceed at this point. Catherine, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I discuss that issue? I mean CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The one -- the one we're going to continue. I foolishly spent time studying it. One issue I have and it's not the wording of it. I'll skip that. Is that for some reason you want to put it in 4.01.03 as opposed to the definitions. And I think that's an important thing. I think that would be burying it. That's in an area that has elevation requirements for all developments, kitchens and dwelling units and now, you know, setbacks and lot widths. MS. MURRAY: I didn't hear -- I'm sorry. I didn't hear the very first part of your comment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what you're requesting now to do is to move it into -- into 4.01.03. Why is that? Because, I mean -- why are we in definitions anymore? MS. MURRAY: We're trying to segregate and have a section where you actually have measurements. In other words, a description Page 57 December 15,2005 of how you measure things. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we're throwing it in this -- with kitchens and dwelling units? MS. MURRAY: Can I just take your comments into consideration and look at it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay. Another point that I think's important about that is that if you do have it under Definition, it just gets bolded throughout the code. And I think that this should be bolded. MS. MURRAY: Well, what -- what word are you using? Bolded? VoIded? I didn't hear what you said. I really don't have a hearing problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's talking about bold type -- he's saying that if it's -- MS. MURRAY: Bolded? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Never mind. Never mind. Forget it. Go on. COMMISSIONER CARON: It should be in bold. MS. MURRAY: Oh, in bold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It should be in bold is what he's saying. MS. MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, I know you've got issues yet to deal with. I have no problem with that. So as not to distract from the members around you, when you get those calls, would you kind of walk that way if you don't mind? Thank you. Catherine, you want to continue? MS. FABACHER: Okay. I believe we're ready to do the Golden Gate Downtown Commercial Overlay. And Michelle is going to present. And as we mentioned earlier, I apologize. You didn't get the color version in your packet. She handed you the color. It's exactly the same as what you had in the packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- okay. So pages 3 and 4 just to Page 58 December 15,2005 be correct -- pages 1, 2 and 3 and 4 are being continued to January 5th; is that right? Because we started out talking about pages 1 and 2 and you're on page 5. MS. FABACHER: Well, I'm on page -- I'm sorry. I'm on -- yes. I'm on -- right. Exactly. I'm on -- well, I'm on page 2 of the summary sheet so I'm looking at page 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The book that we have starts with page 5 for Golden Gate. MS. FABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And by the way, let the record show Commissioner Adelstein had to leave for a medical reason. He'll be back hopefully shortly. MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, for the record my name is Michelle Mosca with the comprehensive planning department. The Golden Gate downtown center commercials zoning overlay is before the commission today for final review and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. At the Planning Commission's December 1st LDC meeting the commission requested that staff look at (1) the landscaping standards in the overlay in terms of suburban versus urban application. Address outstanding issues related to the parkways right-of-way width specifically regarding the accommodation of the required landscape buffering and sidewalk. Also address issues related to seating and signage encroachments into the public right-of-way. And, finally, incorporate miscellaneous recommendations. Beginning with the miscellaneous recommendations, staff included in the permitted use table park-it parks which is on page 17 of the overlay. Also staff deleted SIC Code 7521 from the permitted use tables as requested by the former ad hoc committee. The category includes parking structures and parking lots. And this change is on page 11 of the overlay. Page 59 December 15,2005 Next as recommended by the ad hoc committee, staff removed the regulations that allowed encroachments for both seating and signage in the public right-of-way. These changes are located on pages 38 and 43. Staff added regulations to the overlay that would require a developer to locate any portion of a required sidewalk not able to be constructed in the right-of-way on private property and provide the county with an easement. This regulation is located on page 42 of the overlay. Staff also spoke with the transportation department and the regulation as written is sufficient, so there won't be any need for additional criteria written into the overlay. Finally, staff included in the overlay specific regulations for landscaping. The committee on behalf of the community had staff write into the overlay specific regulations that would buffer the established neighborhoods from the commercial development and provide regulations that would buffer the residential development within the district from commercial development. And if you have any questions, I'll go ahead and answer them for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a few, but there might be others that do first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, again, it's back to landscaping and it's back to the -- are you having trouble hearing me or something? Because it's landscaping and, again, it's back to the buffering concept -- MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and the perimeter foundations. We -- we are trying to create a -- as you call it downtown. Why are we having these landscape requirements around buildings especially buildings with no setbacks and things? I mean -- MS. MOSCA: My understanding for the most part those Page 60 December 15,2005 properties that develop either adjacent to the public right-of-ways including Golden Gate would not be required to have that foundation buffering. It's really going to be dependent upon how these lots are developed. And I also -- Nancy Siemion's here if -- if you want to hear from her regarding the foundation buffering. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what it says here is that foundation plantings will be required for all projects except buildings adjacent to Golden Gate. So it's -- I mean, I understand buffering between residential. No question with that, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you -- do you have a suggestion, Brad, as far as -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I -- I don't think we should have in an urban area foundation planting. I mean, I understand what that's for and it's -- this is not, I feel, an application for it. MS. MOSCA: I believe that the committee and the community -- that was their vision. They wanted a lot of landscaping. And we actually held a meeting last week and a couple of the committee members decided they wanted that planting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not against planting, but do they know what foundation planting is? What that's saying is it's surrounding the building 5 feet minimum. Some cases it gets greater than that depending on the size of the building and the height. MS. MOSCA: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're going to have planting all the way around the building. Now, any downtown I've been to, I've never seen -- remember, you can't have a sidewalk there. So you're going to have a building. You're going to have a vegetative area and then between building, vegetation, you can't fit a sidewalk in unless you diminish the size of your building. I mean, is that the vision? I -- downtown I can certainly see trees. I just don't see them in perimeter landscape situations. MS. MOSCA: This is more of an infill area. So we have Page 61 December 15,2005 established neighborhoods. We have existing residential structures. So we're trying to -- I believe the committee as well as the community is trying to provide buffering -- buffering standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Buffering, no question. But between this is the outline of this downtown and the residences certainly should be buffered. I'm talking about within the development itself, within the downtown area. MS. MOSCA: Perhaps we can -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, if -- if the -- if that's what the committee wants. If the committee was aware of what foundation planting is, I'd feel more comfortable, but -- MS. MOSCA: Nancy Siemion actually attended our last meeting with the committee members. And we went through the landscaping code piece by piece. And we talked about each one of the regulations that are in the overlay right now in terms of all of the landscaping. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if that was done, the committee's happy with it, I'm happy with it so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any other issues, Brad, at this time? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Uh-uh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get going. Start on page 34. And Item 1 of the first top of the page it talks about the cessation of owner occupied -- nonowner occupied residential uses. And it's apparently going to be seven years after the effective date of the adoption of the downtown center commercial subdistrict and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Then in parentheses says, "Adopted effective January 14th, 2005." That's not the date you're trying to peg? You're trying to peg the adoption date of this particular addendum to that; is that correct? MS. MOSCA: This -- actually this provision in paren was -- I Page 62 December 15, 2005 believe it's the effective date of January 4, 2005, which would be the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Subdistrict Provision which would take it out to 2012. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you're -- now you're going retroactive on the seven years which I'm not sure if the intent from what I understood the seven-year time frame from Margie was -- was what a long time ago we asked this question. It seemed to be considered fair for amortization of these uses. But if we were supposed to give them seven years, can we give them seven years from a retroactive date or is it the date of this amendment? MS. MOSCA: I might have to defer to Marjorie. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I believe because this is in the comprehensive plan and once the comprehensive plan is adopted, it becomes effective. And we need to follow it. And certain provisions could be self-executing, that it would run from the date of the comprehensive plan when it came into effect. And that's my understanding that that's what that date is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. The comprehensive plan, meaning what we're talking about today? MS. MOSCA: No. This is the implementing LDC provision. The subdistrict was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It was created in the comprehensive plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did we in the comp plan, though, discuss the seven years? I can't remember. MS. MOSCA: Yes. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I was trying to get to. I wanted to make sure the seven years that started in that date it was fair to start there based on it was a known issue at that particular time so... Page 63 December 15,2005 Okay. MS. MOSCA: It is in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go down a couple and you'll see this Reference No.3 to density. "Density shall be as per the underlying zoning district." Now, the way I'm reading that is if you have RSF 3 and it's three units per acre and you want to do mixed uses, you can only do three units per acre; is that right? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you have RMF 4, RMF 12, and RMF 6 the same way. MS. MOSCA: We have RMF 6 zoning as well as RMF 12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got RMF 12? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got RMF 6? MS. MOSCA: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got RMF 4. And you've got RSF 3. The placement of those to me is not where you're going to want to primarily have your mixed use. More like in the -- towards the back lots you want -- you'd probably look at more mixed use in the front lots. I'm just throwing this out. I don't -- if the committee wants this, that's fine. But I don't know if this was pointed out. You got 12 and 6 on the left-hand side on the lower two lots and on the north you've got RSF 3. And on the -- along that stretch along Golden Gate Parkway you've got RMF 4. That's a huge variety of densities when I think you-all want to do it consistently. Why don't in this particular opportunity make it consistent? MS. MOSCA: I believe because of the limitations with the unit sizes written within the mixed use, I think that you will have consistency. I believe it's 1,500 square feet minimum for a residential unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the RSF 3 which is where I thought if you were going to have mixed use, that would probably Page 64 _.",...-...- December 15,2005 lend itself pretty well. You feel that three units per acre -- I mean, I don't even know if you've got a whole acre in the lots that are thrown in together there. You feel three units per acre is adequate for that area because that's all they're going to be able to put there with this language. MS. MOSCA: Well, at this point we cannot be inconsistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the density. So we would have to take another look at that and perhaps amend the subdistrict first and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to reflect a higher density. They would not be allowed a higher density under the existing conditions now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that's -- I think that's going to stifle mixed use in that area because you're really limited to how much you can put there in a RSF 3 section. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The minimum building footprint of 3,000 square feet, can you fit 3,000 square feet in one of those small lots? MS. MOSCA: The lots are approximately 80 by 125, if I can recall correctly. And the committee got together. They looked at various conceptual site plans based on the parking requirements, water, management, et cetera. I believe that you would have to probably combine somewhere around three to four lots in order to develop according to the overlay. So I believe your answer would be -- the answer would be no based on the additional requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if anybody does want to convert any of this area to the future hopes, which is what this plan is, it can't do it on an individual lot if they own it. They have to aggregate some lots together. MS. MOSCA: I believe they would have to, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so everybody's aware. Was there Page 65 December 15, 2005 any thought of talking about smaller units so that if a boutique shop or something that doesn't -- I mean, 3,000's a pretty good size. There's a lot of small businesses out there. MS. MOSCA: That would be the minimum building footprint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. MOSCA: But you -- you would be able to have several units within that 3,000 footprint to accommodate a small boutique, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But a small boutique owner might only be able to put a small unit in. MS. MOSCA: I understand, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And do it without buying a series of lots and building a larger building. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your page 36 you have -- and I'm glad to see that you went back to the Land Development Code and tried to be consistent with our current definitions. That's a really good move. But by the way you did it, it brings into question, Does everybody understand that a zoned height of 34 feet and a maximum height of 45 feet is going to be a very consistent skyline? And it doesn't give a lot of latitude to put in what I see on page 37, such as architectural embellishments including cupolas and things like that. It limits those. And is everybody clearly aware of that? MS. MOSCA: We talked -- staff talked extensively with the committee regarding this issue. And my feeling is and my understanding is that's what they wanted, 34 as a minimum and 45 as a maximum. And there are members of the committee here to speak on behalf of the committee as well as the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I certainly will defer to their desires, but I really think that's going to produce a very typical standard skyline. I'm not -- I mean, a lot of communities are doing Page 66 December 15, 2005 just the opposite. We have two overlays coming up next that have done just the opposite because they want that different orientation up and down and put some character in it, but that's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I just question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the intent here is that all buildings are at 34 feet? MS. MOSCA: Minimum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But zone height is the maximum height the building can be. The definition of "zone height" in our code is the highest elevation, you know, depending on the roofline that building can be. And what you're saying is that all buildings shall have a minimum height -- zoned height. I mean, so you're locking the buildings in at 34 feet. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- and the only thing above that is embellishments? MS. MOSCA: With the maximum it will-- if you can go a little higher without utilizing all the embellishments. You have to have some. Obviously, 45 feet would be the maximum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I note there's no 25 story foot buildings. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's no 35-foot buildings. So why didn't you just say all buildings had to be 34 feet and make sure it doesn't look like it's -- but you're saying all buildings have to be 34 feet. MS. MOSCA: I understand. This is reflective of what the community's desires are. They -- they took a look at -- you know, they can speak to this issue as well, but they took a look at the existing development along Golden Gate Parkway and decided at a minimum they wanted the buildings 34 feet in height and that would be Page 67 December 15, 2005 exclusive of all of the embellishments et cetera. Maximum inclusive of all embellishments and appurtenances would be 45 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- my thought of that would have been to encourage -- not encourage, but allow lesser heights so they could have this differentiation of stories going up and down. But that'll make it pretty monotonous. But if that's -- you know, I mean, I'm not sure how it will all tweak together, but, I mean, I understand where the committee was trying to go at this point. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, again, I'm just confused with the word, you call it "minimum height." But essentially it's a fixed height. You can't go higher. And by the definition of zoned height you can't go higher than 34 feet, can you? MS. MOSCA: Yes. With the appurtenances and embellishments, yes. You can go to three -- you can go to three stories. That would be your minimum height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the appurtenances come in under the definition of "actual height." MS. MOSCA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Under the definition of zoned height -- I mean, so you want buildings that are allowed to have -- let's -- let's take a flat-roof building because it's easy -- a flat roof that's higher than 34 feet? I'm just worried about -- I think I know what you want to do here, but I'm not sure. You have to make it so everybody's sure. MS. MOSCA: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, do you want the height of every building to be 34 feet? MS. MOSCA: At -- at a minimum. I'm hoping that's what this language states. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Page 68 December 15,2005 MS. MOSCA: We went back and forth with this language. And the zone height, I don't have the definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it does say -- it does say that, Brad. It says the zoned height of a building shall be no less than 34 feet. It doesn't say they can't go higher as far as zone goes, but if they go higher, they still got to fit their embellishments, their parapets and everything else in 45 feet. That's where my concern is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I can have a flat roofed building at 45 feet with no embellishments? MS. MOSCA: I believe there's some requirements for embellishments, so I would have to say no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 37 is where I was going to go next. And it folds into this conversation and -- and basically what it says is -- and on F, "Flat roofs must be screened with a mansard edge barrel tile roof extending the length of all facades." W ell, in essence, if you go up to the minimum height of 34 feet, by the time you put your air-conditioning and whatever else you got to put on top of the roof and you have to provide the screening, you're going to be at 45 feet and you're not going to be able to go too much higher with any zoned height anyway. MS. MOSCA: I agree, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you recall in the zone-- the definition of zone height of mansard you're measuring to the deck level. So, therefore, you could have a little tip parapet, 8 inch, something just to control the water maybe, and then you would have the floor below it. So I could build a building with habitable area up into the 40s. The ceiling height could be, let's say 43 feet. If that's the intent, then that's fine. MS. MOSCA: And, again, this is the reflective of what the committee and community desires were. We just incorporated based Page 69 December 15, 2005 on their comments and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this will be pretty -- it'll be a pretty -- a flat roof seem to be a -- I mean, that's going to be the trend here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. What you're going to call it is not what you want I don't think. When you gave illustrations and stuff, do you have -- I mean, next time bring those to us, too, to see what people are seeing. But, anyway, move on, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Page 39, Item 16A in the bottom of the page talks about the project perimeter buffing -- buffering. All projects are located adjacent to residential zoning external to the district boundaries and shall provide a 6- foot sidewalk and a minimum 19- feet wide landscaped planting area. Is the sidewalk incorporated in the 19 feet or is it in addition to the 19 feet? MS. MOSCA: The sidewalk is in addition to the 19 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're looking 25 feet back from the edge of right-of-way. MS. MOSCA: Well, the setback itself is at a minimum 25 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: And that would provide additional buffering between the established neighborhood and the commercial development as well as a softening effect for those residential structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 40, Item B, Internal Project Buffering, it talks about Alternative B buffer, except walls and berms are prohibited. But then in the next sentence it says, a free-standing 6- foot high fence is -- if a fence is provided, it must be accompanied by a 3- foot hedge. So you can't have a wall and a berm, but you can have a fence if you have a hedge. Is that what -- is that how I read this? MS. MOSCA: If you -- if you choose to do the fence, you must Page 70 December 15,2005 also have the hedge, I believe, to soften the effect of the fence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But a wall is not allowed? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. Because what might happen in the future is that that individual residential structure may sell to a developer. So you probably don't want a wall there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see-- MS. MOSCA: You mayor may not, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From maintenance and an aesthetic viewpoint, fences can be pretty shabby . Walls generally can be more regulated as they have been in Golden Gate Estates and our neighborhood centers there where we've actually gone into very specifics on the walls and you can get a better opportunity to have a more appealing product. And walls are routinely torn down any time a development wants to move. I mean, it's a minor cost to an overall profit margin for developers. MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just surprised you'd take out walls and leave the item of a fence which to me -- I mean, you can put up a fence from Home Depot with some cedar on it and it falls down in a matter of time and who knows what happened. Nothing against Home Depot. I love the place. I go there all the time. But I'm not sure that you're getting an aesthetically pleasing argument -- issue here so... MS. MOSCA: I believe the intent was just -- just merely to protect those individual residences that are adjacent to the commercial development coming in, whether it's a fence, a wall. I think the committee decided on the fence and hedge together or just the hedge. And they would like to see a wall. We can always add that in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just throwing it out for -- because I haven't had another opportunity to speak on this. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a question. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They have to aggregate property Page 71 December 15,2005 anyway. Wouldn't that really just change everything if they're going to finally develop on a commercial basis from the residential? MS. MOSCA: Well, there's -- they'll -- there's a regulation in here that would allow owner-occupied residences to remain within the overlay district boundary. So, yes, if -- in, in fact, a developer came in and aggregated several lots, they would just have to provide the buffering next to any existing residential units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A fence would look really crappy. Okay. MS. MOSCA: And that was a decision made by the committee. We can, you know, defer to the committee when they come up to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item -- on page 41, Item C. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, could I just -- could I go back and ask a landscape question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That 6 foot, 19 foot landscape, does that position the sidewalk any particular place? Does that have to be on the outside? Inside? Could it come down the center of that landscape or -- MS. MOSCA: That would just be on the exterior. It would be -- it would end up being on the fronts of those lots on -- adjacent to the local right-of-ways. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you would have property line, sidewalk, landscape or could you have property line, landscape, sidewalk? MS. MOSCA: Yes. Any-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You could have property line, 9 feet of landscape, sidewalk, 10 feet of landscape? MS. MOSCA: No. It's real specific. There's 19 feet of landscape and a 6- feet wide sidewalk. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the location's not specific. Page 72 December 15,2005 MS. MOSCA: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's my question. MS. MOSCA: We -- we wanted to allow some sort of flexibility in the design. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you would not allow the landscaping to wander through the -- or the sidewalk to wander through the landscaping? That would not meet the intent of that? MS. MOSCA: I believe it would and I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be nice. MS. MOSCA: I would defer to Nancy. I believe that was our intent to allow that as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back on page 41. Under the sidewalks in paragraph C at the bottom of the page, you get into sidewalk concrete design. And I'm -- if I'm not mistaken, the code was changed to require concrete sidewalks. And I would wonder why we just wouldn't say sidewalks shall be concrete design pursuant to the Land Development Code because there are a couple different ways to do it that are very beneficial. And I'm just -- I don't know if you want to get into Class 1, 3,000 feet a side, 4 inches thick on top of 4 inch limestone base. Because there has been some alternatives of that that have been equal to or better than that system so... MS. MURRAY: We could go ahead and change that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the next page, page 42, 19A, the last sentence, "This wall sign shall not exceed 80 percent of the width of the building occupied by a business." The building, now, if a building is 3,000 square feet and you divide it up into four businesses, does that mean the -- all signs for each business are aggregated into that 80 percent width or is it for one business? MS. MOSCA: No. That's not the intent. It's for one business. Page 73 -_.._"-- December 15,2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if one business puts a wall sign up, the others can't? MS. MOSCA: No. I believe the way the code's written, this would also defer to the sign ordinance, is that the width of that particular unit 80 percent would be allowed for signage for each individual unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's where I was going. It's each individual unit? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not per building? MS. MOSCA: That's my understanding, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, Mark, shouldn't that be modified, then, to reflect it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern, if she feels it reads the way it needs to and the code supports that, then I'm fine. But I didn't read it that way and that's why I was pointing it out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with you. MS. MOSCA: What I'll do is I will check with Diana in signs and make sure we can maybe perhaps amend this to -- so it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just clean it up a little bit if you need to. MS. MOSCA: -- it can be clearly read, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the last of my questions. I'm kind of anxious to hear what the committee's got to say. I see some people here, people here from the committee as well. Is that all you had, Michelle? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does any board members have any other questions at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, who's handling public speakers? Catherine? Page 74 ,..~.._._-- December 15, 2005 MS. FABACHER: I don't have any. MS. MURRAY: I have them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you have them. I was wondering who had them. MS. MURRAY: The first one is Don Peterson. MR. PETERSON: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. PETERSON: In general-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the record. MR. PETERSON: I'm sorry. Don Peterson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Don. MR. PETERSON: Former committee member, ad hoc committee member. As we'd mentioned last time with the commission when we met the challenge of this particular area is it's an existing residential area, some multi-family, a lot of single family. And some of your questions this morning indicate particularly the landscaping issue taking the concerns and questions from the last meeting, we attempted to try to address those issues by your proposed language in front of you. The other concern I think we had from a committee aspect right from the get-go was that because of the specific area we're dealing with that's different than with the rest of the county, the concern of tying in a lot of language to existing county codes. Because county codes get changed easily for a lot of different reasons, good reasons; however, in this specific area, if that general reflective change is made to this area, it could have a significant impact to that residential area. If that makes sense. In other words, sidewalk issues, landscaping issues that they may find in some other part of the county, changing a requirement of that landscape isn't a big issue. However, our concern was that that would have an automatic reactionary effect to this specific area. So we were trying to protect the people in this area to not be concerned; that in general, codes get Page 75 .'