Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/05/2006 R January 5, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 5, 2006 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: Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES administrator Susan Murray, Planning Services Catherine Fabacher, CDES principal planner Page 1 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 8:30. If you'll all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Good morning. Miss secretary, would you do the roll call, please? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Semi here. And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's Midney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney is-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney has just arrived. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any addenda to the agenda? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Planning commission absences. We have a meeting in -- is on the 19th of January, Joe; is that the next meeting, I believe. MR. SCHMITT: I'd have to check the calendar. I'll look. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll check mine, too. But I -- as long as -- I believe everybody knows about it. I'm sure they're -- it's on everyone's schedule. Page 2 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was the advertised public hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the 19th. Okay. Anybody going to be missing that meeting; we all intend to be here? Good. Approval of minutes. November 17th, regular meeting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded to approve the minutes. Motion made by Mr. Adelstein, seconded by Mr. Murray. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those 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: No oppositions. Motion passes. BCC report, December 13th, regular meeting. Anything to report? MR. SCHMITT: And I have nothing to report from that meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report. I don't have anything to report today. Spent long hours in the night reading. So I've got others to discuss, but we won't have a report today. The advertised public hearings. Just so the -- everybody's knows, we're going to have actually two meetings today. I believe the Page 3 January 5, 2006 procedure will be to -- this meeting will go forward as the LDC, we'll close this meeting, then re-open a second meeting to hear on the AUIR issues that will occur immediately after this one. So the advertised public hearings for this meeting is a continuation of cycle 2, 2005 LDC. Continuation started a month or so ago. We've had two or three continuations, and hopefully this will be the day that we'll finish everything up. And with that being said, Ms. Student, is there anything we need to add? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just want to add for the record that I have checked -- didn't have the affidavit from the paper yesterday, but I have checked with our staff and been advised that this meeting was properly noticed and advertised, so I want to put that in the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. With that, I guess, Catherine, this is your bag? MS. FABACHER: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MS. FABACHER: Happy New Year. All right. Hopefully we'll get through this real quick. Okay . We're on page I of the summary sheet. And stop me if you want to ask questions or we have staff, so -- we're on page 1. We're looking at affordable -- the definition of affordable workforce housing, and along with that is a twin amendment which amends the affordable housing density bonus rating system. I'm going to ask Cormac Giblin to go ahead and -- remember, this is what we got last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far-- MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This has been one change to this -- not to the agenda, but to this package. If I'm not mistaken, the next two items involving yard front definitions and yard measurements have been cancelled for today's hearing and put off till sometime in the Page 4 January 5, 2006 future; is that correct? MS. FABACHER: Well, latest news is we do have one small revision to one -- we are going to adopt one small provision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait, wait, wait. Last night we got an email that said those two items are off the agenda today and for us not to waste our time reading them. Now, you're telling us they're back on the agenda? Because we have a little problem with that. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Well, perhaps-- MS. MURRAY: I can explain. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Susan. MS. MURRAY: For the record, Susan Murray. Okay. Your definitions, as in the email.foralotdepthandlotwidthareout.as well as all the definitions for yards, except for waterfront yard, and you've -- we've kind of hashed that one out already and we didn't have any discussion about it last time, so that one stays. And then 4.01.03, lot and dimension measurement standards, that heading stays, as well as item C reverts to item A. And we've passed -- we've discussed that one too, and nothing has changed since the last meeting. The rest goes out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we -- we're going to have to go a little further in this. Basically it says, Dear Commissioners, I apologize for the late notice, however, staff has decided to pull the referenced amendments from the LDC cycle and place them in the next, the referenced amendments, lot width and measurement and waterfront yard LDC amendments. Although staff has worked diligently on them throughout the cycle, they are still not the product we want to put in the LDC. If you are still reviewing your packets for tomorrow's meeting, please skip over both items that appear on the amendment summary sheet 2. Now, I did that. So I'm assuming anything to do summary sheet little Roman numeral II(i) is no longer going to be heard today in any form whatsoever. Page 5 January 5, 2006 Well, let's put it this way. Anything on page little Roman numeral II(i) is not going to be heard today in any form whatsoever. So pages 5 and 6 are offtoday's agenda, and we will go on to page 1 and 2 and 3 and 4, and then we'll go into page 11, which is the Bayshore mixed-use district. Okay. Now, Cormac, you want to do your presentation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, while we're still talking about that. What happens -- because this is the third time those items were brought up. Unfortunately, I reviewed them prior to the notice. I mean, but what happens when stuff is presented to us that's not finished or it's not -- I mean, what is -- this is the third time I've reviewed these items. MS. MURRAY: I understand your frustration. I really don't want to air your dirty laundry in public. We've just had a lot of difficulty with the staff that was assigned to this assignment not delivering the product that was anticipated, so I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, Brad, if staff doesn't feel comfortable with it and we were asked to go past it, I don't have any problem with continuing it because I think the system's getting along without it -- right now without it. If it takes another cycle to get it fixed and it can be done with more thorough review by staff, I mean, I really don't have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question really is, why are we looking at it if staff isn't comfortable with it yet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe they didn't realize there were issues there until it got out more circulated in the public, and issues have come up, and they realize now they can do a better job and come back with it in a better format that maybe is more applicable in the future. MS. MURRAY: Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll just --let's just go on with the meeting. Page 6 January 5, 2006 And Cormac, you're up. Page 1. MR. GIBLIN: Good morning, planning commission. For the record, my name's Cormac Giblin. I'm the Housing and Grants Manager for Collier County. Starting on page 1, this is the first of two companion LDC amendments that really were borne out of the gap housing workshop that the Board of County Commissioners held on December 9th. Staff received direction at that workshop to bring forward some LDC amendments as quickly as possible to get them into this cycle, recognizing what gap housing is, recognizing the income levels associated or contemplated with the word gap housing. We're doing that by way of amending the definition of affordable housing, which is on page 1 and continues on to page 2. The end of the definition on page 2 simply adds another line to our already existing definition of affordable housing that expands it from 101 to 150 percent of median income, which is the income categories that are contemplated in gap housing. There's also an addition at the end of the definition that says that, you know, affordable workforce housing between that 101 to 150 percent of median income level is specifically intended to include similar categories such as gap housing, essential personnel housing, reasonably-priced housing. These are all words that have been being -- been being used interchangeably in the public and in county staff as well, so we're hopeful that a definition like this with clarify exactly what people mean when they say the words that they do. Any questions on this amendment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a comment. I've been working on the gap issue on the committee that actually got it to -- through the commission to today's meeting. One of the things we tend to see and I would like to see is that gap have a separate definition. It can still be calculated the way you're proposing to calculate it, but because it's Page 7 January 5, 2006 something that I think is going to be specifically looked for, I doubt if people will be looking under the affordable housing category to understand what gap is. And I don't know what harm it would do to title a -- to have a definition title housing comma gap, or -- and list the requirements for gap housing in that manner, that way as it develops through the system as it's going through a whole series of events coming up in 2006, if anybody wants to understand clearly what we're dealing with, they can see the definition sitting right there. Do you see any harm that would do? MR. GIBLIN: I don't see any harm. I did review the tape of the workshop yesterday rather intensively, and that was talked about at great extent at the workshop between the board, and it came up several times, do we want two separate definitions or do we want to roll it into one. And ultimately the guidance that was given to staff was to roll it into one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there also at that meeting -- and I know you were at the following Tuesday's BCC meeting. Why you were you there? MR. GIBLIN: We were there in case the board wanted to discuss the direction from the workshop again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't normally watch those meetings all day, but I did that one because at the workshop, which I attended and I sat in the circular table up front, it was very clear to me that this issue was supposed to have been discussed on that Tuesday. Now, for whatever reason, it didn't get discussed. But I believe that had it been discussed at that Tuesday, all these issues would have been fleshed out a little bit more instead of coming to this board in a somewhat unclear fashion as it has now. I know the commission gave direction at the meeting. I'm still trying to get a hold of the tape so I can review it myself. But I don't see how, by us suggesting that there be a separate definition for Page 8 January 5, 2006 housing comma gap does harm to anybody. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I do have to note -- again, for the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator of Community Development/Environmental Services. To define it as unclear, I think, is probably a bit of an overstatement, because it was very clear to staff from the board as to how to bring this amendment forward. You may have some disagreement. But our review of the tape clearly indicates that what we're doing is complying with board guidance. I would say if this board wants to recommend and forward to the Board of County Commissioners that it have a separate definition, we will bring that recommendation to the board. The issue was -- the information was provided to the Board of County Commissioners in regards to discussing specifically what you addressed at that meeting, and that was between the commission and the county manager. The county manager provided Commissioner Fiala the information, but it was never brought up at the end of the meeting. It was -- and there may have been a disconnect in regards to who or whom -- who was going to bring it up to resolve some of these Issues. But based on the workshop the day prior, the guidance from the Board of County Commissioners is very clear. This certainly will air the issue when we bring this forward as part of the LDC amendments. And the board, I'm certain, will provide additional guidance. If this board wishes to make some kind of a recommendation in regards to further defining or creating a term gap. But the guidance we got was that there would not be two separate programs. There would only be -- it'd be one program integral and-- well, basically integrated into this term called affordable housing, and that's what we're presenting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my suggestion isn't suggesting separate programs. It's simply a definition. Page 9 January 5, 2006 Ms. Caron, did you have any-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. If one does a word search on gap housing, will it not lead you here? MR. GIBLIN: Oh, in the LDC, yes, it would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER CARON: My suggestion then would be to add the term professional housing as well because a lot of people use that term as well. MR. GIBLIN: That gets along with so many terms trying to find the same thing. We're trying to just create a laundry list and put everything in one spot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for clarification for my purposes. By the LDC being amended in this way, thereafter all matters pertaining to gap fall under the government purview and under your specific purview; is that right? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. The definition doesn't create any programs or incentives on its own, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It permits the creation of programs? MR. GIBLIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And therefore part of the organization that you operate? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Housekeeping issue. The last statement where it says, date and time. The time says two hours -- two, three point oh eight -- three oh eight p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's on both pages. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. It's a housekeeping issue. That's all. I assume it's 2:30. Page 10 January 5, 2006 MR. GIBLIN: I see. You're on page 3 now? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cormac, a couple things. We're adding only one layer on top of that, which essentially is going to take everything from 81 percent to 150. MR. GIBLIN: Actually 101 to 150. We already had a definition between 81 and 100. I'm sorry, what page -- are you still on the definition side? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm on this -- MR. GIBLIN: Okay. So now -- we're on page 4 now then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are we -- am I ahead of time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're still on the definition, pages 1 and 2 only. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll be back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we've got to get to -- the other one's going to have another separate discussion probably more lengthy than this one. Pages 1 and 2, are there any further questions from the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'd like to get recommendations to go forward on each piece of this, one at a time. My only issue with pages 1 and 2 is I would like to recommend that we use a separate line item for a definition so it's clear that, housing comma gap, and what it is. I don't think that separates it out of the program. And by the intent by definition surely doesn't mean it's going to be separate. It just leaves it a little clearer for people to read. But I need a motion and -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move to? Mr. Adelstein, you move to what, accept it as written or accept it with a change in the -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: With the changes. Page 11 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the changes being, gap housing will have a separate definition? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Vigliotti. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I just -- without getting too deep in this thing, the housing, affordable workforce, and then these numbers follow, you know, and I agree with you. But it does-- what constrains -- what bothers me is it seems to put it under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in some form by wrapping it in. I think that's the reason why you'd like to see a separate definition as well. And so -- anyway, the motion has been made to have it with the separate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Definition, and the motion was seconded to have housing comma gap as a separate definition, having no effect on the program, just simply a separate definition. Motion was made and seconded. Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: I just need clarification on what Mr. Murray mentioned. The term gap will still be associated with housing and urban development only from a standpoint we use that as the measurement for defining the price range. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's right. And my Page 12 January 5, 2006 concern is, is that gap housing, for whatever it is, is a moving target on a continuing basis. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so assigning a definition with specific dollar or with specific number, percentage numbers, locks you in to whatever that is at that given time, and it also -- everything now will be looked at through the eyes of compliance with that. Now, I recognize it's a means by which you start. MR. SCHMITT: And I have no problem with creating the term gap. Just so everybody here understands, gap was nothing more than to define the price range of housing that was above and beyond the programs and assistance that we allow up to -- what, Cormac? The top limited would be basically your -- any affordable housing or any housing in general. So that -- we'll have to create a definition that defines it from a standpoint of what we mean, but it still will be listed, I believe, and that's what I want to make sure from the chairman, that it will still be listed as 101 to 150 percent of the median income. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the departure point, isn't it, from the -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. That still will be the criteria, though the term gap we'll define as -- we'll create a definition that defines it as beyond what is termed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think this -- the only thing I'm suggesting is, by allowing us a separate space for some definition of gap can go into the detail Joe's talking about and that you're talking about. MR. SCHMITT: I assume you're talking in the space between -- well, under affordable housing -- under housing affordable, then there would be another definition line there, housing, gap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and then just go in and you basically restate -- Page 13 January 5, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Define what we mean by gap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the way it's structured, because it is structured differently, as Mr. Murray pointed out, and this gives you an opportunity to clearly state that without getting it confused with affordable housing. MR. SCHMITT: Can you come up with a definition? Do you have one? Can we read a definition? MR. GIBLIN: No, we don't -- well, it would read virtually identical to the first paragraph of affordable housing comma affordable workforce. That first paragraph that defines the income level and how you calculate a person's income level is universal, so that paragraph would remain the same, and then you would just add the underlying portions from the end of the definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, and then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you can almost solve that by just doing -- if you go back to page 1 where it says, housing comma affordable workforce, and label that A, and then when you get down to where you're defining this gap housing, label that B as owner-occupied gap housing, 101 percent to 150 percent, give your definition whatever other detail needs to go into that definition, and the problem's solved. It's not a -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if I may -- and I'm out of turn, but I must compliment you, because if I recall correctly in that workshop, that was one of the criteria that was cited that it should be -- correct me if I'm wrong, please -- that it should be owner-occupied and not be rental housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It should be owner-occupied. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that is a significant -- and this wraps -- the way it's set up now, wraps everything into it under the Page 14 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: No. MR. GIBLIN: Well, no. We did define owner-occupied workforce housing, 101 to 150 -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You did. MR. GIBLIN: -- as gap. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Owner-occupied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney's been patiently waiting to speak. Mr. Midney, could you -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It seems to me like if you've numerically defined it as 100 to 150 percent, I don't see -- that's an exact definition. I don't see why you have to worry about these other terms, gap and so forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern there was what Mr. Murray had stated; the housing when you get to a certain level, doesn't get the benefit of some of the federal programs, and gap is going to be one of those that's going to be outside those benefits. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why there's a separate application for that. And people who are looking for it won't necessarily go to the affordable housing category to figure it out because they won't apply to affordable housing. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's a different -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a whole different way to approach it. MR. GIBLIN: To address Mr. Midney's comment, if you remember last year, we brought a similar amendment forward where the LDC used to define affordable housing. We used to have a separate definition for workforce housing. That's kind of where staff is trying to go here is, avoid the names, and let's stick with the numerical values of what they actually mean. Because once the names are out, there's unclarity on exactly what you're talking about when you say a name. So that's why the current format of this definition seeks to define everything under one specifically with the Page 15 January 5, 2006 target level of income that you're trying to achieve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The benefits of the affordable housing category, which means you get some assistance in the various fund cat -- up to what percentage do they apply? MR. GIBLIN: It depends on what you're talking about. Most federal and state grant programs that provide monetary assistance directly to a homebuyer are capped at about 80 percent of median income. Our density bonus program, as you'll see in a few minutes, was capped at 80 percent of median income, but now with this addition of this additional category, we can assist -- we're proposing to assist units up to 150 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, there's been a motion made and it's been seconded to add a second definition, housing comma gap, and provide the detail needed in that definition to help clarify the issues we've discussed. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion carries 7-1. Thank you. Catherine, I assume the next one is Cormac's, too. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. It's affordable -- amending the affordable housing density bonus rating system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Cormac, before you go too far, just so everybody knows, I had asked Cormac to bring some examples and Page 16 January 5, 2006 alternatives as to how this table could work, because right now at a meeting that I had with Cormac with Richard Y ovanovich, we went over the application of this table, and it was difficult to be profitable under certain circumstances. And if it isn't profitable, the incentive to build it may not be there. So at my request, Cormac has worked up some, hopefully some scenarios and numbers that he can show us today. MR. GIBLIN: Sure. Again, for the record, Cormac Giblin, Housing and Grants Manager. We're on page 3 now, which starts the second half of the direction that staff was given at the gap housing workshop, the first being to define -- define the income level. The second being to incorporate it into our density bonus program so that potential applicants could immediately take advantage of it as soon as this LDC cycle was adopted. If you turn to page 5, you see our -- MS. FABACHER: Four. MR. GIBLIN: I'm sorry, yeah -- no, 4, yeah. If you turn to page 4, you see our density bonus chart. This chart is accompanied in the LDC by a full page of instruction on how to use it. I can walk you through a couple examples on how the chart actually works, and then we can get into actually what the numbers on the -- how the numbers have been changed. But it -- once you understand it, it does work pretty simply. The numbers across the top, the 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent and so on, those represent the percent of the overall development that will be the type of unit that you're choosing to do. F or example, if you tried -- if you proposed to do units at the 80 percent of median income level, follow that across to, say, 30 percent, you end up with a density bonus of four. That will be added to your base density. So in other words, if you did -- 30 percent of your overall development consisted of units at 80 percent of median Page 1 7 January 5, 2006 income, you would qualify for a density bonus of four. You can then next mix and match and add different unit types, different income levels to achieve up to a maximum of a bonus of eight units