.,.-.-- December 15, 2005 changed county wide; that if a code needed to be changed here, it would come back as a change specific to the overlay area. So that's what -- that's what we've attempted to do is try to tie -- even though it wasn't our intent to drill down as deep as we're going here, we certainly understand now why we need to drill down that deep. But that was -- that was the original intent to -- if a change needed to be made; landscaping, lighting, roadways, buildings or whatever, that the overlay would have to be addressed and not just a general change from a county-wide aspect. The -- and I think in general that's -- that's -- unless you've got something specific, I, once again, identify and can't say enough appreciation for Michelle meeting with us since we met last time. It's been a very fluid document, a lot of changes to it. It may not make a lot of sense and I would ensure, too, that maybe when it actually comes to a developer coming in to develop the area, and it was definitely the intent to have to take several pieces of property to make one commercial thing, it wasn't intended to allow one or two residential lots to be made into one of these things. So I would share that with you too. There's probably once a developer comes in and tries to do this, there may be changes. Then, again, I share with you that the intent was that specifically the overlay area try to be targeted, that that change needs to be made specific to the overlay and not just a general county code. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, if a developer comes in and needs changes, there's only two ways I can believe they got to do it. One is if it's consistent with the GMP, they still have to come in and change -- they'd have to modify the LDC or ask for requested variance. Those are quite difficult processes anymore from a time viewpoint. So my issue here is, I am -- I'm a little surprised at the minimum -- the heights, the way you guys are locking yourselves into a box. Page 76 ".._^-~_._.- December 15,2005 But if the committee has envisioned it like that, I mean, I will defer to that vision. I just am surprised. It doesn't seem to be aesthetic -- one aesthetically as good as it could be so... MR. PETERSON: To our knowledge that's the existing requirements on the parkway is the height. And all we were doing, I believe, is paralleling what's currently required there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the purpose of an overlay is to give you something better. I mean, with an overlay like Bayshore Gateway and that one's coming up in a little bit here. They went in and radically modified a lot of stuff and they're going to have, I think, a much more characteristic overlay. And I was thinking that's where you guys were originally headed. I mean, you can still -- I mean, I'm not saying it won't be that way, but I fail to see how it's going to give you that much character. But that's just a comment, and if you're satisfied with it, then I'm not going to oppose it certainly. MR. PETERSON: Understand. And in the preferred method we would have had one developer come in and say this was the area he wanted to work with. And we could have worked through what did we want it to look like. And, unfortunately, because we don't have that, we're attempting to address some of these building issues not knowing what all the design changes, potentials, material changes and those kind of things are. So we're attempting to be restrictive again because of the residential area that's already there, but yet try to say to the developers at the same time, if you take that whole area in general, then we were trying to not be real specific on some of the things to allow them latitude to do what they needed to do -- to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Don. MR. PETERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move on to the next speaker then at this point. Page 77 December 15, 2005 MS. MURRAY: Michael Fernandez. MR. SCHMITT: Michael's in the hallway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Golden Gate? MS. MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. He's Bayshore. Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought so. Okay. That's it? MS. MURRAY: Yes, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any further comments from the commission? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Catherine, I'm assuming that to move these things forward, today would be the appropriate time to take a motion on each one and we'll get down with it. MS. FABACHER: Yes. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Mr. Chair, I just want to remind the commission as part of the motion you need to make a finding of consistency with the comprehensive plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the Chair will be looking for a motion to find consistent with the comprehensive plan the Golden Gate Downtown Commercial Overlay as presented in LDC Sections 20 -- 2.03.07 and 2.04.03, 2.05.01, 4.02.37. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move it has been found consistent with the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray. Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Are there any further discussions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm assuming, Michelle, you will take our comments for the ones that needed to be cleaned up and provide whatever you need to to the next level at that point -- MS. MOSCA: Yes, I will. Page 78 .~~."-''''--~'''''"'---'- December 15, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as necessary. Okay. Having heard all that. Motions are made and seconded. No further discussion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one opposes. Motion carries. Did someone speak? It's your turn. I heard an "uh." Okay. MS. F ABACHER: I said all right. I said all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair, then we're going to be on page 45 of the booklet. This is going to be -- this is a sea wall height issue. You recall last time currently we've left the language as it is. Last time, I think it was Mr. Adelstein that commented about that this -- why wouldn't we put -- what was it, Susan? Why would we -- MS. MURRAY: I think Mr. Adelstein's comments were -- he said, "Why don't you rather than the current -- what you have in front of you, the current version, why don't you simply put in that a sea wall should not be elevated for purposes of decreasing the required setback?" And we talked about that. I think we agreed with that in theory. I'm not sure we really received clear direction from you-all if that's the way you wanted to go. And that's why you don't see anything changed because we also had another discussion. I'll get to that in a minute. I think that's probably challengeable from the respect that, for Page 79 December 15, 2005 example, if community development wants to get a letter from a registered engineer that said for some reason a sea wall needed to be elevated, I would personally have a lot of difficulty refuting that. And so they could elevate the sea wall and then come in with the reduced setback per the way the code is currently structured. That being said, the other discussion we had was with respect to the code of laws of -- code of laws and ordinances and the standards that were contained within there. And I think Catherine provided you with a handout about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh-huh. Yes. MS. MURRAY: Again, I don't feel like we got some clear direction. We had a kind of a roundabout discussion about that. Those are -- are engineering standards, per se. They're not necessarily Land Development Code standards. And they're also minimums. I don't know if you got a chance to read that. But they're not really going to accomplish what we need to achieve here. And I think the rules need to be in the Land Development Code as development regulations, not in the code of laws and ordinances. So I'm not really sure where we left that one. And then you did have a public speaker that mentioned enhancing the standards as we had originally proposed them. And I'm not sure we got any direction on that either. So we're kind of back to where we were. Weare satisfied with what we have so far, but, again, we're still open to direction. If you wanted to direct us to do Lindy Adelstein's, we're okay with that, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I think that if you use the language that you've used, that if you just add that you measure from the inside of the sea wall cap, that that's where the measurement takes place from-- MS. MURRAY: From the back of the sea wall cap? COMMISSIONER CARON: The back. Page 80 ...~.._---_.__...,,-,-,".._~--- December 15, 2005 MS. MURRAY: Which would be the most restrictive point? COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly, the most restrictive point. You'd probably cover it. The issue I would say on page 50 when I was reading the code here, I think it's pretty specific, though, about what a sea wall is. And it states here under Section 1, Definitions, a sea wall means any solid upright structure. And one of the issues was the entire issue of cantilevering sea walls out. And I would submit to you that this language says that that would not be allowed and it wouldn't be a sea wall if you did that. MR. SCHMITT: But a sea wall is different than a cap on a sea wall. The sea wall is a permitted -- you have to get a permit through one of the other agencies, normally through the Corps of Engineers. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we're still back to walls on top of sea walls. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what this is. MR. SCHMITT: Right. But what we're trying to prevent is the cap. There's no -- there's nothing that restricts the cap. And -- and that is -- that is different than what you're looking at for the sea wall here. The sea wall is the actual constructing of a sea wall which is -- is the wall that both is retaining the earth and backfill and also is -- is -- is certainly -- it's into the water. It's below. Goes all the way below the water line. So I don't know if that's -- we're -- we're splitting apples here, I got to tell you, but that's the problem I had with the most recent incident. It was a cap, not a sea wall. It was not a replacement of the sea wall. And as a result it's -- it doesn't fall in anybody's purview as far as permitting other than -- than a registered engineer making the testing, stamping and sealing for the structural integrity of the -- of the structure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that same engineer, is that Page 81 .... ---""."-~,,.._,--,-,--- --;_._._..---_..._..,,~ December 15,2005 person responsible for to verify that a cap upon that wall is as well certifiable or can -- can a cap be put on and not -- not have a certification? MR. SCHMITT: We would require-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We would require. MR. SCHMITT: I would require that it be a stamped and sealed drawing because it is not -- it is not -- does not fall under the Florida Building Code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. SCHMITT: So it's not an inspectable item under the Florida Building Code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: It's not a sea wall, per se-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- actually going out and building a sea wall because that requires -- normally that requires a Corps of Engineer permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you're saying, then, procedurally you do have -- you have a -- MR. SCHMITT: I was just commenting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have a device, if you will, right, a device. That is to say you would require something, but you don't have any substantiation from us to be able to support what it is you're trying to do or trying to control? MR. SCHMITT: I still-- I'm back to the -- in order to prevent this, is what we're trying to say is it must match to the properties to the left and right so that it can't -- you can't do this stairstepping. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, maybe I can help with some of this. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 54 under your general requirements that are part of the ordinance, I think it was 85-2 that was attached to our book. Under 3A, first of all, the location of a sea wall Page 82 December 15,2005 shall be placed so that waterward face -- this is the outside not the inside -- MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is coincidental with the platted property or bulkhead line. So if that's a requirement, wouldn't you measure, then, from the -- from that waterward face, not the inward face, first of all? Second of all, if you go down to B it talks about elevations. The cap -- this is the cap, not the wall -- the cap elevations for all sea walls and revettments fronting on protected tidal waters shall be equal to or greater than elevation 4.5 and equal to or greater than 5.5. So is the issue you're trying to resolve is -- is preventing that cap from going higher than 5.5 because it has equal to or greater than in this ordinance? And if that's the case, does the ordinance need to be amended or does the LDC amend the ordinance? MR. SCHMITT: Well, unfortunately the ordinance is dealing with the construction of the sea wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: The sea wall itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it says the cap which you had indicated was separate from the sea wall. MR. SCHMITT: Let me -- let me put it this way, then. A cap was put over the cap, I mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MR. SCHMITT: There was already a cap on that sea wall. Somebody came in and actually just capped it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they just made a bigger cap? MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what I'm saying is, do you need to go in and amend the Ordinance 852, Item Section 3B so that the cap becomes regulated so the language that says equal to or greater than 5.5 is limited to a maximum? And I'm wondering if __ Page 83 December 15, 2005 MR. SCHMITT: That -- that would probably be the -- I know where you're going now. That would probably be the way to go is to find limitations of what a cap would be and then define the height __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- limitations on the cap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just offering that as a suggestion to help resolve the issue that we've got in regards to the language as proposed to the LDC. And more -- I'm also concerned is if we amend the LDC but we have an ordinance out there that is not consistent with the LDC from a legal point of view, which -- where do we go with that? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It sets up a conflict. Usually in a conflict situation the later in time will control, but it's better to try to harmonize it so you don't get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a suggestion from staff or do you just want to continue on the track run? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I make some comments? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, Joe, I think cap is the part of the structure of the sea wall, I mean, the code requires, this code, that all sea walls -- concrete sea walls in this case have a cap which is a cast in place and what it does, it ties back and tightens the top of the sea wall. When a subdivision's made, that's really when a cap is put in. You can see they're all uniform. I mean -- what's the problem we're having here is people are breaking that uniformity. I think that alone is -- is an ugly problem. Forget the reason why they're doing it. MR. SCHMITT: Right. That -- that's what we're trying to prevent is -- I can go back and look at -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me finish that. What I'm thinking is in the subdivision requirements, isn't the sea wall -- I mean, Page 84 '....-.-^-.-.---.-.---- December 15,2005 we don't really have these kind of projects anymore so we may have forgot how we do them, but isn't the sea wall essentially established at the time of the subdivision? And -- and by the definition it's holding back. And, Margie, what is real property? What does that word mean legally? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Real property? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Because the sea wall's holding back real property from the water. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, real property is land and all the bundle of rights that go with land, but it's land. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially what the sea wall -- they're in a subdivision where you're going to be building one. And, again, that would be Rusty, the sea wall height's established. The land grade is established at that time and it's filled up to the back of the sea wall. The sea wall is engineered to hold back that amount of land. It's engineered with tiebacks, right, the wall itself and the cap is part of that assembly. MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, you know, I think for somebody to go in and just put a cap on it anyway would require re-engineering of, you know, the whole system. You would have to discuss the loads, the dead weight it can carry, the loads of the soil. If he's building the cap and not filling behind it, I don't think he's building a cap on the sea wall anymore because he's no longer holding back real property. And -- but if he did, somehow that made sense that he would have to engineer that. I could see that as a serious problem in coastal areas where the scarring of land is exactly what FEMA wants to prevent. So if somebody did via raising the cap raise their site, they would cause an amazing scour problem for the neighboring property. But I think what the code here we're trying to do is I think is cure the problem where we're getting these sea walls popping out of Page 85 December 15,2005 nowhere and they are higher than the neighboring property. So I think this is good. I think, Don, I would measure from the face of the -- of the thing like the code says. That's -- essentially the property line is the waterside face of the sea wall. MR. SCHMITT: That's what it's supposed to be. Actually, in-- in the area that we're dealing with, most of the property lines are two and three feet into the canal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. But essentially I would take the code that if you could push your sea wall up to the fact that your face is at that property line, then I think that that would be the point that we should be measuring from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you automatically change the setbacks radically at Vanderbilt Beach because they have two to three feet in the water -- oh, you're saying measure from the sea wall. COMMISSIONER CARON: We -- we already do that now. MR. SCHMITT: We -- we measure now from the least restrictive which is the most outer edge of the -- the cap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, all that seems to contradict a little bit the ordinance that was included in our booklet. And all I was suggesting is we may want to clean them both up instead of just one. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think that would be best. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that ordinance like that get cleaned up, Margie? That's got to go before the board, doesn't it? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. It would go to the board as part of the code of laws. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it wouldn't come to us. So we need to deal with what we have in front of us today. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now with that suggestion, maybe somebody can clean up the ordinance. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's right. Page 86 ~-'--~--->_.__.....,.,.. ._~-.,-~-_..,-~,._----- December 15,2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's go back on what we have in front of us today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I have a comment on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that I think in using instead of the word down there, we're discussing the height, it shall be no greater than the average elevation. I would rather -- instead of the word "greater" shall have no higher elevation. Because greater, I don't know what "greater" means. I mean, I know what the intent here is, but it's an elevation issue we're dealing with. Greater could be __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about shall not be in excess of the average elevation? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think, shall have no higher elevation than the average elevation of the -- MR. SCHMITT: Do you have that, Catherine, that language? MS. FABACHER: Shall-- shall be no higher; right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Than the elevation. MS. FABACHER: Than the elevation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Average elevation. MS. F ABACHER: The average elevation. Okay. MR. SCHMITT: And that's why I'd prefer to have this language in the LDC and then we'll go back and then amend the ordinance or laws and ordinances. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then I think instead of the word "sea wall," maybe the word "sea wall cap" just to make it clear you can measure off the top of the cap. MR. SCHMITT: Good. MS. FABACHER: Gotcha. MR. SCHMITT: Now, what was the clarification on the point of measurements so I make sure we're -- because I heard two different __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you've -- you've addressed that by saying there's -- the most -- the least restrictive point is already in Page 87 ._""~'~._~-~~'>^ ---" ~.- ----_._---,,---,"--.", December 15,2005 the code and that's fine. If that doesn't conflict with 85-2, fine. But 85-2 is very specific, so you may want when you fix the cap in 85-2, fix the sea wall language in 85-2 from -- MR. SCHMITT: And the least restrictive point is not the issue here. The issue was let's raise the wall so I can bring fill in and then eliminate this 4 foot for every 10 foot back -- every 4 foot of rise you have to go 10 foot back. And the attempt was to eliminate the 4 foot of rise. And mainly what was creating that was because of the homes that were being built up to the FEMA elevation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What was the least restrictive point? In other words, somewhere at setback it says -- MR. SCHMITT: It would be the waterside edge of the cap. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of the cap. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: So that -- yeah, I think it will apply to a cap on top of a cap? MR. SCHMITT: Well, what we're trying to eliminate is somebody putting a cap on top of a cap. COMMISSIONER CARON: I know. MR. SCHMITT: Unless they come in and did an entire stretch of the canal. COMMISSIONER CARON: At once. Okay. MR. SCHMITT: And that may again be a practical approach if one were to come in and -- and redevelop an entire community. You might have to do that just to bring everything up to FEMA elevation. And I'm trying not to create a code that will -- would absolutely prohibit that from happening. Because I -- I want them. They have to build. I'm not going to give anybody a variance to build below flood elevation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other questions from the commission? Page 88 December 15, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just on that point, Joe, when we have the definition for water -- even though Janet ran away -- it doesn't really say that. It says it's measured from different elements, one of which is the sea wall, whichever is most restrictive. I don't think it means the most restrictive part of the sea wall. MR. SCHMITT: And I'm going from memory because this goes back several years. We had -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's in your book on page 2, if you want. MR. SCHMITT: We had somewhat of a -- we had a -- we had the kind of an internal policy of points of measure. And in almost every case it was the least restrictive depending on the reason you were measunng. COMMISSIONER CARON: Whichever is most restrictive, it says. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. It doesn't say least ever. COMMISSIONER CARON: Not least restrictive, most -- most restrictive. MR. SCHMITT: Well, that's what they're changing this to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no, that's -- I think that we're bringing back in the old code is what we're seeing there. So essentially we're under the belief that that's what the old code was. MR. SCHMITT: Well, the most restrictive would be the landward sign of the cap. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's what we'd like to see in the new language here on the sea wall cap as well. That becomes the most restrictive, not the least restrictive. MS. FABACHER: Well, if you began measuring, if you wanted to be the most restrictive and you began measuring -- measuring from the water -- I think you had pointed out the waterward base of the sea wall. MR. SCHMITT: No. The waterward base of the sea wall would Page 89 December 15, 2005 be the least restrictive because you're getting the distance of the cap. MS. FABACHER: Oh, you're right. You're right. MR. SCHMITT: That's what creates this cantilever. Somebody put a one foot kind of extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this LDC amendment is strictly referring to the height of a sea wall. MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not talking about-- MR. SCHMITT: Talking nothing about point of measurement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So why don't we -- why don't we focus on this piece of the amendment today. And if there's other language come along in the future, fine. We're talking about the height of the sea wall. Are there any other questions from the Planning Commission regarding the language or -- and the height of the sea wall? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm going to be a little bit contradictory, Mark, but actually the language we're working in here is the setback dimension from a sea wall. So I do think that if there's confusion which obviously we show there is, we should clear that up in the phrase too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're in -- the section we're in is setbacks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not just heights. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The underlying language, the benchmark elevation on top of sea wall or top of the bank will determine the setback for the rear yard, accessory setback on the parcel shall be no greater than the average elevation of the top of sea wall or top of bank of the two immediate adjoining parcels. It's saying the benchmark elevation. It's not talking where on the sea wall you measure the setback. It's talking about the elevation from Page 90 December 15, 2005 determining -- for determining the setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is, though, that last half of the paragraph is discussing the setback of the sea wall. So I do think that if we have this confusion, that should be cleared up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think it's determining -- I think it's trying to discuss where you measure the setback from. Where you -- when you -- the height that you have to -- that you kick in that measures the setback, not where the setback is measured from, but whatever you want. MR. SCHMITT: What this language does is control the elevation of the sea wall, not the point of measurement of the setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I read it to be too. MS. FABACHER: And that -- and that would have been addressed in the waterfront yard definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we'll save it for when that comes back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we're back on the elevation of the sea wall. Any further discussion about the elevation of the sea wall? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, is there any public speakers and whoever has that, keeping track of that? MS. FABACHER: No. No. There's no one here that I have a slip for for this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know Bruce is here. He was here. He's sitting here patiently, but if he's got nothing to say, that's okay with me. MR. SCHMITT: I'm confident this solves -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- the biggest problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, then, I'll-- we'll look for a Page 91 .,..,.,----"..,----_.__...,~ December 15,2005 motion to find -- find LDC Section 4.02.03 as amended or as -- with the word "cap" and use sea wall in higher and in word -- in place of "greater" and find it consistent with the growth management plan. There's a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Brad Schiffer. Seconded by Commissioner Murray. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This one's done. MS. FABACHER: All right. Commissioners, on page -- in your booklet page 63 we have the variance for Plantation Islands brought back and Assistant County Attorney Stirling is going to present on this. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling. And this is an amendment. I understand there were some questions from the last meeting by the commission as to what area of Plantation Island this applied to. This is an amendment to implement an agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Department of Community Affairs to allow certain lots that's depicted on the map that's an Page 92 ---'-_._,~---,.~ - ,..,-- --. -~"~----- December 15, 2005 attachment to the agreement and that area only. It's an unrecorded subdivision to come in for a variance to develop lots that are completely covered by mangroves. Because this area is subject to the area of critical state concern regulations, lots that are completely covered by mangroves, that the regulations do not allow mangroves to be removed. DCA, also there's an antitaking provision in Chapter 380, the area of critical state concern rules. So because the antitaking's regulation in the area of critical state concerns statute, this allows DCA to enter into an agreement with the county to permit this. And then this LDC amendment implements that agreement with the Department of Community Affairs allowing for a variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Other questions from the panel? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, in the -- Margie, in the phrasing here a group of adjacent lots and also a single lot, does that mean that if somebody has more than one lot they can only fill in 2,500 square feet? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If -- yeah. That -- that -- what that means it's aggregated and they can only clear that much in mangrove off. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially that would encourage somebody to sell the lots off and then individual people could do 2,500 or is that the lots as they are the day of this ordinance? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I think if someone were to sell it off, then they would be able to. Yeah. I think they would still be able to sell it off and then, you know, clear that part of the lot. I don't think there's any prohibition on that. I think there'd be a problem to try to prohibit people. It's just if you owned three that were contiguous right now, you didn't get to do that three times. Page 93 ,_."-----,-_._~ December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you can sell the two lots off and those people that you sold it to would have the right? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's -- yeah, that's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Are there any public speakers? MS. FABACHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll entertain a motion to find LDC Section 9.04.02 consistent with the growth management plan. Is there such amotion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicated.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray. Seconded by Mr. Tuff. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Another one done. The next issue we are on is the Bayshore Gateway Triangle. And I notice Mr. Jackson is not here. MS. FABACHER: Well, let me -- Mr. Jackson and Mr. Ehardt Page 94 December 15, 2005 were here so... MR. SCHMITT: They're here. They're out in the hallway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. For the benefit of the Planning Commission, we're going to get started on this. Do you want to -- if this is all we have left today and I think it is -- MS. F ABACHER: We have to go back to the original, the ones we -- the new ones we looked at that we said we were gonna __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But I'm trying to figure if we really want to -- we can blow through this, I think, and not take a lunch break if that seems to be consistent with -- if it looks like we're finishing up, I'd rather just keep going for a little past 12 if Ms. Ford __ okay. Well, let's take a ten-minute break to give the court reporter to change her paper. Thank you. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, you're not passing out more amendments, are you? MS. FABACHER: No. No. What we did was you remember the opting-in process that we had and now we've changed the process and it works very closely -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's not --let's ask the question. We're on the record. MS. FABACHER: All right. I'm just handing these out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Everybody please try to calm down and quiet down a little bit. The court reporter can't even hear what's going on. Thank you. I like to blame it on the court reporter. Then I haven't got to get blamed for it. As soon as we get this handout and everybody re-seated, we can resume the meeting. MR. SCHMITT: Catherine, you want for the record please state where we are on this. MS. FABACHER: All right. We are on page 70 of your packet and this is the Bayshore Overlay Amendment. For the record, this is Catherine Fabacher. David Jackson is here and Joe Ehardt. Page 95 December 15,2005 Let me state first that we've been working all along on this to finish it up. We had an opting-in process that we had written, but we didn't -- we didn't feel that was sufficient as far as for public participation and all that sort of thing. So what we've done is come up with an abbreviated -- not abbreviated, but another process for mixed-use approval which is what you just got. Mr. Jackson has a place saved for it in the ordinance here. So, anyway, I'm going to let them go ahead and then we can possibly talk about this process now, approval process that's going to replace the opting in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, just for the -- so you know, I notice there's a lot of new yellow sections in here. And I don't know who wrote those, but they did a pretty good job. This is in a lot better shape than it was the last time and I appreciate the efforts put forth to get it here to us today so... MS. FABACHER: Well, let me say this, they're copied right out of the growth management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. MS. FABACHER: I had asked the applicants to copy certain sections and they just put the whole thing in. So I -- I am prepared to tell you which sections need to stay in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that does make it simpler. MS. F ABACHER: No. That's just the ones that -- that qualify who is eligible for these density -- bonus density units. That what I asked him was to be sure he had those criteria, because it's on certain streets and access and it didn't appear in the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: So I didn't want him to copy the whole thing. Just who was eligible for the units should be here in this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's go forward with the presentation and does that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, just before we go, just Page 96 December 15, 2005 out of clarity, Catherine, where does this go into the code? I'm not sure. Is it -- is it 20307? MS. FABACHER: 1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Two? MS. FABACHER: No, 1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 12? MS. FABACHER: No, it would be 1. Each one of the overlays has a different capital letter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Well, what I'm thinking is this stuff that you just handed me, does this replace __ MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the two that says future land use growth management? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All that nice wording Mark likes, you're going to take that out and replace it with this? MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Agency executive director. It would replace paragraph 2 under 1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. JACKSON: Excuse me, paragraph 3 under 1. Okay? Not 2. Two is the growth management plan future land use. Number three should be on page -- small page 7. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this should have a number three, not a number two on it? MR. JACKSON: It should be three which is on page 76, the handwritten 76 where it says "Mixed-use approval process in the mixed use subdistrict zone in BUMD-NC or BUMD- W." Now, this is the language that you see in your spiral bound notebook was placeholder language. And Ms. Fabacher and other people on her -- with her staff worked on the handout that you have there which expanded and increased the language and put in some requirements; is Page 97 '~.~._-'--'-'~---"--'.%- December 15,2005 that correct, Ms. Fabacher? MS. FABACHER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EHARDT: Joe Ehardt. If you see at the bottom of page 76 the old No.3 is struck out. That's what we had when we were here last time about the opting in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. EHARDT: Okay. So that's out. And this new language that you have in your hand is going to replace the current one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you fellows -- I don't know if you need to make a full presentation like you did before, but if you want to comment on any of the issues, we can start working through it. MR. JACKSON: Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, I have been made-- advised that there are public here to make public comment. The last two times that we've been through this back in September, again, we had people come for public comment. Because these meetings lasted four, five and six hours people had their lives to live and were not there when the public comment portion came up. At your discretion, sir, some people are here to make comment on portions of either the Bayshore or the Gateway overlay, your option if you wanted to bring them up first now or later on. It's up to you, SIr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll let you take that call. Normally we hear the applicant first. But if you would rather hear the public and then respond to them, I have no problem with that. That's just as -- equally as fair. So if you want, if you don't mind them deferring your -- you till after they get done, I'll be glad to hear -- we'll be glad to hear them first. MR. JACKSON: Well, yes, sir. The only -- the only caveat on this is that when they make comment, we may end up getting embroiled in a conversation about a certain section of it and, you know, we may digress into that that way. I would prefer at your Page 98 December 15,2005 option, sir, is that if somebody cannot stay here through the duration of today's meeting, let them offer to make their comment and then when we get to that section, take their comments on board and discuss it accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how many public speakers do we have? MS. F ABACHER: We have a Michael Fernandez, Michael Neat. Well, Joe signed one, but he's a presenter, so we have two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we have two public-- MS. FABACHER: So far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's hear from both members of the public now and that way they can leave and if -- if they feel like it and then later on through your presentation you can weave in any concerns they have. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. I was just -- just trying to keep the public participation involved with what we're doing here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We appreciate that. That's where we go too. MR. FABACHER: All right. I think Mr. Fernandez gave me the first slip. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I have to ask you to keep it brief, please. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'll try. The -- we just received, as you probably have, this amendment for the mixed-use approval process. So I literally received it just a couple moments ago and I had a brief conversation with staff about it. And it's one of the more significant elements of what's being proposed here because it would basically require any true mixed use that's being proposed to go through this process. In the prior case it said rezone. In this case it says rezone. And that would trigger a whole set of parameters that -- that process would be subject to. My understanding from staff just a few moments ago is Page 99 December 15,2005 that they would delete this word "rezone" out of here so it doesn't trigger all these other requirements. So that's a good thing in our opInIon. However, having said that, in review quickly of what they've submitted, they have basically said that you're going to submit for a site development plan and go through the site development plan process to the extent that you've been deemed complete and are approvable. In other words, they would ordinarily approve that process and then they will schedule you for this truncated review process that basically has a public meeting process and a Board of Commissioners approval process. Right now I would suggest to you that the average SDP is taking approximately well over six months. You may be looking at a year as far as getting an SDP process as far as submittal, application, subsequent reviews, et cetera, and you going through that process. My understanding is that you wouldn't be scheduled for this meeting or -- or for this public hearing process until you completed a SDP process deemed sufficient and address all staffs' concerns. That would be transportation, you know, how you laid out the site, you know, turn lanes, water management, utilities, et cetera. That's an extensive process. That will act as a disincentive to redevelop. What we're looking for and what we had understood is that this would be an administrative process. It does not need to go through a rezone process. And the units would become first -- first come, first served. And that was our understanding of it. It's supposed to be an incentive for redevelopment. Our clients are looking at this right now and they have a significant parcel. They have 200 units on it. If they have to wait and go through and expend very significant dollars both from the SDP -- you've got to submit an architectural design standards, you're looking at expending a very significant sum of money -- only then to be -- have the authority or the -- to go forward into the public process. So now we expended a huge amount of Page 100 December 15,2005 money totally at risk because we don't know if you're going to get those units or get that proj ect approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, maybe I can short-circuit this. First of all, I think we all understand you're objecting to this new language to some extent. We have not read it. We were handed it today. And consistent with my policy as far as me personally on these issues, I don't intend to vote on this today at all. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's three days of intense work and if staff can't get it to us early, then I don't think they're going to be counting on a vote from me today on this. Now I'm not -- can't speak for the rest of these planning commissioners, but this one in my book is going to be put off. So I don't mind hearing your objections to it. I'm glad you put them on record. I'm sure that if this gets deferred to a future date, they will -- it will be reviewed in that context. And I -- I appreciate those comments. If you have other focused issues on the balance of it, it certainly would be nice to know what those are. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. The next item I think I would like to do is just go to the front, the intent of this project. The overlay project was essentially to develop a pedestrian friendly roadway mixed-use development. And what we're seeing is that the code basically has been written for a grid, I think, friendly environment. For instance, if you go to Fifth Avenue, they have roadways at both ends. There's six roads that intersect with that -- with Fifth Avenue. It's a true grid environment and it works that way. What we have on Bayshore is a four-lane divided highway. And I think some reality has set in. And, for instance, I understand now that there's a transportation study that's ongoing that is going to evaluate the ability for such a road to actually have parking along the roadway and be able to create that friendly pedestrian atmosphere versus what we really have which is a -- a conduit basically that's going to serve an awful lot of units, units that are abutting this Page 101 December 15,2005 property, proj ects that are PUDs that anchor perhaps the southern end. We're looking at a very significant number of traffic flow. And I don't know if the way these development regulations have been written, I don't believe they address that. I believe what they address is that pedestrian friendly environment that Fifth Avenue has where the cars are driving 15 miles an hour, not 35 miles an hour, if you were to reduce the speed limit and perhaps have parking on Bayshore, what you then would actually have is that friendly environment, but you'd probably have a concurrency problem because there is no other way for the grid system to work. So when I read, for instance, that the buildings have to be setback or to a build line that's five feet away from the property line, I've got a real problem. For instance, on a project like ours, transportation -- we've met with transportation. They say we're going to put a turn lane in. I don't have a problem putting a turn lane in. I think it's needed given our circumstances. If we put a turn lane in, that turn lane will cut into the existing right-of-way. What we will end up with is a building that's set back from the edge of pavement of less than ten feet. We put a sidewalk in there. That's not a very friendly environment to deal with. It really doesn't give us an opportunity or -- and perhaps as a conflict with what the landscape requirements -- on a project like ours, we would actually have a 20-foot landscape requirement. So I think that the -- I think the intent's great, but I think it needs to be looking at the variables that occur between what they apparently have focused on which is a very small project of minimum depth to larger parcels that have greater depth and what those opportunities are. On a parcel that, say, is 600 feet deep, all the buildings on that parcel can't be within five feet of the property line, obviously. And so there needs to be some consideration of those types of circumstances. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, I -- we don't -- I'm not Page 102 December 15, 2005 intending on having you walk us through page by page of this today. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get to your salient points quickly. You've already been talking for seven minutes. We're not going to give you much more time. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wrap it up and let's get on with the presentation. There's been public meetings on this for numerous periods of time that you could have participated in and made your points. You could have provided us with an errata sheet today on areas that you were focused on. But you've got to get through this quickly because we have to get on with this meeting today. MR. FERNANDEZ: Probably the next -- the next significant point is that when you have a mixed-use development, you have to have some flexibility. You recently reviewed a Mercado PUD. It was voted on by the Board of County Commissioners. I have an excerpt of the language that was finally approved by the board. And it basically says we have standards for mixed use as you will when you adopt this LDC. It says that we understand because of mixed-use issues that you have unique circumstances will come up depending on the context or the size of the project. We need to integrate into this LDC much like they did into that PUD that flexibility so that staff can weigh the positives and negatives. And I have copy of that that I'd like to provide you of the -- the text that was approved. Beyond that as I understand you either will review at a subsequent date one of those issues relative to the process which I think is very important. The last thing that I want to mention has to do with a topic that isn't necessarily directly in the LDC, the handout that you have and that's the question of cost that these units are assigning a cost or a value of them. I think from the very beginning it's very important that Page 103 December 15, 2005 we look at this and say , "Well, it's a development incentive." If you have to pay, I think that incentive goes away. I think that there's -- the projects can do a lot more potentially for a development. And -- and the other point with those units is that most of the lands that are eligible for those units are commercial development. Commercial development as I understand this and, correct me if I'm wrong, they already have a three-unit base. So, for instance, if I have a commercial piece and I want to do commercial -- do a mixed-use development, I already have three units per acre that I can gain from my existing zoning. That does not come from the 388 that are available to the -- for other developments. If I want to do more than three units, it would. So I think that's a very important point. Because it would allow them for more developments to share in those units. I think there's been a misconception that all those units basically would get -- come from that 388 pool. I think that was a very important thing. And I've got one last quick thing and that is if I believe that you have or there's the intent, and I don't know if it's in here, that if you have a commercial piece and you decide not to do a mixed-use project, that you would be able to develop under the current underlying zoning. Let's say the C3 or C2. I -- I applaud that. If you have residential, I think you need that same consideration. Right now as it's written, it says that if you don't want to do the mixed use, you cannot develop -- you can develop the intensity, but you have to do it to the standards of the -- of 4.02. We would like the same consideration for residential as the commercial that's already been considered. Thank you for your time and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I have your four points. I will make sure that through the discussion today they're addressed. Now, one correction I have to make to you is I told you my preference is that I would not be addressing this new three-page Page 104 December 15,2005 thing. That's mine. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This panel has not taken a position on it and they will as time goes on today. MR. FERNANDEZ: If they do, can we come back and talk about that if we had a chance to review it a little bit more? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we have no problem with that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, one question for you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, you've kind of read this thing. We've all got to quickly -- what's your estimate of time that this additional procedure on top of the SDP would take? MR. FERNANDEZ: On top of the SDP, staff has told me and I haven't read it thoroughly that this is estimated to take between four and five months. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to hear presentations on this so we can address -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. Staff may correct me on that, but the SDP process alone will take six, nine, a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, I disagree with you on that. My -- the SDPs that I'm familiar with get through in two months, at the maximum four. I've never seen one go through that long unless there's been so many mistakes it's unsurmountable. So we'll just give -- we'll just go on with the meeting. The second speaker. MS. F ABACHER: All right. The second speaker will be Michael, I think -- I believe it's Neat, Mr. Neat; is that right? Is that Page 105 December 15,2005 right? MR. NEAT: Yes, ma'am. Michael Neat, Vice President, Old Naples Design & Build. I'm speaking in support of the overlay district as a person -- as a developer that built under the current overlay district which just is a small area of Bayshore. My partner and I, Paul Dean, had purchased a lot and proceeded to build five houses development, single family separate units. As we first had a business plan, the business plan we thought Bayshore would just be a place to come. We got a good deal on the property. We'll come put five simple units on low income between one hundred fifty, two hundred thousand dollars. As we went through the site development plan procedure we became aware of the CRA -- I mean, that we were in the overlay district. And we had to incorporate their ideas and their plans to change the house structure slightly. And -- and as we went through that structure, it actually greatly improved our product. When we found out the vision of the CRA and we found out that we had to recess the garage door three feet from the facade of the house, we had to incorporate a porch, 40 percent of the facade. We could no longer just use a simple slab on the ground and put a two-car garage onto the house and then build a little simple apartment basically above it. We had to do -- 40 percent of the first floor had to be at flood elevation. So we redid the plan to match their procedures and it worked out wonderfully. The site plan went through the county even though I had to go back and redraw the plans. I have gotten so many wonderful comments from the residents in the area. And people come and see my product and 50 percent of that credit goes to the CRA for this plan. I am currently holding on a property right now under contract until this goes through to do a similar development. And I am going to make the houses slightly larger but the same premise with a Key West style house. And -- and I just want to applaud the CRA's development here. And I hope that this goes through in a timely Page 106 December 15,2005 fashion so we can continue to develop. And I really appreciate your time. Thank you very much. God bless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. That's last of the public speakers at this point? MS. FABACHER: Yes. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Gentlemen, just so you know it's 11 :32. And we will probably end up now -- I can't see us finishing this before a lunch break. I'm assuming that we all want to take a lunch break. Is there any preferences in the time frames on that? There was some concern about getting access downstairs to the Subway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you want to eat now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm thinking before we get into Mr. -- the full presentation. If you -- we start on our lunch now and then come back, we might be more consistent to do that. Do you have any problem with that, sir? MR. JACKSON: No, I don't. Once we get started it's like a train. It's hard to get back up to steam so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why looking at the time I think we'd be smarter just taking our lunch for one hour and come back here at 12:35. Is that in agreement with the commission? (Indicating. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then so be it. Meeting is adjourned until 12:35. MR. JACKSON: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. (Lunch recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll bring this meeting back to order. Mr. Jackson, I think that you were going to go into your presentation. Page 107 December 15,2005 MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. David Jackson, Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Agency executive director. I appreciate the opportunity to present to you for the third time the Bayshore Gateway overlays. There's two overlays. There's a quick overlay for your edification is that back in I think it was 2001 or so the Bayshore overlay was a small portion of the CRA area. It was put into the land development codes. And in 2003 there was a modification or an amendment made and they expanded the areas. And this is the attempt here to identify all the parcels within the CRA boundary with the future land use map for the growth management plan as identified and submit that to you. Now, the Gateway area, the overlay there is all new language. So there's no modifications or any corrections to what was delivered before. The Gateway overlay does mirror image the Bayshore overlay, but there are significant changes in that there are a lot of different other issues that have to do with the Gateway area which is because we have a lot of C4 and C5 properties, a little bit more intense industrial uses and other commercial uses with surrounded -- surrounding and residential area. So what we have is two uniquely different areas so that's why we have two overlays. Now, conceptually we probably could put them together at some time in the future, but I don't think that's required at the moment. What we did was we've been -- we've had numerous public meetings that have been held with a consultant in the community. We've been through the staffing procedure and the process. We've been to the DSAC committee and this is our third time with review to you. The first two meetings we had with you in September. We took on board your comments, suggestions and recommendations. We sat down with the CDES -- CDES staff and have gone over most of the issues there. And so we submit to you the corrected, amended and new overlays. So that's where we're at. Page 108 December 15,2005 If you have any questions for us, any specifics where we may have something that is not very clear to you or that you would like to discuss and as a point of issue for us to look at, we're open for those comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Procedurally, what I'd like to do is take the commission through these overlays one page at a time and then get our questions addressed from that page and move onto the next. I think there will be questions that may be from multiple people in this room mainly members of staff. So whoever feels they can best address the question, maybe the one that has to come up and take that responsibility . So with that being said, the first page in our book is page 70. Are there any questions from members of this panel on page 70 because I have several. Let's start by the fiscal and operational analysis. This is more for Joe Schmitt than anybody else. It says "CDS staff to determine." Does that mean -- what does that mean? You guys have not looked at this in the last two months in regards to the cost for your staff or -- MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I think I can answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: What we were looking at was a fiscal and operational impact of many of the processes. And they wanted us to maintain. There were a lot of services they wanted the city to provide. Those have all been gone -- negotiated away. It's been settled. So there's really not anything beyond what we regularly do here. Remember there was going to be a special opting-in process and someone would have to track that. And now -- what we're doing now just can run through regular staff through the regular process. So there was not -- there's no longer any maintenance by roads and bridge -- I mean, by, you know, transportation. So there really aren't any outstanding things that are -- that we would have to do beyond the Page 109 ". ..~,.._.__..-- December 15,2005 normal. When this first came up in the first iteration, they had a lot of things that were really problematic for taxpayer money, but those things have all been removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then the -- the crossing out of the word "none" needs to be uncrossed out and the word "none" then applies? MR. EHARDT: Yeah. I -- I put that in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. EHARDT: -- at the last meeting. But if it's done, it's done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From comments just now by staff it sounds like there's nothing. By the way, you may have to re-identify yourself for the record. MR. EHARDT: Joseph Ehardt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Further down under Street Wall, I don't have any problem with this. It's just I want to make sure the wording is correct. It says basically the street wall's purpose of hiding parking from the street. Is there a defined element of "hiding" or is that going to be a subj ective term or do we need to put some -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Screening is better. MS. FABACHER: Screening is what we generally-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any objection to that, Mr. Jackson? MR. JACKSON: No, sir. I think hiding came out of the last meeting we had with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's my fault. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A couple points down under Awning. Every time you add something to a sentence that isn't very specific, it can be -- doesn't really mean a lot. The last five words, "primarily used for sun protection." I mean, if the word "primarily" is in there it means it could be used for more than that, so why don't we just strike Page 110 December 15,2005 those last five words and keep it simple? MR. JACKSON: Done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Down a couple more under Mixed-use Approval Process. I just have a question from the way that reads and the answer may be right. Once that density pool is exhausted, then does that process exist any longer? It seems to be written to take advantage of the use of the density -- bonus density pool units. If those density pool units go away, is this written in a manner that it will still survive? Because I think you only have 388 of those and once they're gone, do you still -- the mixed-use approval process is it still in play? MR. JACKSON: Well, the reason that kind of comment is not in there, it's just a definition of what the process is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: Just -- it's just defining the process without putting any kind of metes and bounds on it for the numbers. Now, that language can be inserted in Chapter 2 where we talk about the bonus density units and that's probably a more appropriate location. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. There's still the intensity issue which the BCC would need to decide, you know. Because how much commercial that parcel win hold in the mixed-use project and so -- MR. EHARDT: If I may, Joe Ehardt again. I think it would-- maybe not this process, but the intent may still be needed because what we were doing with the opt-in and opt-out is that we do have some C4 and C5 commercial-- more intense commercial uses. And if you opt-in to a mixed-use district, whether you get the bonus density or not, you're locking into only doing C 1 through C3 commercial uses and you're giving up your right as such to those higher intense uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the exact point of my question. Yeah, that's fine. Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. Page 111 December 15, 2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 71 is the pictures. Anybody have any problems with that? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 72 is the -- we'll move on to page 73. Any comments on page 73? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since this is extracted from the GMP, Item No.2, is it done in such a way that it would automatically be updated or is this going to be static? MR. JACKSON: During the lunch break we had conversations with the comprehensive planning staff. And some of this language which was inserted is a placeholder. Conversations it was to take some of the language out and leave some in. And if the comprehensive plan was ever to be changed then, yeah, it would have to come back to this LDC process. It's a very good question, Mr. Schiffer. I think that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Couldn't you just reference the section of the GMP? That way if we change it in the GMP, it automatically updates here. MR. JACKSON: Okay. Good question and good recommendation. That's the way it is now, but there is a lot of confusion by the users of the LDC that are not familiar with the comprehensive plan and have no idea where that language resides. And they read the LDC. They try to apply it. And then we have to refer back to the comp plan. They've never seen it before. This is for clarity only. And those sections only that provide clarity for the LDC all in one location so you don't have to go searching again. And that's the reason for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe what you could do is reference where it is in the comp plan and the section and then -- MR. JACKSON: Still you have to go find another document at Page 112 December 15,2005 another location somewhere else on the Internet and the comprehensive plan if you just reference 4.03. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not saying just referencing in here "reference it" and then you can say as updated or something so somebody would read this understand it, but yet they could go to the comp plan. In other words, if it -- if it's updated in the comp, is it automatically updated here is my only question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The comprehensive plan and the Land Development Code under the laws of Florida are two separate and distinct legal documents or ordinances. And I spoke with Mr. Jackson about this. I have a little bit of a problem of putting the comp plan in the Land Development Code because it's a comp plan. It's not the Land Development Code. And then all of a sudden it becomes part of the Land Development Code too. And the Land Development Code is to further and implement -- further implement the comprehensive plan. I guess if we didn't make it operative and said, you know, section blah, blah, the comp plan states. But it's not construed as any operative part of the code, but rather for more informational purposes, I'd feel a little bit better about doing it that way. But I don't like mixing the two documents together. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So couldn't we say something like I was saying that this is extracted from the comp plan? Give the section and you could put as updated -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Say for informational purposes or something like that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Reference. Reference. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department. Perhaps Mr. Jackson and I had Page 113 December 15, 2005 a misunderstanding. My recommendation would be to delete all of this language from the future land use element. To me it just simply does not belong in the Land Development Code. The only portion -- my recollection is the prior version of this Section 2, future land use element, simply made reference to the future land use elements mixed-use activity center and was simply stating that the property within the overlay that lie within the activity center will still be subject to activity center regulations to govern land use, something to that effect. That -- and that is what the activity center -- excuse me. That is what the overlay in the future land use element states. It identifies this whole Bayshore Gateway Triangle redevelopment area. And then it -- one of the specific provisions in there is that for properties within the activity center, they'll continue to be governed by the activity center for uses. And then it goes on to specifically acknowledge that a zoning overlay may regulate development standards. So my suggestion is all of this language be deleted here with the exception of what used to be here from the language that -- that dealt with activity centers. Which would mean the effect of this overlay for properties within the activity center is that uses will not be controlled by this overlay. Development standards even in the activity center will be controlled by this overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, have you seen this before today's meeting? MR. WEEKS: It's been provided to me. I've not finished my review of it, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: If your question -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how can we have it without you having reviewed it? How can we have it without the rest of the staff having reviewed it? Now, I mean, I read it. I had much less questions Page 114 December 15,2005 than I had last time. I thought the document was in pretty good shape. N ow we're finding that the departments that -- especially yours which is primary hasn't even reviewed it. I'm -- this -- it's concerning because we're actually here reinventing the wheel and you could back __ come back around and say you may have reinvented it, but it still doesn't work right and you're going to change it again. MR. WEEKS: I think two things. One is just we're caught in a real crunch on workload right now in our department because we're working on these EAR-based amendments to the comprehensive plan. Another thing is in part back to what David said. This was some placeholder language. And as we mentioned earlier, we have come up with this new provision in paragraph 3. And I think simply removing all of paragraph 2, putting back the language that pertains to the activity center which was just a few sentences in one paragraph and then we move on to the real meat of the amendment in my opinion of as far as what's not yet fleshed out is this Item No.3, this mixed-use approval process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did the language in the GMP -- who put it in there in the first place? MS. FABACHER: I think I can comment on that. I had requested that certain paragraphs, that language be included to say who is eligible for the density bonus units. Because it's not everybody in the overlay. So that would only be, like, No.4, No.5, No. 10 and No. 11. So I think it's miscommunication that it all went in. But I said that this information about who is eligible should be provided here in the overlay document and you shouldn't have to go -- I mean, you know, you need a developer to be able to read this and know what they can and can't do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course, and then David's saying it's a comp plan -- (Multiple speakers.) MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You can see that it says that and Page 115 December 15,2005 it's consistent with the comp plan. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, the whole idea and Catherine -- I mean, staff and the consultants are all working in the same direction to try to come up with a document that -- that provides clarity and we're not there yet, clearly. But that provides clarity as to what is allowed to occur within the overlay and what is required to occur in the overlay. The reason I -- one of the reasons I don't want to see the future land use element language in here is because it's problematic. There's things about it that are not clear. Furthermore, it is providing as -- as usually occurs -- in the growth management plan is it provides the guidance and the direction and the parameters, but it does not provide all the specific details. And, of course, that's what the zoning overlay is about. If you read some of the -- the language in here from the future land use element, for example, paragraph 4 and 5 were just mentioned. They talk about access to US 41 East, well, how do you interpret that? Does that mean the property must be abutting 41 or what if your three lots are removed but the access from your property would immediately -- those using your property would have to go right back out to 41 East? Historically, comprehensive planning staff has reviewed both of those paragraphs -- viewed both of those paragraphs very broadly because we want the redevelopment activity not to be confined just to the lots abutting, but -- but to have a broader application. So, again, we don't want that -- that vagueness or ambiguity or area of interpretation in the code. It needs to be more clear. The solution I believe is either, No.1, that we specifically identify these properties on the map and then the corresponding designation text. For example, NC, neighborhood commercial, you see the designation on the map. You go to the text and it tells you what you're allowed to do which includes mixed use. Same thing with amount of waterfront. The map gives you the clarity. These are the properties we're Page 116 ""---;._----,---~_.,,_.- December 15, 2005 talking about. And the text says these are the ones, yes, that you can have mixed use development or just residential, whichever the case maybe. One of the things we discussed during the break, again, as part of this clarity is some concern about how -- how far back properties that are not designated neighborhood commercial, that are designated either Rl or R2 which presently the language says these are just allowed for residential development, how far back might we allow mixed-use development to encroach into those Rl and R2 areas? Because the comprehensive plan language, which is not clear and Mr. Jackson and I have a disagreement over it right now as to how it applies, does include some language that would allow for properties that are not commercial, but are abutting commercial to be developed with a mixed use. Well, again, there's not clarity so we want to give the clarity by either identify it on the map clearly or one of the things we discussed in the break was adding some text that would say something to the effect of for Rl or R2 properties that are abutting the neighborhood commercial or the waterfront, the two categories that allow mixed use, you could encroach into that residential area no more than 100 percent the size of the neighborhood commercial. We don't want to see a scenario where someone has one acre ofNC and they add 15 acres of Rl or R2 which we don't think that was ever the intent. And it's a staff concern as to how far, you know, that magnitude would go. So language that would limit the size to no more than 100 percent of the size of the existing NC or W. And, furthermore, put an acreage cap on it as well, maybe a couple acres, whatever the number might be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unfortunately, the time to work all these details out and rewrite this entire program is not here at this meeting today. And I'm disappointed that various members of staff who have to weigh in on this didn't weigh in on it before we got here today. Page 117 , . ~_.'_"_"_~_""~='"'·_""~'O···_ December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, can I say something to that? I mean, here's the problem. What you just said is a little bit of horror because there are people out there believing what's written in here. And why if that's the way you feel wasn't that considered when the GMP amendments were going through? Why is that something you're saying what's here isn't really what it says? MR. WEEKS: The GMP -- the GMP language was adopted in the year 2000. That's five years ago. We had -- we didn't know what __ exactly what the zoning overlay was going to be at that point or just exactly how it was going to be interpreted. It's really when we get to the Land Development Code which is the implementing mechanism that we start fleshing out the details and that has been very problematic throughout the whole process, both for the consultant and for staff. Because we realized we have some problems with the language that's in the flue. There is a lack of clarity. There is a lack of clearness as to what was intended and what is supposed to be allowed. So we're -- we're trying to address it now to get the clarity in the overlay. And my desire would be to go back to the future land use element and the problematic areas. The one paragraph in particular Mr. Jackson and I disagree on is deleted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- but, David, when people are reading these things, they're just reading the words. They're reading the black spot-- MR. WEEKS: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- not the stuff in between the words. So they're coming to conclusions that those words say -- you're saying that's not good advice for them to do that? I mean, if it says it, it says it; right? MR. WEEKS: Well, yes. If it says it, it says it, but in some of these cases -- paragraph 6 I think is the one that's at issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6E is the one. I had the same question Page 118 December 15,2005 you did, David. MR. WEEKS: That is -- that is the paragraph Mr. Jackson and I have disagreement over. It is not clear. And I'm -- I won't say ashamed. I'm disappointed that I had a part in writing it five years ago because it's very difficult to interpret. And, again, it's led to a genuine disagreement between Mr. Jackson and myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to keep moving through this, Brad. What I'd like to do if the board agrees with it is just -- why don't we just go to page 77. We're not going to resolve and rewrite this today. I'd hoped to get through this document today with the exception of a couple small pieces, but now that staff has not looked at it, it's going to put a -- put a lot of this document back off until the 5th of January again, unfortunately. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why are we here when they aren't prepared to give it to us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know and I can't address that at this point. Mr. Jackson, do you have a comment? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. The -- I think the only issue that we have at the moment is the three page piece of paper that was delivered to you by Ms. Fabacher which had to do with a mixed-use project to be looked at on January 5th. And I think the comprehensive plan language in paragraph 2 here that Mr. Weeks is addressing, I do not have any problem with deleting that paragraph too and taking the comprehensive plan language out. Now, that would be an issue I think between comprehensive plan and planning and zoning, between Ms. Fabacher and Mr. Weeks. I have no problem deleting it. After that the comprehensive plan review has been pretty significant in my point of view for all pages after this paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm -- I'm -- what I'm trying to do is get past these pages. I think, then, the suggestion is that Page 119 .,_._","'_"_"".__'_h__."'_·_~'" December 15,2005 if we delete these, what should come back to us is any replacement language for what's being deleted because, obviously, we're not seeing that today and then we can go on with the rest of this document. MR. JACKSON: The rest of the document I think is -- is pretty complete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we'll keep moving through it. David, does that work for you? By January 5th can you have-- get back to us with the replacement, if any, for two and we'll do three by that point as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to verify something then. Replacing page 76 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 73, 74, 75, 76 and the top of77. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that's all going to be deleted we believe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's going to be modified, deleted, whatever and staffs going to come back with a recommendation with Mr. Jackson. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would just bring into mind a question of thought. There is under No.2 on page 76 a new document speaks of classifications in perpetuity. And I'd ask you to -- if you're going to have that remain in any part of it, I would ask you to consider that carefully. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. And we took that on board and that's part of the rewrite. We've talked with Mr. Schmitt and Mr. Fabacher about those terms and that will be part of the rewrite. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If the commission's okay we'll move on to page 77. Does that work for everybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on page 77? Brad. Page 120 _M___·"___··_"__~~·"·.,_"·,·~··m""_ December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, just to make sure that the A, B, C at the bottom of the page are under four. So that's, like, 4A, 4B, 4C and it's just your indent might be confusing me, but is that correct? MR. EHARDT: Yes. MR. JACKSON: Correct. The next time we present this to you I would highly recommend that it's just -- just typed and all this line and colors gone so you can look at the document for what it will really be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would -- that would be a very good idea. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 78, any questions-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you still got to go? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unless you change something, I mean, don't make any changes that we don't make today then. MR. JACKSON: No. Any changes that you make today, if it's happy to glad, if it's from partly cloudy to partly sunny, I'll put that in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. JACKSON: And you won't be highlighted, striked out. It'll be all black and white and it'll look what the document's going to look like and you can read it as a document like a book. And any new language that is done from comp planning and everything will be obviously segmented out that this is all completely new rewrite, new material for you. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I do need to point out, though, in the official ordinance, we still need to have what is removed from the already adopted LDC stricken through and what's added to the already adopted LDC underline for the official zoning ordinance document. MR. EHARDT: Yeah. Joe Ehardt. I think if we remove the yellow and red and so forth and just leave the things that have been Page 121 ..,..~.."_.,,._,._.'.,_.- December 15,2005 deleted from the original LDC, now some of those things we shipped to the Chapter 4 instead of Chapter 2, if we do that, I think it'll be a lot clearer. I prefer to leave those strike throughs in black that are in the original LDC in there if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just leave the latitude with you and the staff to bring it back in a manner that meets the legal requirements of the law and it's a little bit simpler than what we've got in front of us. Page -- Brad, are you done with 77? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 78. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: G, could you explain? I think that's what David was referring to, but could you explain exactly what that means. Is that there -- and show us maybe on the map. There are some sites that are in Activity Center 16. What governs them then? The -- MR. EHARDT: The comprehensive plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you called them to be neighborhood commercial. So are they, in fact, eligible for the development as a neighborhood commercial or -- MR. WEEKS: The uses would be governed by the mixed-use activity center and the comprehensive plan. Which in this -- the starting point means the underlying zoning. Whatever the zoning is there, they can develop per that zoning. They could go through a rezoning process to whatever zoning district, density intensity that the comprehensive plan will allow. The reason for still having the designations ofNC and so forth is because the development standards over in, I think it's Chapter 4, would apply. And, of course, those -- those development standards link to the R1, NC, et cetera. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But what would be the Page 122 ,_..__......._._._...-.,._'-~.._.,_....,. December 15,2005 difference between the requirements in the NC, Chapter 4 of this, and the activity center? Would there be any conflicts? MR. WEEKS: The activity center has no specific development standards attached to it. So it's just the standard whatever the LDC is per your zonIng. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on 78, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 79 is a map. And then page 80 we start with the uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, I have a question on the map. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you have a-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question on it. But, anyway, the map that this is is different than the existing map; correct? MR. EHARDT: The existing map? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, the way the overlay is today is the map on the right. MR. EHARDT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way the overlay will be proposed is the map on the left. MR. EHARDT: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're not the same. MR. EHARDT: These two aren't the same? Or the one you're looking at? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I can't -- the one I'm looking at, I don't have the kind of vision to really enjoy it, but -- MR. EHARDT: There's a few little changes I have to make. One is in the report that needs to reflect -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what I'm saying is the Page 123 _...,."--~- December 15,2005 commission should be aware of that we're -- and I'm not against this, but we are changing. We're adding neighbor commercial to sites that now don't have it, stuff like that. So I think that -- MR. EHARDT: Maybe -- maybe the question -- this is the current overlay that you have now for Bayshore the areas that are covered by it. And we've expanded certain areas that weren't covered in the over -- we've expanded it to be included in the overlay. That's the main difference between -- besides some -- I'm sorry. The main thing we did on Bayshore besides some of the issues that we're talking about the language on the mixed use and so forth is that we expanded the overlay categories to cover other regular existing zoning areas that were in the Bayshore area. Whereas there might be some RMF6 that was down here, now we have an Rl or R4. That's the basic difference intent of the overlay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So my point is -- is -- could I get a copy of both of those of that scale that you have there? MR. EHARDT: Of that scale? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. EHARDT: Sure. I can't give it to you today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. No. And I think because essentially we're changing land uses. Essentially that's changing zoning. I think -- am I doing all right? Okay. They're not helping. MS. FABACHER: Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I have -- they can't hear me over the way it is. The -- I think we -- really everybody should be aware of the fact that we're actually changing underlying uses in the overlay district. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, not supposed to. MR. JACKSON: We are not changing underlying uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Overlay uses, let me use that word. MR. JACKSON: Yes. We are changing some overlay uses from Page 124 December 15,2005 what originally was on the map in Amendment 2. And we are capturing all of the areas that were not addressed in Amendment 2. And some of the areas that are in Amendment 2 were done for reasons that we don't think are valid today. And they need to reflect what is around it and what the whole concept is supposed to be. An example would be residential neighborhood -- neighborhood commercial residential. It doesn't fit with everything that the planning staff would like to have. So we moved it as a designation and left it as a nonconforming use which is easier to deal with. There is a piece of C5 property with the overlay made it a mobile home. Now, that doesn't make sense and it was probably just a graphical error. So we took the C5 and made it back into neighborhood commercial which makes more sense than trying to take C5 and make it a mobile home. That -- that sort of thing. And so there are some modifications. As we talked about before in the last two meetings was to correct those things that didn't make sense or were in error or didn't quite fit with what it should be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, is there any other issues on page 79? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have a series of uses being laid out from pages 80 to 103. Rather than ask for every single page, they're all basically the same pages with different distinctions on them. Why don't we just see if anybody has any concerns about -- Brad, I would never have suspected it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, aren't I supposed to have -- aren't I supposed to do this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Yeah, I want to find out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I feel like I'm doing something wrong here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You're always the first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The Footnote 1, the intent of Page 125 -,--- December 15,2005 that is to state, for example, to make it easy accounting services. That's only allowed on residentially zoned land if it's part of a mixed-use development; correct? And I think the way it's worded -- is everybody comfortable with need? It says "allowed for only residentially zoned property. " It really appears it could be written -- read, I think, and you guys tell me, it appears it can only be allowed on residentially zoned land that's part of a mixed use, not that it's only allowed on residentially zoned land if it's part of a mixed use. Semantics but I don't think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you suggesting a better-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You guys read and see what you think, I mean. COMMISSIONER CARON: I read it several times and I agree. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Am I right? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I do agree. It took me four times. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it should say allowed only on residentially zoned property as part of a mixed-use development. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are we using "property" interchangeably with "land" or are we thinking of improvement when we're talking about property? Because in mixed use you have commercial and you have residential. So which one is it beast or land? MR. EHARDT: Land, yeah. Let me if I may answer the question here. You're saying the language I originally had in there is fine? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no. MR. EHARDT: Oh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we did change it and we didn't quite get it -- I mean, it's -- the point is that it has to be very clear that you're only allowed to accounting services on underlaying land that was residential if it's part of a mixed use. Not the -- you can Page 126 .0......"'·_ ^-_..~.--,-...---"_..,_.._.~~-^.'"._'_."'.. December 15,2005 only put accounting services on residentially zoned land. MR. JACKSON: Okay. How about this for a recommendation. Allowed on residentially zoned land -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's perfect. That's perfect then. MR. JACKSON: -- if part of a mixed-use development. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's -- that's much better. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. You got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, do you have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, then can I just go because I do -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I was just going to ask. Why don't you just run -- MS. FABACHER: Can I have a comment to talk to Mr. Schiffer's comment. David Weeks and I had worked on something to remove the footnotes, a general statement to insert that says "For properties located in the BMUD neighborhood commercial subdistrict or the BMUD waterfront subdistrict, permitted uses shall be in accordance with the underlying zoning district except where mixed use proj ect approval has been grant -- granted. Where such approval has been granted, permitted uses shall be in accordance with Table 2." So -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would do it too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That also would give it in the same place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MS. FABACHER: Well, I'm saying instead of the footnotes, we'll just put that right in the body of the text so you can just -- when you're doing mixed use, you -- you refer to his tables. When you're doing underlying zoning, you refer to the regular tables in the thing. And that was kind of what we had worked out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be good. And Page 127 _..m_"__"_ December 15, 2005 that'll be okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We had the conversation about IBID before and now that clears it. Are you satisfied with that for your purposes? MR. EHARDT: For what she said? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. EHARDT: Yes, I have no problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That makes better sense I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Brad, you want to move forward. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 87 -- 81 up at the top there's artist studios which we now have -- we've got them in the different areas. The SIC code still refers to theater productions and miscellaneous say theater sets and stuff. So I don't think -- can we kill the SIC code 7922 does not-- MR. JACKSON: Is that acceptable to the planning staff to have no SIC code, yes or no? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, some of them do. Assisted living does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, we should be going in the opposite direction for more definitive uses. MS. FABACHER: They -- they don't have it in the SIC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What, artist studios? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. A code for these other uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got a code here, 7922. MS. FABACHER: And that's the only one for artistic. We've looked. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm not sure because I found, like, photo, photography studios and stuff like that. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Well-- MS. MURRAY: If it's written as you want it, artist studios, then all the words after that, that should be sufficient along with the SIC Page 128 "..,..."...-.--- ~~.~.__..".o,_····_·__~,_...'''m·.._·. December 15,2005 code to incorporate that in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd rather keep the reference in because if we change it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's what I don't want. I don't want the staff to say, hey, wait a minute. You can't put in an artist studio. You can put in a theater set studio, but you can't -- you know, or you can have a theater producer's office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it says artist studio. MR. MURRAY: That's artist studio there, yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So even though it conflicts with the SIC code, there will never be a problem? MS. MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let's go with it. And, again, the thought we never put it in artist studios aren't allowed in any of the other districts? For example, the residential districts and all that, isn't this supposed to be an artists' community? MS. FABACHER: Well, that's not as a commercial use. You can certainly have a studio in your home. MR. JACKSON: The intent is for the commercial use, otherwise, you end up with a residential neighborhood commercial use. And if they wanted to do that, they can go for a nonconforming use or variance or whatever would be applicable and the tools that they have. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But an artist left alone in a studio in the backyard won't be -- this won't be -- MR. JACKSON: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- code enforcement -- MR. JACKSON: They just will not be able to have customers come to their front door and be parking on their lawn because it's not a business location. But you doing your computer work or your charcoal art in the back doesn't present -- prevent you from using your property, your use. Page 129 December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it's okay to have dance out in the backyard and not draw attention. It's an attractive nuisance. MR. JACKSON: Some dance? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some people can, but you and I can't. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Dance is included in here. That's the reason I bring it up. I guess what I'm trying to understand, it's a catchall. And I appreciate it's a catchall, but I would opt for more specific than less specific and qualification of the specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but dance isn't included in the residential. That's where -- that's where Brad was going. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I appreciate it. MR. EHARDT: I think if you're going to do some type of occupation in the residential you have to abide by the county's rules for home occupation or something like that, not -- not this. So if you want a studio or a computer or if you want to go in your garage and dance, I guess you can. So it doesn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you want to continue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Over on the next page does it -- and the way we do these businesses, I'm not sure how they're clustered together, but the ones that are permitted -- let me just see. And, again, it is difficult because -- you know what might be nice, I would think if these lists -- if all these business services were individually listed, but you got to pick the cluster that best represents what you want. MR. EHARDT: I -- I think the original overlay had specific uses listed out in each of the categories, but the county's -- or county's LDC has this matrix which this would be additionally -- basically added to that matrix. And these are the lists of the items that are in that matrix. And we were just applying them to the categories that we had and except for artist studios and a couple other ones we introduced Page 130 ~'_"_"_"_~W..._.__.~....___W'''V''''~_'''~_'_»'__0' .'Mm^'·"'_'^ December 15, 2005 some new, you know, language in there, some new items as such, some new uses as such. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think, for example, we chose one. The one that has the permitted uses in it is the only one we've chosen because that's the only group of business uses we've chosen. MR. JACKSON: Okay. Commissioner, I don't understand what . . your Issue IS. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what my issue is, if you look at the way the code -- the table in the code which I guess we can't change has different groups of business services with different SIC codes. The one we chose is the one we chose, but it does eliminate some of the uses that are available and some of the other ones. F or example, we can't have computer programmers in this area because of the one we chose. Court reporters-- MR. EHARDT: I'd have to -- I'd have to look at the specific SIC code and see what's allowed. I mean, some of the codes are very deceptive on when they say something. You go inside and it allows a lot of things you wouldn't think were in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. EHARDT: But we had to -- had to choose something that was -- you know, fit what we wanted to do. What I did is I went through the existing Bayshore overlay document that also had SIC codes in it. And I wanted to make sure that in this revision here that we had the -- at least we're allowing the same types of uses that are in the original code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. EHARDT: And, of course, we've added a few. But I went through and checked those numbers against the titles they called things to make sure they were allowed. And unless I've missed one somewhere, I think I've got them -- most of them are there that exist today in your LDC for the overlay on Bayshore. Page 131 .._._..,."..._."....~~_.........«_...____..,,_""*...,_._.. __....""__._._"w",.~.".~.~'"._-~.,.-· ._-_._..._"._-~~--,~-,,- December 15, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I did is I went through and looked at all the codes. And I don't know if you guys understand what I'm getting at here. But, like, for example, 7311 is allowed in all of them but the one on the bottom. So staff has gone through and clustered SIC codes. Because of that -- you know, in other words, I think what would have been nice is maybe a list of all the business SICs, but because of the one they chose, you can't have court reporters. You can't have computer programmers. You can't have things that are allowed. So does that mean that they're not allowed in this area or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think, Brad, the only ones that are allowed are the ones that say -- the P with the little 14 and P with a 15. That's it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you have ones you want to suggest that they add, why don't we just ask Mr. Jackson if he wants to add them? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then add -- okay. Then add 7371. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's first ask if there's an issue from -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I think what we have -- I mean, just go through all of the SIC codes that are listed here. But where would he add it anyway? He'd have to start a new category of business codes to add it into a new grouping. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, if that's what you think needs to be done, we need to ask the question and see if they would -- are willing to do it. I mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then -- then maybe that would be good. Is to add a new business category to the whole table and go through all the business SIC codes and put in there everything that you think we would want in there. We certainly would want, you know, Page 132 ---"~"..........~_._.. .,-. December 15,2005 photo studio, stuff like that. We would want -- court reporters should be allowed, computer programmers. Anyway, let's move onto that. I mean, it's just -- I think the hardship you have is you're dealing with the clusters that the county chose and trying to find one that's the closest. The point is if Mark's okay, let's make a new cluster that's just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just suggesting to get -- to get to your concern, if they want to re-review it and make sure that all the business services that they want in the area are included in the one they've designated, fine. If there's others that you feel the area needs, then just come back in the next round and recommend them to us and it'll get -- I'm assuming it'll get done. MR. EHARDT: Yeah. Like I said, I went through the current Bayshore overlay document that's in the LDC right now where it allows the different types of uses. And I matched that up with what I presented here. Now, if I missed something somewhere, I apologize. But as far as I know unless someone changes what they want to do, this is what the community approved and is in the ordinance right now. And all I'm doing is expanding the geographical areas basically and adding a couple new things in here for clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understood what you're trying -- I think Brad's trying to expand on it and seeing if you wanted to expand on the uses. And that's something you guys need to decide. MR. JACKSON: Well, sir, what I'm hearing is you're asking us to go back and revisit all these codes and put in what we think should be in there. What's in there is what we think should be in there. If there's something that you want in there, tell me the number, tell me where it will be and I will put it in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, do you have a specific number? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll-- I'll go over it later. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did have a comment that -- Mr. Page 133 "...._~______,~.".._.,_...._".._'_._.",.._..~..,~.~.."__^'M.'_~'_""__"'""""_""""'~'''_'-''_'''~'__"'''. December 15, 2005 Jackson, I recognized your strength of your comment there. What was going through my mind is inasmuch as it's a grouping and it was a-- and it may not be what you'd want. You've -- I assumed that you accepted some things in the codes that you would prefer not to have. And I wanted to find out first whether that was the issue for you if it were an issue? If it's not, I will stop. MR. JACKSON: Those that would probably -- I mean, then it gets down to a person's opinion. And as Mr. Ehardt has tried to convey, when they had all the neighborhood meetings and 100 people showed up and they did the listing of what do you want in your community and what don't you want, there was a big chart up there that listed all the different uses that the county allowed in C 1 through C5. And the people went up there and they made their recommendations. And this boiled down from what they wanted. Now, who am I to say that what the community wanted should be changed? And as far as I know if there was one that was a little bit controversial, it may have been eliminated. But we have added some of the uses that made sense to be there. And if Mr. Schiffer has some that we missed that makes sense to be there, I don't have any problem on adding any of that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I applaud that and I wasn't trying to create any issues for you. I was just trying to find out your comfort level because if folks picked things out and they were -- they were not found to be in a class or a code that was satisfied, you may have not put it in and that's all I was going to -- but I'll -- I'll stop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have been satisfied that the public process vetted out the uses that you've included those here. So, I mean, the concerns -- if we have some specifics, we'll try to get as accurate as we can in recommendations. Is there any -- Brad, you want to go onto the next page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And, Dave, don't misunderstand. It wasn't that you didn't do the task. It's just that I Page 134 December 15,2005 think the county locks you into groupings that was difficult to get everything you wanted in one group. And when I went in to look at groups that you didn't choose as permitted, I do think that there are functions in there that you would want. I think you would want a photo studio. I think the court reporter might want to have her office down there too, but you're excluding her. MR. JACKSON: If it makes sense, sir, I have no problem adding in give what you feel comfortable -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know how you feel about doing it though, so -- MR. JACKSON: Just give it to me. W e'lllook at it with a consultant and if it makes sense, we'll put it in there. If they're comparable uses to what something else is -- is in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Page 103, which is the last page, I believe, everybody. Swimming pools as an accessory use in the neighborhood commercial and the waterfront. You know, we do have hotels. We do have bed and breakfast. Wouldn't that be -- is that something that would -- is it because of maybe -- MR. JACKSON: Swimming pools is part of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think -- MR. JACKSON: Correct. Because we do have some neighborhood commercial uses, in fact, that already have swimming pools in the back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So don't you think we would want to add that as allowable or is it -- MR. JACKSON: Well, we put them in -- we should -- yeah, allowable as an accessory use is what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. JACKSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, a hotel is going to want something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that it for the -- Page 135 December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm out of there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else got any questions through page 103? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, page 104 is just footnotes to 103 and prior to them have been crossed out. So we'll go to 105, 106 are both just chapter numbers and references. 107, any questions? Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just -- and this is just a clerical thing. Dave, up in A you refer to and I think just kind of make it clear with dashes or dots. It's 202, dot, 03, dot, 07, dot, I, dot, 2; correct? MR. JACKSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's scrivener's. MR. JACKSON: That's a good catch. And there's also a space that should be in there too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 108? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question on 108. Why did we change the side yard to ten feet? Existing overlay's five feet. MR. EHARDT: Okay. Last time I think you brought up the building foundation buffer. And we felt that either the building's at zero or a minimum of ten so we could get a five-foot building buffer around the edge. Another five feet could be used for a sidewalk or something to go from front to back via parking in the rear. And we worked with the staff on -- on the buffering and the building foundation planning idea. And that's why we put it in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, I -- I do have a problem with the buffer. I don't think we should move the building to let the suburban buffer in the downtown zoning, but we can discuss that later. I think it should go back to five feet. The -- there's a lot of old buildings down there built at five feet. That must have been the setback in that area. Again, we're trying to create a downtown to have 20-foot separation between buildings. Is -- we're sliding back to suburban. Page 136 December 15,2005 MR. JACKSON: Well, you -- you have trouble with the range. You want a hard number? Is that what you want? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't see a range. Am I missing something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's no range there. MR. JACKSON: It says range three to ten feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where am I? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't -- I don't see that on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on page 108, side yard. MR. JACKSON: Oh, excuse me. My -- my error. You're talking COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Some of the other -- the other urban overlays -- MR. JACKSON: You're talking side yard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- do have zero and, you know, up to ten feet. I think those are well done. I think this one here should go back to five or go to zero to ten or something just to -- MR. JACKSON: I -- I think in the conversation that this came out of this -- we may have had it with the landscape architect from the staff, we had talked about buildings. And if you have two buildings and they don't want to go to zero lot line, if you wanted to have the building perimeter landscape in there other than a five-foot walkway to get to a parking area in the back, that if you wanted to allow the opportunity to put in some vegetation alongside of the building. So that was kind of a number that separated the building back from the property line so some landscaping could be in there if there was a walkway back to the back of the parking area. And I believe that's where this number came from. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Dave, why -- okay. Remember we're downtown. Why do we want landscaping between buildings? Page 137 December 15,2005 MR. JACKSON: Well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, anyway, I mean, so you're saying is that in conversation since this meeting with the landscape department, you decided to spread the buildings down there 20 feet a part so that you can put plantings in there? MR. JACKSON: Okay. You would like to see it go back to five? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'd actually like to see it like the other urban one to be zero to ten I think would be nice. MR. JACKSON: Under your recommendation, we'll change the number to five. MR. EHARDT: You said zero to ten? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like that because that's what you're doing in some of the other ones and that makes sense. I mean MR. EHARDT: Yeah. Well, zero to ten we could -- if it's ten feet, you could be a minimum of ten feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Zero to ten would be -- you've got to be -- you can't go less than zero because you're on the neighbor's yard. And then you've got to go no more than ten. MR. JACKSON: So you're giving the builder -- the builder an option? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. But -- but -- but, you know, this thing's gone through all your reviews at five feet. I think we should put it back to what everybody expects it to be and -- MR. EHARDT: Well, five feet is what exists today, what's in the ordinance today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, maybe Ms. Gundlach would like to speak to the issue if it pertains. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nancy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Page 138 "",_.,,"_..'''-,"-~"'~~~''',"µ' , .. . December 15, 2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did I mispronounce her name? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't call her Nancy. MS. FABACHER: Gundlach. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that was my error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know her as Nancy. I don't know -- I know the new name. I haven't heard -- MS. GUNDLACH: For the record, I'm Nancy Gunglach and I'm a landscape architect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you spell that? MS. GUNDLACH: With zoning and land development review. Oh, G-u-n-d-I-a-c-h. And, yes, we did meet regarding landscaping. We didn't talk about this particular issue. It's as you wish. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have no objection if they were to go zero -- zero to ten or zero to five or -- MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, I just want to clarify that. As far as the side-yard setback, we did not discuss that so... COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you have an opinion on it that we -- MS. GUNDLACH: Well, I like -- I like Joe's idea that if we do have a ten-foot setback and you have a sidewalk running back there, it wouldn't -- it wouldn't -- it would be pleasant to have some landscaping there. But if the building's at zero, it's at zero. It will be no sidewalk or landscaping. MR. EHARDT: As you're saying these things, I'm thinking about why I did some of this. If you have a particular parcel and you're going to put a building on it and you say that the side yard is five feet or zero. Let's say it's zero feet and you put it on the property line on one side, but the other side you've got a parking lot or something like that. This is -- allows the perimeter landscaping to go around that. And we're -- again, we've changed the rules from what the county has now. Irregardless of the height, we have a five-foot perimeter Page 139 December 15,2005 landscape foundation, I'm using the wrong word, building foundation landscaping zone around the building if there's room to do it. And, obviously, if you have zero, there's no room to do it. So that's why we had it in there in case you have something -- you know, the building doesn't fill up the whole site that's going across there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a concensus -- MR. EHARDT: Does that answer or are you still -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think five feet -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So do 1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it should stay at five feet. I think people have made commitments. Remember, this is an existing overlay. I mean, to wiggle the rules on it somewhere someone's got to go out so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't have a concern. I don't know about the rest of the commission. If there's no concern we'll-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to see the five myself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We'll leave it at five. Brad, do -- are you done with page 108? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 109. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 109 up at the top the -- we discuss flood zone. I mean, what little review I could do, it appears that most of the area is about a foot -- the grade of the area is about a foot to maybe 18 inches above the flood zone. It's slightly above what the flood requirements would be. So the concept of the first floor elevation, that sidewalk, I think -- first of all, I think the first floor elevation by FEMA is not going to wind up at the sidewalk height. I -- you know, one of the comments that Mr. Fernandez made earlier is this is a busy street. This is not a-- even Fifth Avenue I don't think has the speed of traffic this is going to have. I think that if we did encourage people to raise their thing 18 Page 140 December 15, 2005 inches, I don't think that's high enough to make it appear as if they're not at grade level, but it would be high enough to start getting -- if you had sidewalk cafes and stuff like that out front, a little bit better protection from a runaway vehicle. I think if the side -- you know, 18 inches is a nice height. It puts people in a safer position if something went wrong with the traffic. So I think that to make sure that people aren't forced to building below flood zone, I would like to just see -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First floor elevation level with a sidewalk for commercial and mixed use you'd like to see it raised 18 inches above the crown of road. Is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or at FEMA. I mean, it's unfair to push a developer below FEMA. You're right. There are little dam systems you can build to put on your stuff, but that's fooling with Mother Nature and that doesn't always work. That rarely works. Dave, does that pop a vision here or -- MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. We discussed it last time. We were going to talk about it. We never had that conversation. So what is the language you would like to see? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would say that, you know, you could put it at the -- well, here's kind of a problem. Let's say we make somebody put it at FEMA. Prudent designers, and I do this, I don't like to be right at FEMA. Maybe FEMA isn't right so people do tend to bring it up or down. You're talking about, you know, flooding of people's buildings in storms. I think that if you said that within some dimension of the sidewalk. MR. EHARDT: Could I add a comment? And I apologize for this. If you see the section we talked down below on that page on height and so forth, it does reference the FEMA requirements. I think I could delete that top box up there completely since it's described down there in the measure of heights from first floor elevations and so forth. Page 141 December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I think -- the only thing the top box does give you is the intent that you don't want people building it up four feet or you don't want people doing all kinds of geometry with it. MR. EHARDT: Well, I think last time we talked there was concern that we build the first floor elevation at least to FEMA standards. And someone I think, maybe you did, sir, had mentioned even a foot higher or something like that. Now, we're saying we're going back to what we originally had, that we're going to build it to the FEMA standards, whatever that might be. Now, if someone wants to add something on top of that, let me know and we'll add it on top of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually what we're saying below, which is good, is we're measuring from FEMA standards. In other words, to measure your height of your building. That doesn't mean your first floor has to be at FEMA. It just means that you're going to start measuring at FEMA. MS. FABACHER: No. MR. EHARDT: The first floor elevation by FEMA standards? MS. F ABACHER: First habitable floor by FEMA standard means above base flood, that or above base flood. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's measured from first floor elevation by FEMA standards. Well, what if my -- MR. EHARDT: I don't mind clarifying it up in the top box if that's okay. I mean, I'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to get to a resolution. You-- you suggested eliminating the top box and -- because it's explained down below. Why don't we just do that and be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The goal is I don't want people forced to build below FEMA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're not if we remove the top box so... Page 142 December 15, 2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's a good solution. MR. JACKSON: If you take -- yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anything else on page 109? MR. JACKSON: So that box is eliminated, correct, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. JACKSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on page 109? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 110? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page III? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait. 111, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you at? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm on 111. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 111. My question is No.9. It allows the administrative staff to reduce parking requirements. It previously had a maximum reduction. Now it's got none. I'm not particularly comfortable with that and I'd imagine staff wouldn't want to be in a position to have a reduction that's unlimited and have to try to justify it administratively and not put it through a process so... MR. JACKSON: The conversation as I recall from Ms. Murray was that they already have a process in the code for a deviation for parking that's already in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unlimited? MS. MURRAY: Yeah. Essentially there is no limit on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, you mean if someone comes in and wants to wipe out all their parking spaces, you guys could administratively approve that? MS. MURRAY: No. The code requires you at least to have a minimum of one, but it's -- it's -- I would call it a fact-specific application. Meaning, if you present certain evidence or facts that would allow you to reduce your parking to an unlimited amount with Page 143 December 15,2005 the exception of one space and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, rather if it's already in the code, then why don't we strike the redundancy here? Just for -- you know, if it's already in the code, you don't need it here too. MR. JACKSON: We can reduce -- take out the -- the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Starting with, the county's administrator of community development. MR. JACKSON: Yes. Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Strike through that. MR. JACKSON: The front part needs to be there for people to understand that there's existing sites. The staff wanted that to be defined. And I think you had some discomfort with that on how much does a person tear down before it becomes new or existing construction. So we'll take it from that point and delete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That way it stays consistent with the LDC and if the LDC gets changed in the future, then everything's still the same. MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have questions on page III? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just eight up above that. Is that -- I mean, what we want -- we want to kind of encourage shared parking and stuff like that. So the county manager has to approve it or his designee has to approve that? MR. JACKSON: Number -- No.8? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number eight, yeah. MR. JACKSON: No. There's -- that's all strike through. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's all strike through. MR. JACKSON: It's according to code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but the code's where I'm reading from and that's where it requires the county manager to approve the off-site. And there was -- essentially what you've done is Page 144 December 15, 2005 taking wording out of there because it is in the code. MR. JACKSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that's the rules we're going to go by? MR. JACKSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you're okay? All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 112? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I've got something and, Nancy, maybe you want to come up. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think would it be okay to add a note to buffers that the requirements of 4.602 which is the buffer requirements are not required in case there's these conditions where buffers -- in other words, you're describing one of the many buffer requirements we have. So essentially what I'm saying is, do we want to eliminate all the other buffers or there -- MS. GUNDLACH: I would not recommend that because there are existing property owners who have -- who have interest as well and we want to protect them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But so what this states is that all the other buffers in the code which is, again, you know -- and when I say "suburban code," I don't mean that to be a detriment. Think we build a beautiful town, a beautiful suburban town. Now that we're focusing on urban projects, the rules I think should change. And I think this is one of them. In other words, if we apply all the suburban buffers to these projects, it's not what the master plan envisions. I understand what you're saying. I think this is a good buffer. I don't want to eliminate this, but the buffers are going to be required between proj ects. The buffers will be -- I mean, individual parcels would all be buffered. Page 145 December 15,2005 And these are tiny parcels which we're supposed to be building a downtown. And, again, this -- this isn't -- the geometry of these lots aren't going to be such that this is going to work. MS. GUNDLACH: I under -- oh, did you want to respond? MR. EHARDT: I'm -- I'm not quite -- I know what you're saying yet I don't know what you're saying. This applies just to the NC category? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. EHARDT: It doesn't apply to residential or anything-- okay. All right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the NC category is intended to build urban downtown; correct? MR. EHARDT: Well, I wouldn't necessarily say a downtown, but more of a mixed use type of development that has, you know, pedestrian friendly environment and so forth for pedestrians and so forth. I mean, we're limiting the height only, you know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what our code would require now is between each of the projects along that street, each property would have a ten-foot buffer on it. So what you envision this town is that -- imagine Bayshore. Imagine these small towns at each property line ten feet to each side of that property line you have to have a ten-foot buffer. If that's the case, then-- MR. EHARDT: This would -- this would be between commercial and residential. I mean, on Bayshore you basically got the commercial in the front and the residential in the back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Our code requires buffers between commercial. Our code requires buffers between everything because it's a beautiful -- MR. JACKSON: But you just had your setbacks set at five feet on the side setback. So with a five-foot setback with a building, you can't put ten foot of buffering in there so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think, Nancy, the code Page 146 "",~-;,._~---~ ............. . ,---..-,.'-~-" ... December 15,2005 says that if the setback is less, the buffer's there. Now, we can't have __ okay. Let's say we have two five-foot things. We have a ten-foot buffer running through there. We can't have sidewalks on that buffer. In other words, I think what we have to do is we have to get the image to match the words. And if the image is to build a -- I mean, what is the image to build? Maybe I'm missing it. MR. EHARDT: No. I think you have the image. I didn't realize there were buffers between your commercial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have buffers between buffers and we built a beautiful town from it. Don't -- don't -- you know, I don't mean to be a wise guy on buffers. We owe a lot to the system, but I don't think it belongs downtown. MS. GUNDLACH: Can I make a recommendation? The vision I'm seeing is buildings close to the street, parking behind the buildings. We eliminate that ten-foot wide buffer. Best case scenario, maybe we get two commercial developments that come in at the same time that are brand new and we get ten feet from each of them. That's a 20- foot strip. We eliminate that then we won't have any trees. I don't know that that's a good thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's what I think we'll have. And you see it, like, on Fifth Avenue which I don't know if this came by regulation, but they have courtyards. There are people walking between buildings. Remember, a building has bad sides and good sides. There may be, you know, duct work coming out of a restaurant and one of these five-foot strips that you don't want people walking down. And what you envision is these nice patios where people put planters and people dress it up. They're sitting out there in these things. I mean, so I think look at what this is. You wouldn't be able to have that because you'd have -- the way the code is now, 20-foot of buffer. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. And the other recommendation I would make is we need to consider the property owners who aren't Page 147 December 15,2005 redeveloped at the same time that that new commercial piece comes in. I have a project I'm reviewing right now. And it's currently -- it's a commercial project and it's located next to existing residential. And without our current buffer requirements, there would be no buffer between them and the new parking lot that's been located at the rear of the commercial building. So we have to consider the people who are already there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the buffer requirement you wrote here would cure that and that's a good one. I'm not saying kill this guy. The guy you put in is good. What my comment is, is can we make a statement that removes the requirement to meet the, in a friendly term, suburban buffers? MR. EHARDT: I guess I need to ask -- ask Nancy, but where are the buffer requirements between commercial, I guess? How do they -- what are they activated on? I'm sorry. I didn't-- MS. GUNDLACH: Commercial development to commercial development would be a ten-foot wide Type A buffer. Overall, together it forms a 20- foot wide buffer with trees 30 feet on center. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And no sidewalks running through it. You can cross it, but you can't run the length of it so the -- I mean, it's -- again, it's a matter of is this an urban vision or is this a suburban vision? MS. GUNDLACH: Just one other consideration. Where will we put the water management swales if you don't have the buffer to put it in? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a question I have coming up. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we're going to be going -- again, if it's an urban situation, we're going to be going through retention, you know, devices and stuff like that. But that's what people do in urban situations. Page 148 December 15,2005 MS. MURRAY: For the record, Susan Murray. I'm curious. The setbacks here aren't zero. And when you go down Fifth Avenue, I mean, you're pretty much looking at building to building to building with breaks in between. You know, that's not really the situation here. You've got setback requirements with them. If I'm incorrect, let me know, but it seems to me we ought to introduce some green requirements between buildings as breaking up of the concrete and the monotony and the -- it's also providing for a buffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, again, maybe what the problem is when we all close our eyes and envision what this street is, we're not seeing the same thing. I mean, I'm not seeing buildings -- you know, they required minimally 35 feet. So let's say we get 40, 50-foot buildings close to each other, you know, with buffer -- with landscaping in between. That's totally not -- MS. MURRAY: Well, maybe it's not between every building, but maybe there's some way of introducing a green element there because -- MR. EHARDT: I -- I would say if there's a -- and I apologize for not realizing buffers between commercial and commercial. That's why I went back to the zero or ten-foot setback, side setbacks, because we could get foundation planting in there and even room for a sidewalk to go to the back. It's not called a buffer, but at least there would be some green and landscaping in those areas when you have that. In other words, you could have two buildings twenty feet apart, five- foot landscaping foundation planting running parallel and some type of sidewalk for common use to go to parking in the rear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's not our buffer system, Joe. I mean, our buffer system-- MR. EHARDT: What I said -- I said -- what I was saying is that we would delete like you were suggesting the buffer system between commercial to commercial on the NC. That way we'd have to put that language in here. Page 149 December 15,2005 MR. JACKSON: If I may, Mr. Schiffer, I don't know where you're going with this because we just established a side setback for new construction buildings at five feet from the property line. By-- by definition you can't put a 20- foot or 10- foot buffer in there. So I don't know why the conversation is going on when you can't put the buffer in because you've mandated a five-foot side setback. MR. EHARDT: The building might not take up the whole length of the side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm -- I'm clear where I'm going. I mean, there's no surprise. I don't think that the buffer requirements in our code apply to these areas. I think we can add buffer requirements like we did both buffer requirements to protect surrounding people from this. But I think that the buffer requirements we have just don't apply to the vision of this area. MR. JACKSON: Do -- do we say in here and can you point to the paragraph where we say that we have to have a ten- foot-between -commercial-properties buffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. On page 112 J, as required. And remember -- I'll read it. As required by division Chapter 4.06.00 of the code unless specified other below. I open this up. I requested that we specify that 4.06.02 is not required, which is the buffer scheme. MR. JACKSON: Okay. So we solve that by saying 4.02 is not required. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that's what you really want. I mean, are people going to do ugly things between buildings? I don't think so. This town rewards itself by doing nice courtyards. The buffer system wouldn't even let you walk through that area. MR. EHARDT: I -- maybe it's a matter of intent how this was worded. The idea was that what we wrote here for buffers is it, period. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's-- Page 150 December 15,2005 MR. EHARDT: That -- that's -- that's what we were trying to say. Now, maybe we need to clarify that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you use my words, that's exactly what you get. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, that's as clear as mud. What do you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- I have an issue. On -- on Architectural G, Item 6, I'm -- I'm -- I know that you can fluoresce something, but I didn't know that there was such a thing as fluorescent colors. I understand you were trying to get away from the neon. I understand we had that conversation. MR. EHARDT: What -- what I -- what I did was to reference the word that was used in your architectural code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's fluorescent? MR. EHARDT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But when you combine that with colors, does that -- MR. EHARDT: I think it talked about colors, if I'm not mistaken. I think it talked about colors. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing you remember, we passed a -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You can fluoresce black, you know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We -- we passed the revision to remove the words "fluorescent colors." They're not allowed in the architectural standards anymore. But this is somewhat redundant, but it wouldn't hurt. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one question. MR. EHARDT: So we're leaving it there or we're taking it out? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if you took it out, it wouldn't matter because the architecture standards doesn't allow it Page 151 December 15,2005 anymore. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If the standard doesn't allow it, that's -- I just think it brings a question to mind, but that's okay. MR. JACKSON: Okay. If it's redundant and we're-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's redundant. MR. JACKSON: Okay. Then we will strike that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Assuming that the -- it's in this cycle that we're taking it out, so if it failed, you'd wish you had it. It shouldn't fail. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just leave it alone? MR. JACKSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we've explained it. It's addressed somewhere else. It's not going to hurt to have it addressed here, so let's just leave it alone. Under 2, Buffers, I have one question. It says "Landscaping shall be on the commercial side of the wall. " You're up against a residential product. Is there any thought to putting landscaping on the residential side as well rather than having a blank wall there for the residential component? MR. EHARDT: I'd like Nancy to answer because we talked about this and I think this was one of her suggestions or a combination of suggestions. MS. GUNDLACH: We -- we've have had some experiences in-- in this particular area where we applied our current code requirements of setting the wall six feet off the property line and putting all of the landscaping facing towards the residential. And what we're finding is many times the residences already have fences and walls in place. And so we end up with this dead zone. And then on the commercial side there's absolutely nothing. And so there's no benefit to the property owner, the commercial property owner who's spending all the money on this. And it just, quite frankly, has not been entirely Page 152 December 15,2005 successful. So we changed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a residential property owner could have -- be surrounded by three solid white walls with no landscaping? MR. EHARDT: Right. I think another issue -- and I just -- this is more of a maintenance issue. I'd assume that if the landscaping went on the residential side of the wall, that would be on the commercial property owner's property. In order to maintain that, he would have to get permission every time he wants to weed or water or do something to go on the private property to be able to maintain that five foot or whatever distance we have. I don't know how that works today. Maybe that's why the stuff on the residential side looks pretty bad because no one's getting access to maintain it and the resident maybe doesn't feel -- it's an apartment or something like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a good question, though, Mark. Is the wall on the property line or is the wall anywhere in that buffer? MR. EHARDT: It would be -- it would be on the property line. Maybe I need to say that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, say that. Then that way the landowner could -- he could put his own planting on the wall if he wanted it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 113. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. Up at the top and it's foundation planting. Most of the logic is the same as we applied before. Again, you know, to take a building -- what -- what foundation planting is that surrounding the building with planting. First of all, with mold becoming a big issue, designers don't like to surround buildings with planting anymore. But, again, we're creating a downtown. If you have, you know, I mean, we want restaurants. We want, you know, hard surfaces. We want a lot of -- I mean, we don't -- MR. EHARDT: If -- if you -- and, again, I go back to if you Page 153 December 15,2005 have a particular lot configuration, whatever it might be, and the building on one side is set to the zero line and the other side happens to be access, driveway access or access to a parking lot, I think you would want some perimeter landscaping around that. Now, if it's at zero, you don't have -- obviously, you don't have it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. But we don't have -- we're not allowed zero in this -- in this -- in the -- MR. EHARDT: No. I'm talking about a setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think we ever allowed zero setback in here. Am I wrong on that? MR. EHARDT: A side setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think we are. Prove me wrong, though. Because I mentioned that last time and we didn't want that. MR. EHARDT: The downtown area, sometimes the buildings are up next to each other. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I used to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's Fifth Avenue I think you were referencing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't think it's in here. I don't think we're allowed zero in here. MR. EHARDT: It's not in this. It's not in Bayshore, no. It's five. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Weare in the other ones. I don't know why we're not here, but we aren't so... MR. JACKSON : You're adverse to putting foundation plantings, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't know what they really means here. I mean, in terms of -- because remember, it's a requirement. It has to be there. And that foundation planting can't have anything in it but plantings. So that means that if I have a restaurant and I want people to have an outdoor patio, I have to have planting up against my building. It goes all the way around the Page 154 December 15,2005 building. You know, I've got the backyard surface. I've got the rest of it there. MR. EHARDT: It -- I mean, that's why we put in 80 percent. We can make it 70 percent or 60 percent of the perimeter. We're just talking about -- we're changing this from what you have today which the width of the foundation buffering increases as the height goes up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. EHARDT: We're just keeping it five feet and we're saying it's the perimeter of the building, 80 percent of the perimeter. If it's 100 feet, then it's 80 feet that gets landscaped. Now, we can reduce that by -- you know, reduce it down or eliminate it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, again, you know, close your eyes and envision an urban scene. I mean, I certainly want trees and I want plantings and you want all that stuff, but do we want a requirement that requires the total perimeter of the building or 80 percent of the perimeter of the building? And, you know, but that's not it. I like that, but that's not perimeter planting. Nancy, right? That's not foundation planting. MS. GUNDLACH: That would be considered it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where? The stuff at the end of the sidewalk? MS. GUNDLACH: Uh-huh. We give people that flexibility. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the words don't. I mean, in the code the perimeter has to be right along side the building, I thought. MS. GUNDLACH: We have images in the code that show that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which I think ends a lot of the issues that have been raised, in truth. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, but -- but, you know, we've been held fast to be putting up against around the building. I don't -- if -- I mean, first of all, that's landscaping on the right-of-way. Page 155 December 15,2005 I mean, I think that looks good and I'm expecting this to have stuff like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any more, Brad, or do you know need a resolution with it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no. Then let's say that the perimeter planting -- I mean, let's put a requirement that allows you to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've given that -- if there's direction requesting to clarify perimeter planting and what you mean, you're going to come back apparently now in January anyway, so why don't we just bring it back then. Maybe -- and that's a -- Commissioner Caron just mentioned maybe put some pictures in there or something to show what the intent is. COMMISSIONER CARON: So that way everybody will get the idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we can get-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how would that apply, like, the rear side and everything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let -- let staff address it and come back with a suggestion. Does that work for you, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page 113? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 114. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only question there is the word "crackers." Is that where we -- I mean, I've seen bar fights start over that word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It should be "redneck." COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Moving right along. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, my. Page 156 December 15,2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 114, no other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to page 115. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Item 4 talked about bedrooms. It says "space plus one bedrooms" and take the S out. The red S. MS. FABACHER: It is out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is out. There's a little line through it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's hard to see. MR. EHARDT: It's hard to see, but there is a line through it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's struck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 116. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just ask a question on that. Section K which is bed and breakfast, bed and breakfast is allowed in neighborhood commercial, but it's also allowed in BMUD. Is this a good place to put that or -- and I'm not sure where else you'd put it, but -- MR. EHARDT: I was asked to -- I mean, David, I think you asked me to move this from where it was to this new section. I don't -- I'd have to ask him the reasons why, but I think I had it further back and we moved it up here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So is this -- is this its final resting place or -- MS. FABACHER: That's where all the standards are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The standards for NC. It's also allowed in the next one. The waterfront district also allows bed and breakfasts. I'm just -- I don't know where else to put it, but it just -- unless there's a general. MR. JACKSON: Well, if you wanted to be all inclusive would be to copy this section and put it in the Waterfront section. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or maybe note it also applies to waterfront up here or something. I don't know. Page 157 December 15,2005 MR. JACKSON: Then they may not find it then because they'll never read that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. JACKSON: So we'll cut and paste it and we'll put it in waterfront. MR. EHARDT: Well, the purpose of the waterfront does say it reflects everything that's in the NC except with additions to what's here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then that does it well, then. MR. EHARDT: The first sentence there, Purpose A under Waterfront I think refers to NC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. You got it. That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 116. Any questions on page 116? Mr. Jackson, 5B and 6B are not written the same? MR. JACKSON: Correct, and as I caught it. This is one of those oversights. We're going to -- I'm going to go back and take Band C, the paragraph 5 and 6 are redundant and take them and combine them -- put it together. That -- this came out of the difference between Bayshore Drive and Haldeman Creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. JACKSON: And we'll make it read a little bit smoother. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was my only comment on 116. Does anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, page 117. Going once. Going twice. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 118. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I do have one. Where it says "parapets on flat roof can be no more than four, five" or is it supposed to be 45 feet in height? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 117, second to the last box, Page 158 December 15,2005 right-hand side. MS. FABACHER: I think that -- excuse me. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it four or five or is it-- MS. FABACHER: Pardon me. Catherine Fabacher. I think the four is crossed through, Commissioner. It's hard to read. MR. JACKSON: Yeah. I think it's five. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Four is crossed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The -- see the-- MR. EHARDT: It's red and red and so it'd have to be-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wow. That's a tough one. So it's five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 118. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 119. MS. FABACHER: I have -- staffhas a question. I think it says "may not be greater than one foot over the minimum first floor elevation. " CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you at, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. 3-A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: May not be greater than one foot over the -- I'm just -- MR. JACKSON: That conversation came from Mr. Murray and Mr. Schiffer's conversation about the flood elevation from last time. And that -- Mr. Ehardt pointed that out several conversations ago that that one-foot number came out. And we didn't want it to be too high. So instead of being four or three, they decided it was one. Ms. Fabacher. MS. FABACHER: I'm just worried about potential liability. If it's built before the new flood elevation maps are put in and it's at the current standard, then one foot up means when the new standard -- well, if they're not one foot up, then when the new standard comes in, Page 159 December 15,2005 they'll be at or below. And then for insurance purposes you get rebates on your flood insurance premium for having free board. So I'm just -- MR. JACKSON: Well, I don't think you can protect everybody. And right now what do you do, stop all construction work till FEMA gets their flood maps in. We might be three years without a building gOIng up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever rules are in place when they're reviewed is what they're going to have to abide by so I'm not sure that your concern -- MS. FABACHER: Well, that just means that they can't -- if they want to build one foot of free board in just to protect themselves because they know the new flood maps are coming or if they want to reduce their premium -- their flood insurance premium, they don't get that opportunity. That's -- I'm a question. I'm not arguing against it. It's just -- MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray for the record. I think what she's arguing is you can't go any higher than that. And if they desire to go higher than that in anticipation of a change, this limits them. MS. FABACHER: Right. That's what I'm trying to say. MS. MURRAY: That's just a comment, I think, more than anything. MS. FABACHER: A comment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we have -- if we have the zoned height measured from FEMA, what does it matter how high they go? I mean, what if they -- what if they want to go three foot above free board, but the architectural embellishments to allow them to do that or the way the building appears is regulated in such a matter you really don't notice it, who cares? So why do you want to limit it to one foot over if it's part of the zoning measured height? That might just be a simple solution. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. We're not sure. Page 160 December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what this is doing is establishing a fixed height for your first floor. It's obviously not going to be less than FEMA. You're saying it can't be more than FEMA. I mean, there is designs and old Florida designs, the houses are actually raised, you know, three feet or so above the ground; the crawl space mentality which does make sense. So I don't think it would -- it would violate the look of the house to have it raised up high. I mean, some people prefer not being slab on grade. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that question raised -- was raised because of some of the illustrations that showed -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that was why we were trying to understand how to -- how to avoid a problem. I would agree, though, that you -- I'm not sure that the NFIP replacing FEMA is the right one. It may very well be the right phrase. It was an attempt. Now, I don't know that we want to preclude someone from building a little bit higher, but then you have this issue of exaggeration. MR. EHARDT: A suggestion would be, just leave it at the FEMA elevation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then you're actually forcing them to be lower. In other words, the way this thing is worded. MR. EHARDT: How -- how -- I guess I don't understand, why are they -- why would we -- when they build a house, they're going to have the FEMA flood map and say they -- I mean, I imagine building inspectors are going to say your elevation has to be at least at the FEMA floor level. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me. Catherine Fabacher for the record. I can answer that. Because we're in the process of changing. Although the county's fighting. FEMA has changed our maps and the elevations will go up. So that these would be noncompliant when the new -- by mandating, you're mandating that they be noncompliant Page 161 " ..,._,~_..,,,,>.~.._.;.~.,.;,~-.,,,",,,.".,,,,-,.,.,,-,_...,,,----_..,~_._~^-"..,- December 15,2005 with the new flood maps if they get approved. I mean, they've been accepted already. MR. EHARDT: If I have a building that's going through the process now, what elevation do I have to build it at, the existing flood map FEMA regulation or not? I'm just asking. I don't know. I assume you have to build with what it is today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or greater, yes. MR. EHARDT: Right. Okay. MS. FABACHER: All right. I'm just -- MR. EHARDT: And now -- MS. F ABACHER: The other point was the free board. MR. EHARDT: Well, the other -- my other question is, if it comes to a point, you know, two years from now and this has been adopted or the new maps have been adopted and someone builds a house, they have to still build it to that new elevation as a minimum, I guess. Is that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be correct. MR. EHARDT: Is that right? I understand if you built today, you may be below the new elevation. MS. F ABACHER: And then you -- then you would become a nonconforming structure and that would tack on a whole bunch of limitations to you. MR. EHARDT: I understand, but how -- how do we solve that today except don't build anything until the new maps come out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a problem if we just regulate it like we already have previously in this document. You build -- you build at -- your zone height is measured from FEMA and leave it like that. MR. EHARDT: Take the one foot out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. EHARDT: That's fine. I've got no problem with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What that means, Mark, is that Page 162 < '>-"-.-,";",-~".""'---""".""'- ..... ,"~__c,~_,,~._...~_,._.. ___.~'.__." '_"'_'._,.._...__~.,__ December 15,2005 the first floor of the unit can be at any height. In other words, I think what they were trying to avoid is the -- the up and down of the first floor. They're trying to set a uniformity. Is that right, Dave? MR. JACKSON: Well, all you have to do is drive through the Bayshore area. Okay. And you're going to see somebody living on an ant hill. They've built this huge mound of dirt and their neighbor next to them is somewhere six, maybe eight, maybe ten feet below them. And then the person next to them has built up two feet of dirt and has a two-foot stem wall and is in between that. So what you end up with is this rolling hill of front doors and porches there. And I think the intent was -- was to try to create some uniformity for the first floor so that the neighborhood looks like it wasn't a hodgepodge, but has some kind of -- you know, I mean, just some kind of conformity to it. And I think that was the intent there. I mean, and as you go through there, you're going to see that. That you end up with some really strange looking houses on top of a pile of ten feet of dirt and then that guy next door comes in and -- and has either stem wall or somebody is there with a pre-existing building and it's probably at whatever the level of the dirt was when he built 15, 20 years ago. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, Dave, could we do this and -- and for guidance go back to your picture, the noncontroversial picture finally becomes controversial. In it you show eight steps to the first floor. So why don't we set a height, but let's set it something like MR. EHARDT: I'm sorry. Where are you looking at now? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At your document. MR. EHARDT: What page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 71. MR. EHARDT: Seventy-one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It shows you why you shouldn't -- this is why you shouldn't include pictures in codes. Page 163 December 15,2005 MR. EHARDT: I'll take it out. It's very easy to do. (Multiple voices.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First floor, I count eight steps -- eight steps, six inches, four feet. So can we set a limit not more than four feet above the minimum floor, Dave, and you can do up to that or do you not want to do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a suggestion. Would you talk with Mr. Schiffer during the break and try to resolve this issue? And let's take a break for the court reporter and for me to have some coffee to stay awake for the rest of the afternoon. It's 2:01. We'll be back at 2:12. Thank you. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're ready to start, audience. It's 2: 12. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Saved by the commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, did you want to tell us for the record what you resolved with your issue during the break, if any? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. We set the height limit to be not higher than 850 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Eight-fifty? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the City of Naples too; right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Right. Well, because of that landscape planning, we needed some height. So -- no. It's three feet. And then we decided to wipe out the last sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's back up. What is the -- in the 3A, the one foot change is to three feet and the last sentence drops. Is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page Page 164 December 15,2005 119? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 120. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 121. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 122. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 123. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The top of page 124 and the balance of this -- next pages all the way to 130 are all crossed out. So hopefully we have no questions about the cross-outs. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that wraps up the Bayshore Triangle. And I understand from reading the Gateway Triangle it is a mirror image. And I'm assuming that you'll understand that the things we mentioned in the Bayshore most likely apply to the Gateway. So insofar as the Gateway goes, instead of going page by page, since they are redundant pages, does anybody have any questions about the Gateway section of this? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, again, you mean different than -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What we already discussed in Bayshore because I -- I think the intention is very clear that what applies in Bayshore for the things we discussed will apply equally in Gateway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On page 163 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 163. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's odd to see a setback given as plus or minus. It's a nice concept, but what is the intent of that -- that as opposed to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything goes, maybe. Page 165 -.."""-,...",~_.;,~,,,,..,,.....,._- December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. EHARDT: What we're -- what we're -- I'm sorry. What we were -- what we're trying to achieve is that along those three major roads, Airport Pulling, Commercial and so forth, Davis and so forth, we're trying to get that wide sidewalk type of application. At Airport, Davis and Airport Pulling -- 41, Davis and Airport Pulling you have out there right now from measuring with a tape measure, it may vary a little bit, 5.6, 5.7, maybe 6 feet of sidewalk that's there right now. We're putting our building setback from -- you know, so we get a 16- foot setback from basically the back of curb to where the building's going to be. So I put plus or minus because I don't -- it'll vary a little bit depending on what's -- how -- where that right-of-way line is of the sidewalk. I'm trying to get something -- consistency along there. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself, but I'm trying. Before we said you had, you know, to do 16-foot from back of curb. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that would vary with the curb. MR. EHARDT: Right. Right. But you would always have that 16 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's not what you want? You want kind of it to start to line up; right? MR. EHARDT: Right. Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Is the -- MR. EHARDT: If you have the -- if the building setback, that 16- feet, the facade of the building, the streetscape area may not be exactly ten feet. It may be a little more, a little bit less because of where the right -- the existing sidewalk is. If you look at __ MR. JACKSON: Would that be clarified? Instead of having the plus and minus in front of the ten, it would be ten plus or minus. Meaning that it's in and about. Would that clarify that? Page 166 December 15,2005 MR. EHARDT: If -- if you could -- it may. Let me -- if we could go to page 176. At the bottom there's a little illustration that we did. If you see where the car is and you go back up top of the page, that first distance there is about, I'd say, plus or minus 5.6 inches or something like that. That reflects what the existing sidewalk conditions are. MR. JACKSON: Page 167. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. MR. EHARDT: Sorry. What did I say? MS. FABACHER: Where's the car? We're all saying, where's the car? MR. EHARDT: Oh, sorry. MR. JACKSON: Bottom -- bottom left. MR. EHARDT: That first band of the sidewalk next to the automobile there on the road is basically what the existing sidewalk area is out there. And it may vary a little bit. I put down there plus or minus 5 foot 6 inches or 5.6 inches. And then the rest of it's made up which becomes private property, the rest of it is the property. But that whole area becomes that streetscape zone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And your intent is to keep all the buildings in a line; is that right? MR. EHARDT: Right. Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't want them varying at all? MR. EHARDT: Except for where we say you can have some recesses at three feet and the facade of the building and so forth. The streetscaping is more to define the pedestrian area that you go down. And I'm trying to -- the last time we said the county would build and do everything in there. What I'm saying now is that you have the county sidewalk area and then you have another 10 feet or maybe it's 9.6 feet or whatever. It gets built up to the existing sidewalk from the face of your building. Page 167 ,,,.,, .,,,,.~__._,, _"_"'_'_'."~o>~"~^~"^"_,"",",,,_,,,_,,, December 15,2005 And the whole area is about 16 feet, measures 16 feet. And that's the pedestrian area. But that 10 feet gets maintained and built by the developer who redoes -- redevelops the property and he maintains it. But you can use it as a -- you know, obviously, you can walk along that. And I also was incorporating any landscaping we do would be on the private property. Therefore, you wouldn't conflict with utilities and other things that are along the existing sidewalk area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wasn't that the question that raised the issue of liability and there was the -- there was a phrase in there that said the county shall maintain it. Did you remove that part of it? MR. JACKSON: Correct. MR. EHARDT: We did. MR. JACKSON: That's all -- that's all been removed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. JACKSON: Liability would be any other public space that people are inviting public to come into their -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's an invitee. Yeah. Got it. Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are the -- we have right-of-way maps and the property line. There is a front property line somewhere. What you're saying is that the curb is wandering around. It's not necessarily uniform with that front property line; right? MR. EHARDT: The curb or the sidewalk may not be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. EHARDT: In other words, I -- I measured the width of the sidewalk at a couple places with a tape measure six months ago. And that's roughly on the -- on the different streets. That was about the average dimension that I got for a sidewalk area. And I know you're Page 168 December 15,2005 having a situation of -- or at least the redevelopment authority was in the sense of trying to get streetlights and having to try to get some on private property and they decided to put it on the public property. Well, when you do that, you narrow the sidewalk space down for walking. So we're saying put --leave the sidewalk that's there, put in your streetlights on public property and then the 10 feet behind that plus or minus depending on where the right-of-way is is your other zone that's going to be basically the front yard of this commercial development. But we want -- we don't want just landscaping there. We want it hardscaped and then meet some design criteria that's going to be established by the CRA for that area. And you really end up with a sidewalk area that's set 16 feet wide, roughly. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the goal is to get to approximately 16 -- MR. EHARDT: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. EHARDT: And that's why I can't -- because the dimension may vary a little bit on each sidewalk that's there. Now, if we went and tear up the county sidewalk and build everything to the curb, which I guess is a responsibility later on as long as we didn't infringe with the underground utilities, I guess that's something the developer or the county may decide to do at a later time. I was trying to keep existing sidewalk there and put a new sidewalk on private property in a sense behind that that's at least 10 feet so we get an overall 16- foot width along there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just to -- just to avoid unforeseen circumstance with the fact of leaving plus or minus 10 feet, that could -- in some people's eyes they may say 100 feet is plus or minus 10 feet. Do you have a cap? Plus or minus ten feet not to exceed just that -- just to be safe, is there a way to do that? MR. EHARDT: Well, I'm just trying to think. Page 169 """,,,. ··~""_·'-"_'___"".,"_"'n"·"__'''_i_'''~·_~,,,,.,,,,,,,_,,,,,,~_ December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what if you did this. What if you pegged the dimension, what would happen then? You would -- the sidewalk -- the dimension between the building face which would be fixed and the sidewalk would start to vary. MR. JACKSON: Ifwe peg a number with the nonconforming strange shape of lots because of the takings for Davis and Tamiami Trail, you -- you may end up creating a situation where a person has to come in for a deviation and variances in there. If you give them a little bit of leeway, it gives the opportunity for the planning staff to look at it and say, okay, there's some room in there to move. Ifhe says 10 feet and the guy can't make it at 9.6 feet, you know, then he's got to go for the variance. So the cost, time and money. So giving him a little bit of room because of the nature of the beast that we are living with today from past operations and building and infrastructure improvements that have gone in there. So I wouldn't -- I wouldn't necessarily -- I mean __ MS . MURRAY: I have a suggestion that might help but, Joe, you could probably tell me if this would work. Put -- I would definitely take out plus or minus and just put something like generally ten feet, you know, unless -- MR. EHARDT: I had -- yeah. I think that would work. I had another suggestion is make it 16 feet which includes whatever existing sidewalks the county has out there, period. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or, I mean, could this be resolved by measuring from-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that's a lot better. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we measure from the center line of the right-of-way? Would that give us an exact __ MS. FABACHER: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: This is the simple list what he just came up with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you-- Page 170 December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's not going to give him his constant facade. MR. EHARDT: Well, yeah, it will. Because the building -- this is the sidewalk, the streetscape zone, not the building -- front building line. The front building line is 16 feet from back of curb, period. All I'm saying, there seems to be some variation from that 16 feet to where existing sidewalks are and it's not exactly 10 feet and it's not exactly 9.6 inches. It varies a little bit. So if I said the streetscape zone just to define it is the -- you know, 16 feet which takes me to the front of the building like I want. And that -- part of that is the existing county sidewalk plus, you know, private property development. Maybe that would -_ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you come back with some language on the 15th -- on the 1st -- or 5th of January with us that would be workable. Back to the Gateway Triangle. Are there any other issues in the pages under the Gateway? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Just looking, 64, down at the bottom. What that says is your setback is zero or ten feet minimum. In other words, you can't fall between zero and ten. You got to be at zero or you start at ten to build something else? MR. EHARDT: The reason I did it was to incorporate some of that perimeter landscaping -- foundation landscaping. So you could have two buildings that were ten feet off, like I mentioned before, with five-foot perimeter landscaping along it and a sidewalk -- you know, joint sidewalk that'll take you back to the parking in the rear. I don't see anything wrong. It can be zero or none. Or if you have a building, like I said, if you have a building that doesn't occupy the full thing. Let's say there's a driveway or a side parking lot, you may want to have perimeter landscaping around that, you know, base of that building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Given what you saw with Page 171 December 15,2005 Nancy's pictures which are I think very, very effective, wouldn't-- wouldn't you now revise your thinking on how to phrase it and you can come back to us on the 5th; right? MR. EHARDT: I guess I'd have to understand the interpretation how they use it to allow that because I thought it had to be landscaped and adjacent to the building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fifty dollars an hour she'll sit with you. No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you'll come back with us on that one? MR. EHARDT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me state. Joe, one thing too is that -- first of all, people could put the perimeter. What we're talking about is regulations that make people do things. People could obviously do better. What you just described in that 16 feet doesn't have perimeter landscaping in it so -- MR. EHARDT: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it could ruin -- what you just said wouldn't be able to occur. MR. EHARDT: And later on when I talk about perimeter building foundation landscape and I eliminate that front area because that has the streetscape standards on it on the front -- on the front of the facade of those buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's got to be clear here. MR. EHARDT: Well, it is in the requirements in the buffer-- excuse me, the buffer -- the building foundation planting. I'm using the wrong words. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. We'll get to that in a minute. MR. EHARDT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 165, Mark, are we there yet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We're-- Page 172 December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The minimum lot area is 1.8 acres or the 80,000 square feet. And then you have some maximum building areas 20,000 feet or 30,000 feet. I mean, these are ground coverages of25, 67, are we back in suburbs again or-- MR. JACKSON: The 20 -- the building footprint, if you're talking about the 20,000 square feet there, that comes out of the comprehensive plan that says in the commercial area, a commercial-only building maximum square footage is 20,000 square foot. That's in the comprehensive plan. The 80,000 -- the 80,000 square feet for minimum lot area, we were trying to provide an incentive for people to assemble lots and make a larger project than using your 35-1/2-foot lot and try to do another commercial project in there. And which we have now is a hodgepodge commercial district that grew up that way. You know, when there was -- people came in and these were the first pioneers out in the area on the other side of the bridge. And they came in and took whatever parcels they wanted, they needed for their business. Now we're trying to encourage for mixed-use commercial development assemblage of lots and we're asking for a larger project than just the small ones for mixed use. We don't want to have somebody come in and put in a 7-Eleven with 7,000 square feet and try to cram in 12 units of residential above it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Dave, these are maximum building sizes. So is the intent -- in other words, if I accumulate 80,000 feet, are you going to restrict me to a 30,000-foot building in the mini triangle? MR. JACKSON: No. That's a minimum lot area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Minimum lot area. I got that 80,000. MR. JACKSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I bought that lot. MR. JACKSON: Right. Page 173 December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now I'm down to my building footprint. MR. JACKSON: For a commercial-only building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. JACKSON: If you do a mixed-use building, there are no limits. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you are discouraging -- it wouldn't make sense to do the commercial-only building. MR. JACKSON: Correct. Well, it may to somebody, but I mean it's -- it's trying to create a mixed-use environment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is what you stated the last time -- MR. JACKSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- when we had this discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How big are Walgreen's? They seem to show up right where we don't-- MS. FABACHER: Thirteen to fourteen-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have all these nice plans and, bang, we get a Walgreen's, but anyway... MR. JACKSON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 165. You're on to what page now? MR. JACKSON: I will. I will. The -- while we're on -- sir, if I may . We're on page 165 -- page 165. There is a typographical error and that's my error. The paragraph 1 it says for mixed-use project 12 units per acre. That footnote should be 78. And at the bottom Footnote 77 should be 78. And paragraph 2 above to bring you back to the top again where it says 12 units per acre, Footnote 73, that should be 78. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seventy-nine. Or is it 78? Seventy-eight. I'm sorry. MR. EHARDT: The bottom one's 78. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. The bottom one where it says-- Page 174 "._._..",,-~-- December 15,2005 that goes to 79. MR. JACKSON: Okay. You're exactly right. Okay. May I start over because I have confused even -- ever -- even myself. Okay. For a mixed-use project where it says "per acre" and Footnote 77, that 77 should be the -- should read, "see Chapter 2, paragraph 2.03.0.7" and then gives point N to paragraph 4. And what that is referring back to -- no. That's right. We just struck that, didn't we? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. EHARDT: I thought the issue -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have to review this anyway and bring it back. MR. JACKSON: That's correct. All right. Well, the whole intent there was that in the comprehensive plan they talk about the mini triangle which is defined by certain streets. It says that the -- it has different rules especially for density. And so that'll be sort of taken care of whenever we do that chapter -- that paragraph 2. So scratch all I said before. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, a quick question on the units -- 388 units, whatever it is, that everybody's sharing, how much of this is in the Gateway? In the -- isn't that only coastal high hazard area that 388 that well or do we -- MR. JACKSON: The entire CRA boundary and the overlays is in the coastal high hazard area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So areas up in this mini triangle will be competing for density with that 388? MR. JACKSON: Well, not competing. They can use some of that density. They don't compete for it. They can use it if they wanted to. And that is clearly stated in the comprehensive plan that those 388 can go anywhere in this area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what did you end up coming up for a cost for those, a price to sell those at? Page 175 ___^,...v December 15, 2005 MR. JACKSON: Zero. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't we ask you to look into it, Mr. Vigliotti or somebody? MR. JACKSON: Yes. Yes, sir, you did. And right now the-- my recommendation is that there be no cost on it. My argument last time remains the same. The purpose of these bonus units and the intent was to provide an incentive to bring people to come into this area and -- and build mixed use. And I strongly feel that the CRA, its intent and purpose in the State Statute 163 is to provide incentives for people to develop and redevelop to their highest and best use and whatever the design is. The overlay is -- talks about the bonus density units that were given out of the Botanical Gardens. And it could be used anywhere within the flue, within the overlays. And my recommendation that there not be a cost on them, that they become an incentive and a tool for people to use to redevelop. And -- and there's a lot more to it as we've discussed with other county staff people. That there's a lot more to it. If you go and try to put in -- and the attorney's going to weigh in here in a second -- is that if you put a cost on it and to do that, right now there is no way to do it. There's no vehicle. There's no sending tool. There's no receiving tool. And there's no cost put on top of it which would, in essence, if I may, sir, finish -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not interrupting. Go ahead. MR. JACKSON: Okay. That ifit takes three years to establish what a cost is, you've put a moratorium on any development for three years indirectly. And I'll turn it back. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you're -- you're reacting to something I wasn't going to say certainly. But I would -- I would just say this to you, then. Given that that's the case, the other side of that issue was -- that was raised was the allocation of those units and the preference permissible. And I remember you indicating either that or Page 176 """------ December 15,2005 Mr. Ehardt indicated that it was -- a list was building and it was open to anybody. And my statement was then and it is today that the CRA was created to allow the community to redevelop with preference to the community, whereas, all of the tax money would go back into that. Now, I certainly don't want to stultify the development from outside, but credits I would hope would be given to those who are first inside the CRA. And I think that's where I would like it to go if -- if that's possible. MR. JACKSON: Okay. Can you define "first in CRA"? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, when I say that, those who live within the community. The boundaries of the CRA is the list __ the list of those eligible. If it's predominantly from developers outside, will those folks be able to get the benefit of their own redevelopment? Will they be able to band together? Maybe they don't have the expertise or the money, but at least vetting it, allowing that process to go forward as opposed to making it available to anybody brings outside developers and I think that -- I don't think that's wrong, but I would hope that we would give the first shot, as it were, to the community. That's -- maybe that's implausible. Maybe you can tell me that. MR. JACKSON: Well, okay. I think that's -- this discussion can be one that cannot be won. Okay. If it is argumentative in any sort, there's -- there's no winning on it. By providing it to anybody who was there first, the first pioneers that showed up. When this overlay gets adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and goes into place and becomes part of the Land Development Code, everybody is eligible at that point to establish a site development plan that meets the criteria within this document and begin developing. And if they want a bonus density unit, they can apply and appeal to the Board of County Commissioners for whatever numbers they want. The incentive is is to build a better place. If I live there now and Page 1 77 December 15,2005 I am not able financially or intelligence-wise or business-wise to make it a better place and take advantage of these numbers, why should that stop somebody that can come in and build a better place in accordance with our rules? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't disagree with that. What my statement was and -- and it's a simple thesis, I'm concerned that the list -- make it certain that the list is first from within before from without. That was -- that was my only -- MR. JACKSON: Well, yes, sir-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Give them the first shot. That's all. And I'm going to stop. And I don't want to make it a contentious issue. My hope was that -- that we would -- we would serve the community within the boundary of the CRA. If there's any addition, any incentive, any advantage give it to those folks first. Give them the opportunity. I recognize that they may not have the wherewithal to do it, but that was my thesis. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. And I understand it and -- and I understand that and I feel that concern, but everybody will have the equal opportunity to petition the Board of County Commissioners for those units. My professional opinion is that 388 units is going to be more than enough to increase the density or to be used. I don't see those numbers being used up within the next five years. I just don't see those proj ects coming in because there isn't enough land that has enough square footage to be able to put the extra density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a lot of points on what you just said I would debate with you, but as you commented that -- the debate's going to do no good. And if that's the way it is, then I'm sure we can decide on our recommendations how to handle this particular issue of density pricing. So with that, Mr. Schiffer, do you want to go back to your question? Page 178 December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it is about the density. First of all, these aren't new rules. This existed. People are out in the market behaving accordingly based on what they think the rules are. Swinging them around is not fun for them. David, look at page 75 and 11 and it's back to the question of the dwelling units. It states that -- MR. JACKSON: The page again, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Seventy-five. And-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Seventy-five or one seventy-five? MS. FABACHER: One seventy-five? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just 75 because it's where we copied the -- when I was talking to you before you referenced the growth management plan and then we went down another trail so I'm back to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're back to page 75 on Bayshore? MR. JACKSON: That's -- that is the same page is in the Gateway area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't freak. It's just the extracted growth -- MR. JACKSON: Yeah. It's the same language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What page is it in the Bayshore just to keep -- MR. JACKSON: For Bayshore the same language is on page -- starts on page 132. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Ifreading 11 which is the thing that defines that, doesn't it really say that -- that it only applies to the areas within the coastal high hazard and that areas outside of it aren't limited by that 388? MR. EHARDT: David needs to answer. I think David Weeks can answer that question. Page 1 79 December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Dave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You caught him by surprise there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: He woke up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He's doing his Christmas cards. MR. JACKSON: Well, it's kind of -- the statement doesn't really have to stay there. I mean, it applies to only those areas that are in the coastal high hazard area. Well, the entire area is in the coastal high area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't 41 the boundary of the coastal high -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No. Not if you look at the map. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The whole thing is within it? MS. FABACHER: Yes. MR. WEEKS: The coastal high hazard boundary runs along 41 and then runs up Airport Pulling Road. So there's a very small amount of mixed use within the Gateway Triangle overlay where the Home Depot is at and -- and the Matt -- St. Matthews. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My confusion. I don't know where the boundary is. MR. JACKSON: Well, you're -- probably -- if you've been around for a while, those boundaries used to be along 41. And as I understand at some time the lines were redetermined. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I -- there is a map I have that has it. MR. JACKSON: Right. Well, the current -- the current boundaries is as Mr. Weeks say. It goes up 41. It goes up Airport Pulling and I believe it takes a dog leg down Davis Boulevard back to 41. And then where it goes from there I'm not real sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, do you have any other questions through page 166 because Lindy's got a question on page 166. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I'm good. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because, Lindy, do you have a -- Page 180 December 15, 2005 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, I do. This idea of a maximum height for a hotel or a motel of 126 feet doesn't make sense to me. We've been trying now for the last five years -- MR. EHARDT: What page are we on? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: One sixty-six. MR. EHARDT: I'm sorry. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We've been fighting to keep the height of buildings 100 feet. And all of a sudden we're getting one here that you're saying is 112 and when we put a roof on it, it's going to be 126 feet. I take exception to that. MR. JACKSON: So noted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I would join in that exception. MR. JACKSON: So noted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. EHARDT: That's only in the mini triangle just so you understand. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't care where it is. Oh, I read it. I mean, I understand it's in there, but 100 feet here is substantial. MR. JACKSON: Do you differentiate between a building and an antenna? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We move the antennas because the county has to -- or the police department or fire or sheriffs department have to have communication. Communication situations is one thing. No, I don't agree with it, but I understand I have to put up with it. In this situation, we've been bringing things down from 250, getting them lower and lower. And finally we've come to a figure that 100 feet was a reasonable height to have buildings and it has nothing to do with antennas. Page 181 --,..,... December 15,2005 MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's actually 75 commercial. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, we've been 75 commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see under your straight zoning, yes, we have come up. This isn't straight zoning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. This is an overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is an overlay so-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's why it went to 100 instead of 75. I mean, I tried to be reasonable. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We would think 100 would because we're not keen on anything more than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you have our comments on that issue, so let's -- the next one. Brad, do you have another one after page -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to say one thing. We are trying to get affordable and gap housing. One way to do it is to kick the density. One way to really do it safely is the -- raise the height of building. So I'm not sure what knocking a story off a building is going to achieve other than eliminating to build those units. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. That's too bad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, anything else in the Gateway Triangle? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a -- ifhe's finished I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's getting to another page. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I didn't hear that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One seventy-one, landscaping. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You love landscaping, don't you? Page 182 December 15,2005 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Because -- and I feel-- I mean, Nancy showed a nice picture, but I'm not sure Nancy showed a picture of the area I'm talking about. So, you know, there's truth in advertising we talk about here. So, again, there's a requirement, a recent requirement within a couple years that we put planting around the base of a building. I think that really is a wonderful idea in a suburban atmosphere. I don't think that has anything to do with the densities in the urban area we're trying to create here. I think landscaping's an important part of the community. I think everybody knows that. Every developer with a lick of sense knows that. So, you know, we're writing regulations to set a minimum standard, but I don't think this is an applicable thing. I don't think it's a good idea to have buildings with vegetation around it. Nancy can say that she allows people to do other stuff. You know, the words don't allow you to do it so I don't think we should write code that walks out of here with understandings with people because we can all get hit by a car on the way home and that's the end of that. So I would rather us write words that mean something. And I think, Nancy, maybe what it is is that we come up with an urban perimeter kind of concept that makes sense. Maybe it does allow. Because you're -- you're -- you're not allowed to do much in that buffer system. So you're not allowed to run a bunch of walkways. And hardscapes you're showing. They're pretty. They're not allowed in it by words. So I think maybe what you should say is, look, let me go back and think about how we achieve these same things that our intentions are, but let's do it in an urban aspect. But, you know, there's a lot of pocket parts. There's a lot of -- you know, as I'm walking between the buildings, it would be nice to have a bench and a little tree. But to have grass and planting that I actually can't walk through, that's not the intent. MS. GUNDLACH: I just want to clarify -- clarify something for Page 183 December 15,2005 the record. We enforce what the words say. I know you believe differently, but I just -- I have to state that for the record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually, I do support you do enforce what the words say. Anyway, I mean, it's -- MR. EHARDT: I'm not sure what he's asking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My argument is -- my argument is removing the buffer requirements in a -- in an urban area. MR. EHARDT: Buffer or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean the building the perimeter of the foundation. The buffer you have here is good. That's an area you isolated from any neighboring residential. That makes sense. You separate the town. MR. EHARDT: Well, I got -- you got the same question there you have in Bayshore, don't you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. EHARDT: Okay. So I need to make sure I exclude the commercial buffer requirements if I don't want them in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I believe so. MR. EHARDT: I just want to make sure I'm understanding it correctly. MS. MURRAY: Is that the rest of the commission's opinion too? I'm curious, because I just hadn't heard anything. I know it's been a long day. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've been -- I've been waiting until I can make a statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Wherever's an appropriate time. We have to get to each page. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Look, earlier and I fully respect Commissioner Schiffer's views on urban, urban, urban. And I don't understand them I think because I'm involved in mixed use, as you may know. But I think the problem for me particularly has been and now is even worse is a vision that has not yet been adequately Page 184 December 15, 2005 portrayed. Brad continues to show, you know, an urban with building to building and he uses those for good examples for that. But I'm not sure that what -- what you intend wouldn't look more like something out of New England where there's adequate spacing and nice color. Now I understand along the 41 it's bound to be more intense and it's a different kind of it, but I had hoped that you would persuade us to understand more clearly what your vision is or the vision of the community, anyway. And then we can more effectively relate what __ what is applicable I suspect. MR. EHARDT: I would say that the vision for the commercial development, whether it be in Bayshore or in the triangle, is a more urban type of environment with buildings up the street, with parking in the rear or side as we've -- as we've described. And I -- again, I said as far as the -- I agree with the idea of eliminating the buffer requirements between commercial buildings in those areas. And that's -- that's -- that's what we talked about. I mean, we didn't talk specifically about the buffer, but that's the picture we portrayed to the community when we presented these things over the last year or so. And I think that is what is in the existing Bayshore overlay right now is that type of environment that was projected. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you gave an illustration before when -- when asked about that. You said you used the zero lot line and the next door neighbor doesn't have that, maybe a parking lot and they would be responsible for plantings. That was your illustration. MR. EHARDT: What I -- what I -- what I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But in the absence -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. MR. EHARDT: Well, let's not confuse buffer landscaping with -- no, not confuse it with building perimeter landscaping. I believe what I said is if someone had a parcel of land and he built his building on one side of that land at a zero setback as this can require, okay, that Page 185 «------., December 15,2005 -- that perimeter around the other side of the building would have that five- foot perimeter -- excuse me, perimeter landscape. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I misheard you then. MR. EHARDT: Okay. I didn't say -- I didn't address the buffer. I don't think there should be a buffer between commercial and commercial in the mixed-use category. I do have a buffer in there between commercial and residential if it abuts up to existing. But, you know, this is related to mixed-use projects both in the Gateway Triangle area and even the neighborhood commercial as we call it on Bayshore which is a little less intense. But it still relates to a mixed-use type of thing, that it can allow residential and commercial either above or side by side. I hope that clarifies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it makes it a little bit clearer where we're going. It certainly helps me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Bob, I'd like to say something. You know, the county spends a healthy chunk of change to have a community character plan, a nice plan. I bought it. It wasn't cheap. Read it. We've changed the growth management plan to incorporate it. We have smart growth committees to -- and, you know, try to establish it. These are what we're talking about. I mean, that's exactly what that plan was saying these kind of things it gets into urban growth. MR. EHARDT: I don't think it needs to be urban. It's -- it's a matter of, you know, going -- kind of going back to a more traditional and even new -- I take an example, a New England town. My wife grew up in one. But if you go to their downtown area, the buildings are right next to each other and the parking's in the back and it's a New England town. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Appreciate, sir, all I was trying to understand is what it is that you were giving to us. MR. EHARDT: Right. Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because while these give us Page 186 December 15,2005 boundary lines, they don't give us the flavor that I need in order to follow this when it does get confusing. And, Brad, may I just say to you, you know, I respect the idea that maybe we do need an urban code. But we are -- we are working under the suburban code and trying to make it fit with this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we actually had the genesis of an urban code which is the community character plan. And -- and this is the principle of smart growth that they established. And I grew up in a New England town. I was raised in a New England town. We had this kind of stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, this started out with a discussion of the buffer. Do we have any further discussions on the buffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'd like to -- you to be careful with the buffer because, you know, for example, the illustrations you showed, don't show the dimension of where the buffer goes. So, I mean, even your street setbacks are ignoring the fact that there's a buffer requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I do think that we've made it explicitly clear our issues on the buffer. And you guys can come back in January with a revision. And then at that point we'll decide whether a majority likes it or not and go forward from there. So after the buffer discussion, is there another -- where are we at next, Brad? Any COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm out of here. I mean, I'm closed. I'm not out of here. The book is closed. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're done? Mr. Murray, did you have any other questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. That was what my interest was. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions from any other board members? (No response.) Page 187 December 15,2005 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. On page 172 where -- under paragraph 4, streetscape zone, in parens front yard. The CRA doesn't pass ordinances. They pass resolutions. So I'd just like to have that language cleaned up on that paragraph about the streetscape design guidelines to be governed by an ordinance of the CRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good catch. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And also I think this is coming back to you. And it's on page 135 on this mixed-use process. And it's also on the handout talking about something remaining as C 1 through C3 zoning classification in perpetuity and land use -- that binds county, future boards forever. And part of the idea of all this is that, you know, this is a flexible, ever-changing process over, you know, not ten years but maybe fifty or a hundred years. And I think to put in something in there that's a forever is rather arbitrary. So I think that language should come -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That whole section's been rewritten so we have to discuss -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I -- I have the handout and in perpetuity is in the handout as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had -- I had raised that earlier, Marge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I know you had. And, Margie, I have always been under the impression your department's reviewing this stuff before we get to these hearings. Have you not reviewed the handout that came -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I -- I -- I reviewed this. I'm coming into the process later, but I reviewed this before this hearing today and I looked at the handout when it was given to me today and I had that Issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as it being an issue, is it illegal? Page 188 December 15,2005 MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think -- as I said, I think it may be -- yes. I think it may be considered arbitrary and capricious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why did your department allow it to come this far? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, this looks to me like it's a rewrite here. I haven't had this document all that long. I did review it before the hearing today so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like you to let us know when there's issues like that ahead of time so we don't spend time debating an issue that shouldn't even be debated at all because it doesn't meet legal grounds to be here in the first place. And hopefully those get struck before they even get to us. That would be the best of all worlds. So let's in the future, if that could happen that would be -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I believe I received my packet around the same time that you received yours so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay . Well, then maybe staff should get you yours earlier and ours later. That would be another nice thing. Okay. Is there any other comments or questions on the Gateway Bayshore Triangle area? Ms. Catherine. MS. F ABACHER: I think we have a speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to ask for that. I wanted to make sure we had everything flushed out with the people that were here. So how many public speakers do we have? MS. F ABACHER: Well, we have one, Mr. Gunther would like to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sure. MR. GUNTHER: Actually, I'd like to talk about the one thing about the -- this is Chuck Gunther. I live in -- on Bayside Street in the triangle. The one thing I wanted to talk about was these bonus density units. I'm a member of the advisory board for this Bayshore Gateway Triangle. And our board at the last meeting had said we would task Page 189 December 15, 2005 the executive director to look into seeing what can be done about the density -- density bonus units and a charge for them. It was brought up here that possibly charging for those units. I brought it up again at the advisory board. All the members said, yes, it was a good idea. Let's look into it. One of the things -- it's something that's been -- been in here before. It's been going on. But we've already -- this is the second change you've had now to this -- this whole plan. You had one plan already . You brought a planner back from doing it again. This is something I'd like to see done till it's straight. You're talking about 388 units. Ifwe -- if we mirror the, I guess, it's the TRW -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: TDR. MR. GUNTHER: -- TDRs out in Golden Gate, if you base it just on the 25,000 a piece and that's -- that's the low area for those, you're looking at about nine-point-something million dollars. That's a lot of money. And I don't think you should just throw that away. We're being told by a developer who wants to use 260 of those units that they'd pull out if they can't use those units. Well, I would too if I was in their position because that 260 units is about $4.3 million at 25,000. I think those -- that's money that they use within the CRA to be -- to redevelop a lot of things. It sure the heck beat the TIF funds we have so far. It would beat the -- well, if the developer says they'd bring $800,000 a year in in TIF funds, it will take four or five years to bring in $4.3 million. And that four point was four or five years. We can double that money. So I think that the money issue isn't there as far as that goes. As far as an incentive, I think the incentive is we just slipped a little bit. We're only the third fastest growing in the country. That's a big incentive. If you look around at how everything's grown in this area, we have Sable -- Sable Bay . We have Antaramian. We have a lot of things here growing. We're in the center of it. This is a very hot area right now. That is the biggest incentive you have. Page 190 December 15,2005 I don't think you need incentives in this area especially not now. I would -- I would venture to say by the time you develop something, you plan something and you develop it, the prices are going to jump up to where you're going to kick yourself for not setting prices in the beginning. You're almost better off waiting until you -- until it's half built to say, okay, now we'll set prices. So I'd like to see that happen. Now, we'd like to see getting something out of those units. Something else I -- I just picked up here quick that was kind of disturbing to me. With the mini triangle, if we go the 16-foot streetscape, and you have to remember this is a triangle, and especially with mini triangle that -- we have three corners of that triangle, that 16- foot when you double it, it comes to -- the point of that triangle that becomes about 32 feet. And in one spot it may be wider than 32 feet. That's a big cut out of those pieces of property. I question that a little bit. I'd like to see that worked out to where it's going to help the people a little bit, not just the -- you know, we don't want to just help the -- the development area. We want to help the area develop right. When you take away that much area from a group, well, I can say -- let's see, going to the tip of the triangle, Union Motors. That would take an awful lot from their property. It would take an awful lot from the used car lot on Commercial and Davis. It would take an awful lot of property away from -- although not as much from the Good Year place on Commercial and 41. But that's a big area to take away from any piece of property because -- because you're looking there at a triangle. You're looking at not just 16 feet. You're looking at 32 feet now when you have a triangle those -- those corner pieces. And that's -- that's a sizable amount of property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to say, I wouldn't worry too much about it because it's really only taking ten feet. Right, Joe? And right now the landscape buffer -- the landscape buffer that Page 191 December 15, 2005 we've been tossing around will take more than that. So actually we're giving the guy back a couple of feet. Giving him back five feet I think. MR. EHARDT: I believe in existing commercial zoning that's on those properties now, the building's setback even further. So we're actually moving the building up closer so you get a little more land to build on and develop on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we can be giving the guy ten feet. MR. GUNTHER: Okay. That sounds good. That would answer that then. So basically the thing is with the bonus density units. I'd like to see that looked into. I'm glad to see you put it off until January. The advisory board's planning to have a workshop. And I hope we do have that. I hope to have it before we have the January meeting so maybe we can come back here with something we can get to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you very much. And-- MR. GUNTHER: As -- as an advisory board we can just advise, but it's something we are -- we do come from basically the neighborhood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Margie, you got a comment on this? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. Thank you. I also attend the CRA advisory board meetings. And our office was tasked with providing a list of legal issues about if you want to call selling these units, an out and out sale to benefit, say, Botanical Gardens just wouldn't get it I don't think legally, but this is more complicated. I mean, I think it's a fine and worthy idea, but it's more complicated than meets the eye because there are strictures placed upon local governments as to how they raise funds and what they do with them after they raise them. And, as you recall, we went through a rather lengthy process to establish our TDR program which is where, you know, a developer can purchase a unit and transfer it to property he owns from somebody Page 192 December 15,2005 that owns property in the sending area. So there's an exchange for money that the developer pays to the person in the sending area to get that unit into the receiving area. So there's a unit for money. This is a little more complicated than that even. And you know how complicated that was because it's got to be run through, you know, some kind of local government account and then redistributed somehow to a CRA and there are strictures on them. It may require a comp plan amendment to do this. Then we may need to -- Neighbors Gibland is one of our consulting law firms that assists us on financial issues like this, deal with the consultant and then the LD R. So it's a worthy idea, but it's going to -- there are issues involved and it's going to take some time. It's not something that you just do. And I think we need consultant assistance to set up such a program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Basically what you just said is proper. The answer is real simple as far as I'm concerned. They sell TDRs. The county's doing that. They can do the same thing on this. Of course they have to follow the law and they've got to follow the procedure. But there is no reason legally where they can't sell those units and keep the same type of formula that the TDRs are being used. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. The TDRs are sold to another property owner and -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, that's what they're talking about. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think they're talking about this money going to CRA somehow and TIF funds and it gets a little more complicated than that. That's all. I'm just saying it needs to be looked into. I'm not saying it can't be done. It needs -- it's complicated and it needs to be looked into. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. May I -- may I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just -- just adding to a piece Page 193 December 15,2005 because just for awareness. At one of the last BOCC meetings that issue was raised. And Commissioner Coy Ie -- it was raised that the county doesn't profit -- can't profit. The ordinance was specifically written that way that it cannot profit. And I believe that the recommendation of the board was to come back with a modification of that so that the county could benefit from that. So I think maybe we are on the -- on the way toward that, some kind of equity in that issue. I would -- I would be an advocate of the county going into that if the Chair agrees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my big concern that this gentleman pointed out was that you've got one developer coming in right off the get-go taking 67 percent of the available density. How's that going to spur additional development in an area when only 128 units are left? So to give them away freely is kind of what we did in the real stewardship area with those bonus densities. It spurred development all right. You've got Ave Maria, the Big Cypress and U.S. Homes all coming on board because they're cashing in on those bonus densities. And now we're getting development faster than we anticipated, but I would consider that it would have happened anyway as far as this county's growing. So I don't see a reason that these shouldn't be charged for and I think the county attorney's office could find a way if they were asked to do so. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. We have already been tasked by CRA advisory board to look at the issues that might be involved, but it's going to take time. It's not something that I don't -- that we can do in this cycle, I don't believe, and it may require a comp plan amendment as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other speakers, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments on this issue from Page 194 December 15,2005 the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My issue -- I would suggest at this point that we hold off action until January 5th because there's been quite a few suggestions today. I had hoped to get more out -- more through it today, but there's just too much left on the table. So with that unless there's -- unless somebody has things differently, we'll just move this to January 5th and we'll continue this meeting then at that time. MS. FABACHER: Say all the right words. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll wait and let him get done. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman -- yeah, Mr. Chairman, the 5th or whatever date you pick is fine with me as long as we get our information (A) done the way it's supposed to be. And (B) at a time that gives us the opportunity to actually go through it clearly. What we did today wasted basically half of our time. I'd like to get to a point where we can come in here and get it done and done properly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, then, we have another couple announcements to make, but as far as the Bayshore Gateway Triangle goes, it's the concensus of this board that that issue will be continued until 8:30 on the January 5th, 2006 along with the other issues of the LDC amendments that Cycle 2 of 2005 that were left over from today's meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be good. You're saying, though, it should begin at 8:30 like a time certain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just like our meetings of Thursday morning. We always start at 8:30. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. Okay. But-- CHAIRMAN STAIN: Yeah. It'll be on our regular agenda at 8:30. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: And then, excuse me, in the meantime if Page 195 December 15,2005 something else comes up, another case for you, then they can just add it to the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you would put it after this. MS. .FABACHER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is going to be time certain to start at 8:30. We have nothing else scheduled as I understand for January 5th, so let's just get this done and going and over with on January 5th, if at all -- if it's at all possible. And that's the last issue on the Cycle 2, 2005 agenda item for today. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, you don't want to look at these two affordable housing -- Cormac's here to talk about. They're pretty minor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry. We can talk about them, but I guess I understood they had to be advertised to vote on them. So, again, we're not going to vote on them. It's going to be deferred until the January 5th meeting, but you certainly can explain them and we'll get to reading them between now and then. MR. GIBLIN: Great. For the record, my name's Cormac Giblin, your housing and grants manager. Again, we apologize for the late addition of these, but these came at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners last Friday. They held a gap housing workshop. Gap housing is meant to address affordable housing concerns of households between 80 and 150 percent of median income. Those are -- those are incomes that are traditionally higher than the county has ever addressed in an affordable housing point of view in the past. The board held a workshop on it last Friday and instructed the staff to come back with some -- some amendments to incorporate those income levels into, first of all, our definition of what we would call affordable. And, second of all, on the implementation side offering some density bonus incentives for providing housing at those Page 196 December 15, 2005 income levels. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The 150 percent, will that bring in the nursing and school teachers? Will they fit into that -- and the police officers? MR. GIBLIN: Well, nursing and school teachers would fit in in the less than 80 percent. It all depends on your family makeup. I think the starting school teachers earn about $35,000 a year. That in itself is low income. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. MR. GIBLIN: It's when you have a school teacher living with a sheriffs deputy. They're both earning around thirty, forty thousand dollars a year. The combined household income would put them out of the less than 80 percent and into this gap that the county's beginning to address now. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, on the workshop it was determined that there would be a further presentation of some of the workshop items the following Tuesday, which was a couple days ago. Did that ever happen? MR. GIBLIN: That did not occur. I -- I waited around all day for it to come up, but it never made it onto the board's agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: So there was no further talk about it. This will be the -- the track it takes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the elements that you're proposing here were not really the consensus of the workshop. They were going to have more presented to them in a -- some kind of compromise was going to be discussed from my understanding. And I did attend the workshop at that Tuesday meeting and it was going to be brought forward with some staff recommendations and comments. And I -- that's why I asked if that ever happened. And I'm not objecting to this. I'm just wondering how it got here with BCC Page 197 .~___,".U.·.'. December 15,2005 review if it didn't get reviewed at the workshop and now it turns out it didn't get reviewed at the BCC meeting. MR. GIBLIN: Our direction was to prepare -- first of all, incorporate the concept of gap housing into our housing definition which is what one of these amendments does. The second direction I received was to allow for a density bonus for that gap level income housing and that's what the second amendment does. In addition to that, we received direction to look at how to implement some of these density bonus formulas as a matter of by right in certain -- in certain areas and at certain differing levels. That's going to take up more work than the past three or four days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I was just going by what I heard as the closing comments of that meeting. Thank you. Is there any other questions of these particular issues from Cormac? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. GIBLIN: Just for the record, these were reviewed by DSAC yesterday and received -- you need to have some approval to -- to move on. We'll bring these back at -- to you again at your next LDC hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any speakers on this particular issue? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then this issue along with all the other issues we discussed today that need to be continued to January 5th, 2005, will be continued. MS. FABACHER: All right. Mr. Chair, would you like me to just kind of list quickly what those are? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if we need to go through that. I know what they are. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Just asking. You've got them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've been here a lot longer today Page 198 .'_'~'V""'·_.'."''''-'.'''''''''~~"~_",.,....,____"~_~~_._.',~~_..." _ ~'.~"_"'__ December 15,2005 going through all those so... There is one other announcement that we need to make on the agenda. And I got a note from Mr. Schmitt. The AUIR meeting on Tuesday was advertised to start at 8:30. So we will have to meet here 8:30 Tuesday morning in these chambers to go over the AUIR which is -- you got updates for it today. And you got the book last night. So hopefully staff will not give us any more updates between now and Tuesday morning. With that there's no other issues for this commission, we'll stand adjourned. Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:10 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD, RPR. Page 199