per acre, okay? What we've done here is added this new top line of the 150 percent category to give the option of a density bonus for units at the gap housing income level, up to 150 percent of median income. At the same time, we've had to increase by one all of the bonuses offered to 80, 60 and 50 percent just to keep them in -- everything in line so that the gap housing didn't get a greater bonus than the lower income housing. What developers typically do is provide -- what this does is allow the opportunity to provide a mixture of income levels within any development. You could end up with some units at 80 percent, some units at 150, and then actually a majority of units at market rate. This is -- the formula is meant to blend and mix in different unit styles within any particular development, and in the end provide additional market rate units to a development to make it financially feasible for them to provide the affordable and gap housing at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way this reads, too, you're not allowed to do gap by itself. If you do gap, you have to do affordable with it; is that correct? MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. That was another direction that came from the direction from the BCC at the workshop was that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good to hear. MR. GIBLIN: -- there was a desire not to create exclusively gap housing on its own, but that any gap housing would need to include a portion of 80 percent level or below housing as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the ability of gap to actually produce profits more than affordable, would gap then act as a catalyst to the affordable housing program in your mind? Page 18 January 5, 2006 MR. GIBLIN: If someone could build it and make a profit, yes, and I believe they probably could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, there are other -- in this table when you got through your top line at gap one, two, and then straight threes, and then your income levels -- your other ones, the way they were structured, there was some concern about, the incentive stops at 20 or 30 percent based on the way the table was written in front of us today. And since that time till now, I know you haven't been able to get to -- anything to us separately, but did you work on an alternative table? MR. GIBLIN: Yes, sir. After we met, we ran -- we did run through several calculations and did notice that cutting it off at three kind of provided a diminishing return as you're trying to encourage people to build more gap and affordable housing. And if I may, we can -- I think we can address that by continue -- proposing this alternative, which continues the lineal progression of the bonuses up to six, six, because if you remember now, you have do at least 10 percent at 80 percent or less, which gives you the extra two, so you can cap out at your max of eight. And since -- staff would propose this as an alternative to what's in your packet just by simply continuing that out up to six. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would that -- would that formulation, that methodology, however the formulas, would that be appropriate to have in your amendment so that anyone coming to look at that can know clearly what they can do, rather than it being relegated to a book on your desk that you bring out and qualify the information for? This formulation, this mix and match that you're speaking of, you know it. I don't know it. It's not here. Should it be here? MR. GIBLIN: Well, it is in the LDC. For when people use it, Page 19 January 5, 2006 there is a -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm talking about the inclusion of the -- the current LDC shows -- MR. GIBLIN: Shows the instruction on how to use the formula? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. There are two pages or a page or so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. It is in the LDC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They didn't -- we didn't include the whole LDC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY : We didn't include this because it hasn't been there, and that's what I'm basically asking is if -- so that will be -- that will cover it? MR. GIBLIN: It's a separate section in the LDC that we're not proposing any changes to. MR. SCHMITT: It gives examples on how to apply it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It explains how the whole-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So the formula would be there, and so people would not be subject to -- they'd know clearly what it is. MR. GIBLIN: Sure. That's our intent is to produce a reliable table and a formula so that the industry can immediately look at it and determine what they would qualify for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't want you to misunderstand my demeanor. I'm very happy that we're going forward with gap housing. My concern is that we don't lose gap housing as a viable opportunity if we don't do this right, and I'm obviously concerned that we need to have every base covered and not have any of the supporters walk away because they're under the impression that something is going to go wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions from the panel members? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cormac, what I was saying Page 20 January 5, 2006 before is that you have four levels of -- on your matrix. MR. GIBLIN: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the top one is going to cover from 81 percent to 150 percent? MR. GIBLIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you think it would be wise to add one in between? I mean, because essentially a developer's going to hit the top of that matrix. In other words, he's going to build 150 percent housing. He's not going to build the hundred. MR. GIBLIN: There is a bright line in the sand, like we talked earlier, at the 80 percent level. That is typically where federal assistance and state assistance stops. There is no other line in the sand between 80 and 150. We could add another line here. But, again, it would be up to the developer which line they chose to take advantage of. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And what you're saying is no assistance above 80. MR. GIBLIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But shouldn't we be encouraging people to be building 100 percent housing, 120 percent housing? I mean, we have a category for -- I would think there should be a category for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing though. Brad, let me mention to you. The reason this came into our package today is because of that workshop that occurred in December, and what we're trying to do is slide in something to incentivize gap between now and when the real LDC amendments come through in about six months to eight months, and the inclusionary zoning and all the rest of it comes through where this is further fleshed out, and most likely issues like you're talking about -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll come back for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll come back for, yeah. This is just Page 21 January 5, 2006 trying to get it in quickly without making a massive amount of changes to the land development code under this cycle scenario so we can have it while it's -- at least get the benefit of it for a few more month ahead of time. MR. GIBLIN: That's exactly correct. MR. SCHMITT: And the other issue was to ensure that we didn't disincentivize those programs under 80 percent. And this chart kind of equalizes the playing field, so to speak. It still does not -- what the concern was originally was gap housing would be the favored alternative, and nobody would build any of the affordable products. And this chart, the way it allocates the density, still makes all the products economically feasible. And as Cormac said, the 80 percent mark and below is where a developer can apply for other type of assistance, financial assistance. So they have that incentive plus the density. The only thing -- the only thing you get above 80 percent is the density bonus. And so there is -- it does equalize the playing field and it does, for a developer, create various scenarios where they can do affordable housing at all levels, and that's really what we're looking for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just as a further point. Do the restrictive -- restrictions that apply to the affordable that you have built into the system, will they apply in the gap as well? MR. GIBLIN: Restrictions as in they -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As in being able to sell it and the rest of it. MR. GIBLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So all of that is covered in here? MR. GIBLIN: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: Any density bonus awarded under this program is accompanied with the rezoning affordable housing density bonus agreement that is approved by the Board of County Commissioners, which then places the responsibility into staffs hands in order -- it Page 22 January 5, 2006 gives us the authority to monitor and put those other kind of restrictions as far as -- MR. GIBLIN: Resales and appreciation. MR. SCHMITT: -- resales and appreciation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I recall that being an important part of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, what's going to end up happening is because gap is a little more viable profitably, it will become a catalyst -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to actually produce more affordable. MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it will. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hopefully. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what the hope is, so -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cormac, what I did is I actually made a chart out of the matrix and everything. And it became apparent that the benefit really is to do the low percentages. You get to the -- you know, the boost goes up pretty quickly, especially if you combine them, and you get market value, a lot more market value houses on there. So I think a problem, a concern I have with the matrix is that it's really favoring low percentages of the 10 percent, maybe to 10 percent, and then it generates a huge amount of market value houses. That's a question Lindy always asks whenever these come before us, how many new market houses are you getting. We never quite get an answer because we get this percentage. So, I mean, for example, any of these that cap out, like it shows that you're working on reducing the market capital. All of these cap out at low percentages, and it will be nobody's -- no developer's interest to be unnecessarily removing marketplace houses. MR. GIBLIN: That's a -- again, Mr. Strain and a couple others Page 23 January 5, 2006 and I, we ran calculations on almost every combination. And you do find that, that as you move into the higher percentages -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. GIBLIN: -- the benefit goes down. The benefit being the number of extra market rate units that you -- that you are allowed. But then after stepping back for a second and thinking that, if you are doing the higher percentages, say 60 or 70 percent affordable, it only stands to reason that only 30 percent is left to be market rate. So it's just -- I believe it's a function of your -- if you choose the higher percentages, you are choosing to do a predominantly affordable or gap level -- development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean, you won't get a density benefit. I think the concern I have is that, you know, we're not getting -- it would not be to the developer's incentive to do that, other than his good will to build affordable housing. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: His best benefit is ifhe does 10 percent less than 50 percent, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Then he gets his -- then he gets three units of market rate for just one unit affordable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the chart I made, it jumps out because you can see that as soon as he gets into these zones where he can choose these low percents, he gets a huge amount of marketable units for hardly any affordable units the way the matrix is set up. MR. GIBLIN: Right. The lower income you keep your units, say at 50 percent level or 60 percent level. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. GIBLIN: We try to really incentivize the creation of those units, because those are really tough to bring onto the market in the private sector. So yeah, you do get a -- you do get a significant bonus for providing units at those extremely low incomes. Page 24 January 5, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: But understand, he has to sell more market units to subsidize those units at 50 percent or less income. I mean, that's what the chart does. It-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It would seem to me that we ought to be taking out the bonuses at the lower end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, like take, for example, the 50,10. Ifhe-- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no. I mean, if you're up in 150 percent, take out bonuses for 10, 20, and 30 percent, and don't start your bonuses until 40 and above, which would change the matrix COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and force greater percentages of affordable and gap housing, MR. GIBLIN: By doing that though, you really -- it is very difficult to provide incentives for people to bring units on at the 50 and 60 -- at the extremely low incomes. And if you do what you're proposing and you don't let -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't have to take it out at the lower end. MR. GIBLIN: Okay. So just at the gap level? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, Cormac, the-- say for example the 50, 10. The developer's at four units an acre. He can build 50 units when it kicks in, meaning that 10 minimum kicks in. All of a sudden now, when that kicks in, ifhe builds 10 affordable housing, and the answer to Lindy's question that we never get, is he can build 40 more. He goes from 50 to 40 more, in other words, 90 marketable housing for that 10. I mean, I think we should feather that return a little bit. MR. GIBLIN: Yeah. That is -- that's what's built into the formula now as the incentive, is that -- Page 25 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He can essentially double his marketable housing for -- MR. GIBLIN: For providing some low income. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For providing 10 percent of an affordable housing. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I think-- MR. SCHMITT: Let's talk about the cost ofa home at that range. You're talking about a product that might cost the builder $300,000 or 250- to build, and he's selling that product at that income range -- Cormac, what, around 11 O? MR. GIBLIN: Which income range, 50? MR. SCHMITT: Fifty percent. MR. GIBLIN: Oh, less than that. MR. SCHMITT: Less than that. MR. GIBLIN: Maybe 75,000. MR. SCHMITT: So there's a significant amount of -- he needs -- the program was set to allow for more market subsidy, the production of that low, low income product. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I think that we had a lot of input -- MR. SCHMITT: And we're actually in the -- trying to redefine our whole program here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, you're next. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. I think that, Cormac, haven't you had a lot of input from people who are in the development business, and they're the ones who are really the experts to find out what ratios will fly and what will not. My attitude is that, you know, they probably know more than I would on my intuition because I'm not a real big real estate kind of person. MR. GIBLIN: Well, the formula and the program has been around since about 1991, and it's been very successful in producing a significant number of these low income units. I think in the past five Page 26 January 5, 2006 years we've produced about 5,000 units using this program. The development industry seems to fall to a scenario that for every affordable unit that is required, that they really need at least two or three market rate units to offset the cost of that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And I think we kind of have to go with that, because if we try to build something according to what we would like, it may not be practical and, you know, it might not get done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- and Cormac, why -- and Joe, it's not like I want to change the whole thing, because we are actually changing the whole thing. Why are we increasing the incentive on the other low end stuff? In other words, obviously you've added this new column and you've added incentives. Why did that cause change in the other column? MR. GIBLIN: I think Joe touched on it earlier, is that the desire was not to disincentivize the creation of the lower income affordable housing by adding this new category or these new bonuses on top. It was -- we didn't want to create a new chart that -- where gap housing was where everyone automatically saw the greatest benefit at the expense of the provision of affordable housing below it. So it was necessary to bump those up a little bit as well, have everything on the same page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you anticipate revising this chart in the 2006 LDC cycle depending on what the BCC does with this when it gets to them? MR. GIBLIN: Yeah, yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, this was still my understanding that this attempt today is a stopgap measure to get it on the books quickly, so that in the interim, while it was getting worked out through 2006, we at least have something there that produces something. MR. GIBLIN: Direction by the board was to get it in as quickly as possible, get something in the books rolled into our existing Page 27 January 5, 2006 program, and then over the next year when we -- as we move forward with some inclusionary zoning or linkage fees or other type -- or density by right through a GMP amendment, this would be further refined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the board needs to keep that in mind in our discussions, because this is just a quicky to get it going and maybe help get some of it started. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: If this is just a stopgap, I'd suggest to just stay with it now and see how it rolls out in the next six months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any further questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And I really want to -- in other words, I'm really in favor of it. But what you're saying is that by increasing, for example, the 50, 10 from three to four, that's going to make people do gap housing? To me -- and I can show you in the chart -- it's going to make me not want to do gap housing. It's going to make me throw 10 percent in there and get a lot of marketplace housing for a few affordable housing units. In other words, the reason you -- everything above the 150, I'm fine, and today that's exactly what we've got to do. We've got to get that into the books. It's the altering of the stuff below it I wonder about. That's all. And especially, you know, incentivizing these low percentage, high unit, you know, per acre, is really where I think the thing has a weakness to begin with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any -- I mean, I just don't know how to fix it at today's meeting, Brad, and I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't know of any fix for it now just to get this in the system for the next few months or six months or whatever it takes to get the further LDC amendments out of the system by the end of2006. Page 28 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my question, Mark, is why do we have to increase below the new column at all? I mean, even Cormac's testimony is that it's working. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't need to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ifwe make it work better, which is what this does, it's going to be less incentive. I mean, why would a guy go for a couple puny one or two gap houses when he can get -- really get a lot of benefit -- MR. GIBLIN: I think it's because it's much more difficult to bring a market on line at the 50 percent level in terms of, in the development industry. Like we said, you're looking at selling a unit at less than $100,000. A lot of developers are reluctant to do that and still have it mix in with his overall development scheme. And so it's a significant bonus to let him do that. That is what's needed there. MR. SCHMITT: And understand, the other dynamic here is the density itself. It's -- a lot of developments here in the last year, year and a half or two, coming in to get nine, 10, 12 units an acre, they've been -- it's been pushed back down to seven and six, for all the other reasons you're aware of. So it's -- that's dynamic here. It's -- there's -- yeah, the chart allows for greater density, but developer's coming and asking for that density has not been successful. So we want to make sure we have a program that does provide the mix. As Cormac said, you just can't come in and do strictly gap housing. There are other requirements as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern, Joe, is that we boost the other stuff. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The gap housing, I'm fine with. Don't misund -- there's two problems here. One is, we wanted to add gap housing to this chart, to this matrix while we're down on the lower end boosting those lower things, I think, is the problem, because it's really going to cause the people -- it's going to disincentivize the Page 29 January 5, 2006 builder from even building gap housing. MR. GIBLIN: I think the scenario I've put on the screen there, number four, this is where -- this scenario uses only the extremely low incomes, at 20 percent, at 60 percent, and 10 percent and 50 percent. You know, this is a -- figure a 20-acre parcel, without anything, they could have come in yesterday and been approved most likely for 80 units on 20 acres. Using the bonuses that are associated with those lower income levels, they get a plus four for the 20 at 60 and another plus four for the 10 at 50. They end up with a density of 12 units per acre. Now they can do 240 units on that same piece of property. Forty-eight of them need to be at 60 percent, 24 of them need to be 50 percent, and the remaining 168 can be market. That leaves them with 88 extra market rate units as opposed to, you know, day one. The 88 extra market rate units, a portion of them, have to offset the construction of those, is it -- 72 affordable units. So at the end of -- at the real end, they're really only getting maybe eight extra, you know -- I'm sorry, no. They're getting 88 extra market rate units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're getting a lot. They're doubling their market rate units -- MR. GIBLIN: They are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- which, again, is the Lindy question that never gets answered at the hearing. But this is a good example. There's no gap housing in there because the developer is wisely down in these new low percentages boosting his units with that but providing hardly any housing, but really, you know, getting his bang for the buck on the marketplace. MR. GIBLIN: Right. And-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what this -- again, my point is, is that the way we've revised the lower part of the chart is, we've made it such that no developer would wisely do the gap housing. MR. SCHMITT: But when you do your cost analysis, they will. Page 30 January 5, 2006 Because, again, what Cormac said, the market rate is subsidizing significantly those 50 percent rate units. And we're getting into issues where I would have to, you know, ask -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, Joe, as an architect, I know what a shell costs, I know the difference between the finishes for a market rate and the finishes for a nonmarket rate. I mean, you're right, there has to be some benefit to subsidize. That's a pretty good healthy benefit on these low percentages. MR. GIBLIN: This scenario, number seven, same piece of property. Here we decided to include some gap, some 80 percent, and some 60 percent. We end up with 200 units; 60 extra market rate units on top of your otherwise allowable density. In this scenario the developer does have the incentive to build that gap and affordable together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes. Let me get it clear in my mind, please, and yours, so you can let the public know. Is it typical in a development that all of these structures will be built equally, in other words, market rate, the subsidized rate? Will they all look the same, feel the same, be the same? Is that the intent of this? MR. GIBLIN: That's what our code requires. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And yet Commissioner Schiffer indicated very clearly, which I also know, that you can create a shell and you can do some things internally that are different. And my concern is, we're lumping the dollars and we're saying that the cost to built offsets, et cetera, and apply here. Is that really going to hold in this? Is this an absolute requirement? MR. GIBLIN: It has -- like I mentioned, this program's been around for a while with the same restrictions. And the ones that have been constructed are identical to the market rate units in the same Page 31 January 5, 2006 complex. Once people get in, they do have the ability to upgrade their cabinets or upgrades their floorings, but the builder's package is the same for the market rate and the affordable units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we're talking about a 4- or $500,000 home being structurally equal and amenity equal to the $150,000 home? MR. GIBLIN: Exactly. That's the way it works. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I don't think they'd be amenity equal. You think they're going to put the Roman tub in the affordable housing? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's where I'm coming from. MR. GIBLIN: That's what I meant about, the builder provides -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The shell will be the same. And with the building code, you're not going to get away with much more than the shell anyway. And from the outside, the thing would look identical. I'm sure the doors and the hardware and all that would be -- would be the same. Inside -- which is a big number. In other words, the percentage of the cost of a house on the inside finishes is a large percentage of it -- will not be the same, I'm sure, and -- nor should it be. MR. GIBLIN: The most recent one approved by the board, Serus (phonetic) Point PUD down on Bayshore Road, the interior finishes of all of those units will be at the same quality. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so they're going to be valued the same, they'll be assessed the same and taxed the same. MR. GIBLIN: Taxing is a -- that's a different -- different question -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: -- because the units themselves have this cap depression rate. So whether the tax appraiser recognizes that as part of the valuation of the unit or not -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I'm coming back full Page 32 January 5, 2006 circle to what Joe Schmitt indicated about the cost of building against the cost of land, and I'm concerned about the dynamic actually driving the cost of land up in something such as this, so -- all right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cormac, let me -- looking at the example you gave. It shows that he gets 60 units. Now, I don't know what -- you know, how many total market units is, but what this is saying, for the same piece of land to the prior thing, going through the addition of building all these additional units, he's only getting 60 additional market rate units, thus the prior scheme would be wiser for him to do. MR. GIBLIN: With the prior scheme, he had to sell those for a lot less. In other words, they were 50 percent units in the prior scheme. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. GIBLIN: So he's going to take more of a loss on the 50 percent units than he would on the 60 percent units or the 80 percent units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think, the important thing is, we'll throw the thing out. That's fine. I mean, I'm not going to -- we don't have the time to do it. I do think though it's something that, if we are going to throw it another cycle, let's really carefully look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the intent. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. After how many years can these units be flipped? MR. GIBLIN: It's a restriction that for 15 years there's a deed restriction on the unit that your appreciation is shared with the county if you were to resell it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because my concern is that, yeah, these will affordable units for 15 years. After that they're going to revert and they'll be lost to affordable housing most likely. And I Page 33 January 5, 2006 would rather see the county set up something where something is going to stay, something that middle income people can use. You know, like normal houses -- like my house, you know, that is inexpensive when it was built and it's always probably going to be inexpensive. And -- so it seems like, couldn't it be restructured so that they wouldn't have to be identical to the other houses? That way they would stay as lower income housing, you know, for a longer period than 15 years. MR. GIBLIN: I think what you're getting into are other concepts that we're working on, be it a land trust or share appreciation, and those are ongoing efforts that hopefully one day every unit created through a density bonus will end up in a land trust to guarantee affordability for the long haul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: For the life of the unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are issues that we hope to flesh out in next cycle. Ms. Caron? MR. SCHMITT: They're welcome to join us in the debate on the affordable housing program. Maybe the commissioners want it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I'm going to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you do, are you going to-- please, when you make it, could you define what table we're using -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because we had another table presented to us. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- exactly. The table on page 4, I'm going to make a motion that we approve the new 150 percent density bonuses and that we leave the rest of the chart as it was until it can be fleshed out as -- because this is just supposedly a stopgap -- that we leave everything else the way it was until it can be Page 34 January 5, 2006 successfully fleshed out and we know exactly what we're getting into it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Commissioner Caron, seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Will -- can you operate if you have -- if you don't have that information, can you then initiate any program? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Nothing's changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing's changed. She's just saying the numbers that are crossed out on the last three rows don't get crossed out and they stay the same. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I thought she was referencing the table on page 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She is. COMMISSIONER CARON: I am. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm a little confused then. I apologize. MR. GIBLIN: The cross-through and underlines in the 80 percent, 60 percent and 50 percent rows -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. Now I got you, okay. MR. GIBLIN: -- would not -- they'd revert back to what they were originally -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. GIBLIN: -- is what the motion was. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Got ya. COMMISSIONER TUFF: And clarification though. She's using the four, five, six, six on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's where I was going, too, Russell, because I like that concept, but I -- and I -- but I like her concept as well, but I think the two ought to be blended together. Page 35 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not sure that the four, five, six is not going to be what we end up with. But again, what we're saying is, this is just a stopgap measure until we actually analyze the four, five, six, the cutting off of 10, 20, and 30 percent at the top level maybe, whether we need to change these bonuses down below or not, and how much we need to change them, and all of that really needs to -- you know, we need a couple of matrix charts like Brad started in order to take a look at what we're really going to be accomplishing. MR. GIBLIN: And the immediate concern with the motion though is that it provides the same exact bonus whether you do units at 80 percent or 150 percent, so there's no incentive to do less expensive units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, I favored this chart here because what this chart could give us is a developer that's going to go in and actually build high percent gap housing and benefit off of this chart. The other chart that stopped at three, there would be no reason for him to go beyond 30 percent. There'd be no incentive to him. He's shooting himself in the foot. So this gives him a chance to -- I think -- I would actually run it up, if you wanted to, till it hits eight in the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Start out with the four, five, six? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Till it hits eight at the 90, and the reason is, is you really want to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You can't get over 16, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you get all-- then you get all gap and no affordable. That cuts affordable out of the picture. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you'll have the 10 percent affordable, because you've got to do that before you even enter the gap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you can't do it if you use all the density for the gap. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You won't have any market rate. Page 36 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you'll have no market rate, you're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think -- first of all, there's a motion on the table for first -- there's a motion on the table, on the floor, for the first table. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, if everybody's more comfortable with this, you know, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got to get through the first one first, unless you want to withdraw your motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or amend it to include this line. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, we can amend it to include this line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, the problem with that is, as Cormac just rightfully pointed out, if you make gap equal to the 80 percent, why is anybody going to do the 80 percent? They're all going to do the gap. And at least the compromise that Cormac's coming in with the new table he brought today incentivizes gap, and affordable becomes the catalyst generated by the gap, otherwise, people are going to say, why do I have to do any of the 80 percent? I'll just do gap and the lower number and the heck with it. So this spreads it out a little bit more evenly, and so it's a fairly decent compromise in the table. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I like the table as it is in our packet except -- I mean, I like the table as it is on that screen on the wall. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, here's the -- look at your argument. They're going to be doing high percent gap, not high percent 80. What a great argument because we don't have either of those housings. I mean, we're short in anyone of those housing markets. So I mean, if -- the point is that the mistake we make is that they're going to do too much gap housing. That's not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to withdraw your motion Page 37 January 5, 2006 or do you want to keep it? Well, the motion's been made and seconded to accept the table that's in the packet, with the exception of leaving the lower three lines as they were in the original LDC and not modify those, but just include the top line as shown in the packet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, as the seconder, I'd like to talk to the motion maker, is that, could we revise our motion to include this top line instead of the line that's in the packet? I would certainly favor that revision. ' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then -- but Brad, if you do that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, then-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you're going to have 100 gap and 80 percent equal, and no one's going to do that 80 percent. That's where COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But look at the problem, they did too much gap. You know, let's deal with that problem next year, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: That seems to be the -- that seems to be what we're lacking is gap. We're not -- MR. GIBLIN: Well, an analysis of the need for housing shows that roughly one-third of the affordable housing is needed below 80 percent -- I'm sorry, two-thirds. Two-thirds of the affordable housing needed in Collier County falls to those incomes below 80 percent and one-third is above 80 percent. So if you want to say where's the need, it's two-thirds below 80 percent, and that's why the original chart favors the lower incomes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So -- but Cormac, the reason that we're not happy with the lower three lines on the matrix is that they really favor small percentage, you know, 10, 20 percent product, and we're -- we really need to get up higher than that. So I think what you're doing is you're not going to get gap housing. You're going to be 10, 20 percent, 60, 50, and that's to the Page 38 January 5, 2006 developer's benefit. I mean, it's clear to me in this graph that there's no reason for him not to do anything but that. MR. SCHMITT: But in application, that has not happened. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it is happening. MR. SCHMITT: Developers -- developers, when they put it in these 60 and -- even in the 80 and 60 percent and they're given that bonus. We've had one developer actually want to come back and say they couldn't even sell the product for what we were telling him he had to sell it for, and so there's a balance here. What you're saying -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what I'm saying, Joe, is I want a guy -- MR. SCHMITT: -- you believe that this is incentivizing the 50 percent and 60 percent when, in fact, yes, it is, but when they actually have to place it on the ground, it -- that's where the financial decision is made. And like I said, when they take this and apply it and they realize that they're selling, in some instances, a product that they could sell at 350-, now they're being told to sell it at no more than 110, they're coming back and saying, well, we want out of this deal. And we're saying, no, you can't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Cormac, let me ask you a question. Is the reason you adjusted the three lines in the matrix, the lower three, the existing three lines, to make it blend better with gap, or was it that you were having a problem getting affordable housing with the densities, you know, presently shown? MR. GIBLIN: I think both. You know, certainly we could -- we could improve on the formula. We could always try to incentivize the creation of more affordable housing. But if we were to simply revert back to the old numbers that were on the page and offer the same incentive for gap and affordable, I think everyone would just built affordable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think that's going to happen Page 39 January 5, 2006 more so with the change, but anyway. I mean, I still like the motion. So, Mark, maybe vote it, and we'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the motion --let's get the motion restated so we all know what we're voting on. Ms. Caron, it's your motion. COMMISSIONER CARON: My original motion was to accept the chart as it appears on page 4 for the top 150 percent line and to leave alone the rest of the density bonuses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there was -- does he still agree with that motion? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. I'm here, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe raise by hand. Raise by -- how many by hand? Mr. Adelstein, Mr. Schiffer, Ms. Caron. All those opposed? Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion fails, 5-3. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I'd like to make a new motion that we accept the one on the wall. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A motion's been made to accept the chart on the wall. Seconded by Mr. Midney. Any further discussion? Page 40 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What about the last one? Just stopping at 100, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This, what's on the wall. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Just at 100? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under the 100 percent NA, is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the reason-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't do 100 percent gap is what that chart's saying. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to -- gap's being used as a catalyst for affordable in some regard in the way this chart's written. MR. GIBLIN: At least 10 percent must be at 80 percent. So you couldn't do 100 percent gap. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have 100 units of gap, at least -- well, if you have 100 units of gap, only 90 can really be gap. Ten percent -- ten of those would have to be affordable, so you've still got a mixed incentivizing for it. So it's a balance between the two. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would just like to comment, if I may, that the whole idea of gap was brought forward, in my understanding anyway, on the basis that we were bleeding in the middle class, and we were losing people who are very important to our communities. And while we do have an absolute need to help people who are of lesser means, the issue that was intended to be dealt with was to find a means to help the so-called professional people. And if this chart and this land development code amendment does that without bleeding it away and compromising it by requiring other things, then I would be in favor of it. Page 41 January 5, 2006 My concern is that it seems to be getting it locked in, and maybe that's the right thing. I'm not smart enough to know. But I do feel a very strong concern that -- and Mr. Schiffer said it before. What's wrong with building all gap? Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with building all gap if that's our specific particular problem at the moment. If we have to go the other way and we can make it functional and workable for both the builder and the people, then that's fine. If this does it, fine. But I do have concerns, and I hope that the commissioners see a lot more detail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before I go too far in this motion, Catherine, I notice you've got some public speaker submittals. MS. FABACHER: Those are-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are any of those for this issue? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Okay. Is there any final discussion? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. It think that the gap is important, but the lower income are equally as important, and the need is greater there, so that's why I'm in favor of the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. With that, let's call the motion. All those in favor, signify by raising your hand, saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Raises hand.) Page 42 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 7-1. Thank you. Weare now past that, into our favorite subject, the Bayshore mixed-use district. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All the subjects are our favor subj ects, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. Just before Cormac goes, I think the rest of the panel would like a copy of that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of the chart. COMMISSIONER CARON: Usually we don't accept anything into the record without having a copy ahead of time, however -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It wouldn't be bad to have some of those examples either. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that wasn't a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Cormac, before the day's over, if you could distribute copies to us of that chart. MR. GIBLIN: I'll do it right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Margie. Since I made a chart, my product, work product, what am I allowed and not allowed to do with that chart? Am I allowed to disperse it to my fellow board members or -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, you're dispersing it at a public meeting in the sunshine, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as you give a copy to the court reporter, right. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah, give a copy to the court reporter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I didn't bring that many copies. I was just curious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's -- okay. I think we ought to-- Page 43 January 5, 2006 we're going to take -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would it have been appropriate for him to go to the podium and qualify the information for us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: He can do it from his seat. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I know, but I'm thinking it's a visual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. He could have. We're going to take a break at 10 o'clock and probably a lunch break around 11 :30 or so, depending on where we're at with this. Knowing that, let us proceed with the Bayshore mixed-use district. And Catherine, I don't know who's going to make the presentation, but -- MS. FABACHER: Well, it looks like -- I don't know. Excuse me, is -- Nancy, are you going now, or are you going to let Joe start or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just to let you know, we've been approaching this page by page, and that may be still the way we need to work through this. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm not sure the landscaping issues will be the first issue here today. MS. GUNDLACH: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that being said, I notice Mr. Jackson, is he here? MS. F ABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. He usually likes to get up and have fun with this today. MS. F ABACHER: Here he comes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess my first question -- and I might as well start out on page 11, fiscal and operational impacts. Way back when, when we first started this, the question was asked, Page 44 January 5, 2006 how come it says none when there's various programs in here that require additional levels of review at the county? Or are those being paid by user fees? Is there truly no fiscal impact to county staff for this program? MS. FABACHER: Well, yes. As I commented at the last meeting and as I put in the summary table -- summary table, staff had originally looked at impacts because of the processes that were originally put into the overlay, but now we've changed and modified all the processes so that they go -- more or less run parallel with what we're doing now. The only difference would just be, it would be more projects to review, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Remember I said that the last time? We kind of determined that before we had -- the county was maintaining the landscaping and all -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. F ABACHER: -- kinds of special -- and we've changed just about everything to run parallel with our current processes and procedures. So aside from it just being an additional workload, there is no real fiscal impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that workload is covered by user application fees, just like any other application? MS. FABACHER: Susan will have to help on that, as far as coming in for their SDPs and-- MS. MURRAY: Correct, yeah. User fees, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure, because it said none. I wanted to make sure it was none. So thank you. MS. FABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess if -- Mr. Jackson, if you have no objection and this board has none, we'll just go like we have before, we'll start page 1, page 2, and anybody that's got a question, Page 45 January 5, 2006 raise your hand, and we'll try to get to it and try to work our way through it. The intent today is to finish with this. And if there are disagreements or things that have not been changed to everyone's satisfaction, then I would like that established as a point of contention, and then this panel needs to weigh in on it, and then the majority will then make a recommendation as a stipulation and go forward and go on to the next issue. Does that sound fair to everyone, so we can get past this today? Okay. Page 11 is the staff original sheet. Any questions on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 12. I have one question about the accessory units, not a -- it's just a clarification. It says, an accessory unit is a separate structure located at the rear of the property. I just want to make sure, because you have preferences in here where you can have, I believe, studios or guest units above the garages, and now all the garages are on the rear of the property. Would that, by that definition, preclude you from being able to utilize that accessory use? MS. MURRAY: It could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could? MS. MURRAY: It could. I don't see any reason for it to be in there. Could you just take out "located at the rear" of the property? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I think that would make it easier for you all to operate, and it would stop any problem in the future by someone reading it. So the first change, if there's no objections from others members of this panel or anybody else, that we would take accessory unit and drop the words "located at the rear." MS. MURRAY: I would just take out "located at the rear of the property. " CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, of the property. Page 46 January 5, 2006 MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any problem with that with anybody else? None? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page 12? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, let's -- oh, hi, David. MR. WEEKS: Hello. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you mysteriously appeared. I didn't see you there. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, David Weeks, for the record, of the Comprehensive Planning Department. Mr. Chairman, after reviewing this overlay as well as the next one, my only comments really are wordsmithing in nature, but I'm not sure how comfortable this body is with me just simply saying -- sort of like Margie sometimes does -- I've got some changes here, wordsmithing, if you'll give your general blessing to that, I'll forward those on to Catherine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just --let's finish with that one then. I don't have a problem with it, and I'll let each member say it if they do or not, as long as it doesn't change the concept of the issue at hand. MR. WEEKS: Right. N ow in this particular case, on this page, there is some change to the concept, and so I definitely want to get this one on the record. If it pleases the commission, what I'll do is, I'll just not stand up every time I have a minor wordsmith and change and interrupt your proceedings, but only in those handful of cases where it might be -- it might -- I might feel or think that you might believe that the changes could be of substance, and I'll gladly bring those to your attention. There are not that many and I'll be as brief as possible. On page 12 specifically, the definition of mixed-use approval process, I suggested a significant rewording of it. And the only Page 47 January 5, 2006 substantive matter that I would say I've changed is that the way it presently reads is that a mixed-use approval process must include a request for increased density. And in my rewrite of that, I would eliminate that and simply rephrase it as a may include, and the reason is, because the way this is structured elsewhere in the document, and what staffs intent is, is that all of -- all mixed-use projects, whether they request a density increase or not, will be required to go through this process. And the reason is -- there's two different reasons. One is because there are some properties within the overlay that are zoned residential, and if they're going to be allowed a mixed-use development that is allowed commercial uses that their underlying zoning would not allow, we need a way of giving that specific approval and tracking that. Conversely, there are some properties that are zoned C-4 and C-5. And if they're going to do a mixed-use project, be consistent with the comprehensive plan, they are limited to C-l through C-3 uses. I mean, that was the whole genesis for this opt 10 type of a process to start with, so that's important that projects go through the mixed use approval process whether or not they're requesting the density increase. And the second reason is, it will help staff in monitoring the allocation of those density pool units going through this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good catch, David. Any questions from the commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. The density pool units are the 368, or whatever that number is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three hundred eighty-eight. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Jackson, any concerns from your side? Page 48 January 5, 2006 MR. JACKSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you for pointing it out, David. Is that the only concept issue you have today? If you have other concept issues, pop up with them, if you could; let us know. MR. WEEKS: Will do. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to page 13. Hearing nothing, page 14, which is just a map. Page 15. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have something on 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One other thing on 14, Dave, remember last time we discussed the fact that you are making changes to the map from the prior version. And I think that when -- especially when it goes before the commission, I mean, we don't know what those changes are unless we sit two of them side by side. Isn't that correct? You are changing boundaries of zones and stuff? MR. EHARDT: We're adding boundaries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the speaker and identify yourself if you're going to speak. Thank you. MR. EHARDT: There's, I think, two -- two places where we changed, but we are adding. My name's Joe Ehardt, E-H-A-R-D-T. And then we're adding additional areas. We have another map that can show what exists today and what we're proposing. I didn't know if it would go in the overlay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think somewhere -- in other words, much like we underline new words, cross out old words, we have to do something, I think, to make everybody aware that there are changes to the map also -- MR. EHARDT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- be it a clouding technique or something like that. MR. EHARDT: All right. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Schiffer, I think that if you put a Page 49 January 5,2006 preexisting old map and a new map in there, you're starting to cloud the issue and you can cause some confusion on somebody looking at which one is it that I'm really looking at. I think for language, just as we've gone through here in underline, strike-through, that was only for your edification. But once it goes into the LDC, it should be the map, the words, and nothing that was in the past, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nowhere am I proposing using two maps, because that's what I had to do. I had to look at two words and play, where's the Waldo to find out what was changed. MR. JACKSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'm trying to say is, somewhere if you can note, either by a lead or something those areas that you have changed through this process -- because I think the commission should be aware of the fact that the boundaries are changing on some of the districts, be it additional or be it new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, are you suggesting then, Brad, that when this goes to the BCC with whatever our recommendations are, that there's another map side by side to this -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so they can see what's going on? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm suggesting, on top of this map, just for the hearings only, not to be included in the -- no? MR. EHARDT: You won't be able to read it. You won't be able to read it. Even at the bigger scale, you won't be able to -- the larger scale you might be able to, if I have a full-size map. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I asked for that. I never got that. But I could do it even with the smaller. So in other words, how many areas are changing where you couldn't put a leader into that map? I think it's a major thing when you're changing the use of a piece of property. I don't think that should be stealth in the way it's presented here. MR. EHARDT: I'd have to show you the two maps side by side, Page 50 January 5, 2006 is the easiest way to do it, what you have today and what we're proposing, and I could show some leaders on that large scale map. On here it will get too confusing. This is hard enough to read right now at the small scale. I mean, the areas -- basically the boundaries have expanded to include other zoning categories that were R-6 or R-4 that were in there. MS. STRAIN: Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair? Yeah, for the record, Catherine Fabacher. We asked them to put this in, ready to go into the amendment form for the council. Now, what Mr. Jackson did prepare for the last meeting was, he has two full-side posters that you can read that indicate -- which we asked him to do and he did -- that indicate what has been added. The pro forma map and what has been under this amendment. Now, what I'm suggesting is, when I send this and put it in the amendment and send it to municode, I'll take the old one and put an X through it, and put this new one in its place. Now, if you want to see what the change is, they have the two large, really big scale maps to show you that. But all that's required by law for us -- what Brad's -- I think Mr. Schiffer's asking for is just some graphic to help him see the changes. And I think they've brought that big graphic for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- and we couldn't see that from here. This is very small, too. You can't even read half of the words. MS. FABACHER: No, I think they have some big boards. MR. JACKSON: Correct. I think what -- to answer your concern, is that on this chart or map, it not only -- it's not showing that we're changing anybody's uses. In there you'll note that there is a nomenclature put in there that is added to the property by the overlay. Underneath that, in parens, is the underlying land use. MS. FABACHER: No. Page 51 January 5, 2006 MR. JACKSON: Or zoning, excuse me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me give you an example. On Thomasson and Bayshore down at the corner, you've added a large neighborhood commercial center. I mean, I think the neighbors, the council, everybody should be aware of that. I mean, I favor it and I don't think it's a problem. But I think that that's new, correct? MR. EHARDT: Yes. MR. JACKSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So somehow, much like underlining the text as new words, crossing out as old words, something has to be done graphically to make sure that that's something that will go forward. In other words, I don't want a whole bunch of people in here yelling, what happened there? When I looked at the map, it didn't have that. MR. EHARDT: Like I said, I think it would be very confusing to do it on this small-scale map. You won't be able to read anything. I think if I have a -- now, I could prepare another map side by side at this scale or we can use the large maps to indicate where those things have changed. I just -- I know you won't be able to read it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't want to argue this forever. Make sure in the public record that if it could be proven that these things were made aware of, in case anybody in the future has a concern. MR. EHARDT: I guess the large maps could -- excuse me. The large maps could be adopted as part of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think Catherine's already stated there's going to be -- the old map is going to be in the public record with an X through it. MR. EHARDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if anybody wants to see what it used Page 52 January 5, 2006 to be to what it is now, they can look and compare the two maps side by side. MS. FABACHER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's been done before. MS. FABACHER: And when I make up the amendment, I'll do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: If you don't mind, I'll make a suggestion. I understand the concern. Could not the consultant simply make a second map just like this proposed one, and all areas that are being added to the -- to this overlay be just shown in black, for photocopy purposes, shown in black? And then a person won't be able to read anything. They'll just see this black area. It will be identified as new, and then they come to this map in here and they see what the change is, that is, that it's been added and it's going to be BMUD and C. That would allow a person to easily see where properties have been added to the overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem. The rest of the panel? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now we're -- okay. MR. WEEKS: And Mr. Chairman, while I've interrupted, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go right ahead. It's the order of the day. MR. WEEKS: Back on page 12, the mixed-use approval process definition, I should have specifically mentioned that one of the changes I made, other than just rewriting it to read better and the change I made before about the increased density pool not necessarily Page 53 January 5, 2006 being requested. This presented text still refers to rezoning process. And as we've discussed more than once through these hearings, there's a new process being created, which this definition is all about, this mixed-use approval process, and my rewrite does eliminate that word rezoning. Secondly on page 13, this is one of those things where I don't think it's substantial, but I think I should bring it to your attention for your judgment. On page 13, section 2.03.07(i)(1 )(a), it's under the purpose and intent, in the -- about the second half of the page, the word retail is used at two different locations. It's referring to residential uses located over retail uses, and I would just suggest that you change that to be commercial uses. I don't know that there would be any particular reason for limiting it to retail commercial uses, only what about personal service, what about office uses? And as this is strictly written, it would prohibit residential over -- or could be read that way at least. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. I have a question. Did you not read this before today? MR. WEEKS: Yes, but not in time-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, didn't you get your comments to these applicants? MR. WEEKS: Not in time to be included in the packet. What happens is the consultant provides the documents to the county, but we're on such a tight time line as we've gotten into the process. Way back when, yes. But at this point -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we're not really on a tight timeline. We're on a timeline set by you guys, and if the timeline's too tight, you simply need to turn to the people providing you the documents saying, there isn't enough time. I need to let this go for another two weeks. I don't understand why we're constantly given things without staffs full and complete review. Yours is extremely important. Page 54 January 5, 2006 MR. WEEKS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that goes to Ms. Student. Did you review this entire document before today? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I reviewed the document before today, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because, I mean, we're going to walk through every pages of this, and I guess we need your comments then throughout the day. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, two things. One, personally speaking, I took a vacation some over the holidays, about a week. But beyond that, we're trying to keep this on schedule to the board. As you know, it's been delayed many times. And we're trying to keep it on track to get to the county commission hearing. And if -- enough said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only thing I would have -- I think the last thing the board would want is something that isn't done right. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And our attempts to do it right include your input. And from now on, I would hope that whoever's in charges of scheduling these things makes sure that all the stuff that needs to be done has the adequate time, because we need to ask these questions at these meetings, and we don't need to be rewriting the document at the meeting. I was hoping you'd have your stuff done by now. Enough said on that. We're on page -- we're still on page 15 now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let Brad go ahead, then Commissioner Adelstein. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Up at the top, it's worded -- and I think David would be the one that -- to apply for this, you have to be Page 55 January 5, 2006 eligible for a mixed use project and allocation of density units whether or not you're requesting the density units. In other words, should that "and" be "or"? I mean, what you're saying is that to go through this process, you have to be a mixed-use project, and you have to be able to get allocation of bonus density. So there's a limited amount of density units. So theoretically that's going to expire, you know. And so it's saying you have to be eligible for them whether or not you're using them or not. I mean, to me that's looking in the two conditions, one which is going to disappear. MR. WEEKS: It should not be any an and/or, because they're really synonymous. If you're eligible for a mixed-use project, then you are eligible for the density bonus units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So why -- then why do we say, in allocation of density bonus units, whether or not requesting a density bonus? MR. JACKSON: Mr. Schiffer, that's because when the bonus density units run out, a person still can ask for a mixed-use project using his underlying density rating system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. That's the -- and I think if you eliminate the allocation -- the bonus units as part of it -- obviously it's a mixed use. You've got to go get a mixed use. What this is saying, that you have to be eligible for a mixed use and you have to be eligible -- I'm adding that because of the way it's worded -- but the allocation of bonus density units, whether you use them or not. But conceptually, you would not be able to qualify for the second part of that once they're gone; therefore -- MR. WEEKS: I just would disagree, because the way it reads is, you're eligible to apply. You're eligible to apply for mixed use and you're eligible to apply for the density bonus. Now, if the end result is we have no density bonus units left to give you, then that component of your request would be denied if you said I want some density bonus units. But your eligibility to apply for Page 56 January 5, 2006 the units is synonymous with your eligibility to apply for mixed-use development. They are one and the same. You cannot qualify for the bonus units and not be a mixed-use development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, if you're comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a little trouble with this bonus density unit pool. I think that the 388 density units should be controlled by the county commissioners and sold to developers, and that would be the only way to be fair to get it done. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If I may? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I consult -- this was an issue, and I consulted with outside legal counsel, Greg Stewart of Nabors, Giblin in Tallahassee, on this, and his recommendation was that it was fraught with legal issues, double-dipping on impact fees, possible Bert Harris, and so on, and would recommend against it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't know this gentleman. I can't see -- there are units here. They're already here. They are going to be used. The person to control those units to make sure that it's done properly should be the county commissioners. They're not making any difference on any other structure. The ideal here is to make sure that there is good equality in the division of these 388 units -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't know that there's argument with them somehow being controlled by the county commission. The issue is with the sale of the units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Margie, if you don't mind me expounding on that a little bit. When this gentleman, whoever you talked to, provided a recommendation as far as the sale of the units go, we sell TDRs and we sell other types of units in the county. You said double-dipping on impact fees. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That was one of the -- Page 57 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie, let me finish. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean the 388 bonus units have already paid their impact fees? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: They would be paying impact fees when -- at the appropriate time. As I -- because of the holiday and so forth and because we really need direction from the Board of County Commissioners to really have a consultant on board to fully advise us of this, this was a general conversation that I had with Mr. Stewart, and he would advise against it. If the county commission would like to send a recommendation to the board that we have it studied in greater detail, we can certainly look into that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Why would you start by putting it in this way and then let the county commissioners decide whether we want to do that or not do that? Because it's only a recommendation that we have them control the 388 units. They decide after that what they want to do with it. Whether they can sell them, whether they cannot, that's not the issue. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. I don't have a -- however that might be fleshed out, I don't have a problem with the Board of County Commissioners, in some way, controlling that. The issue is with the sale of the units. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That should be a decision they would make. MR. JACKSON : Well, Mr. Adelstein, the language is, if read, reads, the units are controlled by the Board of County Commissioners, so that's not an issue. It's in here and it's written. Attaching a value to the bonus density units has been discussed by the local advisory board, and it was denied. They voted to not assess a value, to leave it as it is, as written and -- you know, in the language in the growth management plan and as it is in the overlay, Page 58 January 5, 2006 and this will go forward to the Board of County Commissioners. They will control that through this mixed-use process. They will control the numbers, but -- and the recommendation from this advisory board is to not assess and attach a value to it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm making it -- I'm asking to make a change on that and to have them be sold. The county commissioners can turn me down. That's not the issue. I do think it's a way to start because, let's face it, there's a tremendous amount of value in that land. MR. JACKSON: I think it is your prerogative as a -- one of eight or nine members of this planning commission to write your comments and send that forward with this document as it goes forward to the Board of County Commissioner for approval. To put a recommendation in this overlay is nothing more than a recommendation and it has no teeth and it doesn't -- you can't implement it because there's no legal basis to implement it or a process to go through. If you want to look at it over time after this has been passed and approved for -- after it gets codified into real legal language, then we can go back and modify the LDC and put it in there. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We would -- we would have to do a couple of things. We would -- more than likely we'd have -- we'd have to amend our comprehensive plan, we would have to have a study, we would probably need a financial consultant to assist with establishing a value. Just don't arbitrarily pick a number out of the air for how much a unit mayor may not be worth in a program like this. So we'd need a financial consultant and a legal consultant to work with us. We'd have to, I believe, amend the comprehensive plan to set up such a program, and then do a land development code amendment as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Margie. We will further discuss this after the break. We'll take a 10-minute break right now. Page 59 January 5, 2006 Thank you. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This meeting will come back to order. Will everybody take your seats. We left off with Commissioner Adelstein discussing the 388 density units, and that's where we will resume. Commissioner Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would like to at least have from the board consensus as to how they feel about this idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: David, as you know, I brought up twice the fact of charging an arbitrary fee of $1,000 a unit. I think there's a lot of -- actually more value than that in these units, and I don't want to see it just go away by the wayside. So I think we should, if we have to, hire the consultants and do what we need necessary to find out the true value of the units and who should control them. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And we would also not only have to do that, but look at the legal ramifications of it and if it's legally possible to do. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine. If that's what we need to do, then we should go ahead and do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have to agree with Commissioners Adelstein and Vigliotti who have spoken so far. In the context that we need to ascribe a value to those units, those units will certainly have a value to some folks. And especially we talked about the equality of the distribution was another factor. So I think whether it goes beyond the commissioners is moot, but I think it needs to be brought to them in that form. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I, too, believe it needs to be researched and brought forward for the possibility of charging for those 388 density bonus units. We're not going to vote on this now, Page 60 January 5, 2006 but I want to make sure that each panel member weighed in on it so that at the end of the meeting today when we vote on everything, all these items are all hashed out and we go forward. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I think it definitely needs to be investigated. We're sitting here with an overlay that is giving 12 units an acre. Twelve units an acre that sit in a TCA, so it's a road we already know is failing. And while we're add -- but we're adding bonus units anyway, in the coastal high hazard area where it should be three or four units an acre, but we're up to at least 12 units an acre, and with no requirement that any of these bonuses go to affordable or gap housing. I think the county deserves something for this additional density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney, we're weighing in on the idea of charging for or how to handle the 388 bonus units, whether we would recommend -- it's not a motion right now, it's just a discussion so that when we have our motion at the end of the day, we're all in some kind of consensus. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'd like to hear what staff has for their rationalization why they didn't ask for that. MR. WEEKS: I know David Jackson may want to speak to this as well. But Commissioners, I just wanted to briefly mention, when the Bayshore/Triangle Redevelopment Area Overlay was adopted into the future land use element to the growth management plan in the year 2000, the reason for this density pool to be created for this allocation to be allowed was to promote redevelopment. It was never contemplated -- it certainly doesn't mean a policy change cannot occur, but it was never contemplated that there would be any charge for these bonus units. The allocation of this unit -- of these units for providing mixed-use development was the objective. It is an incentive to get mixed-use development and to get redevelopment in this particular Page 61 January 5, 2006 area. We have to go back and remember the beginning of all of this process. Number one, the county commission had to declare this area as blighted. And I'll emphasize blighted as defined in State Statutes for this particular redevelopment area process. People get scared when they hear that word. They get offended, I should say. And then secondly, the county commission hired a consultant and we prepared a redevelopment plan for this area, which subsequently led to the adoption of the amendment in the future land use element. And again, I just want to emphasize that this was an incentive for redevelopment. And I just question whether charging people to get these units is an incentive for redevelopment. And if I may briefly respond to Mrs. Caron's comment just to remind you. Yes, almost the entire overlay, both of them, are within the coastal high hazard area; however, the density pool came from prior zoning that was within the coastal high hazard area, and it was when this overlay was adopted into the FLUE it contained this provision that was going to allow for what we knew was going to be a rezoning to create the Botanical Gardens project to allow the dwelling units that were allowed by the former residential zoning on that site to be used as this pool to be redistributed throughout the coastal high hazard area or, if possible, for the small portion of the Gateway Triangle Overlay that's outside of the area. So it's -- we're not -- we are increasing density in the sense that if you look today at how many dwelling units are there and you look tomorrow, how many will be there, yes, we've gone up. But if we go back to the time when the overlay was adopted into the comprehensive plan, we are not increasing the density. It was known at that time that we were just going to redistribute this. And then secondly -- oh. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Quickly, I believe Don Scott had spoken at one of the previous hearings about the traffic impacts and that it was already, Page 62 January 5, 2006 in their calculations for transportation network analysis, that they had included this density bonus pool, that they were already aware of these number of units that were there, so they've already taken those into account. Again, I'm not trying to convince you. I just wanted to get this information to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. I like what you're doing in terms of redevelopment, but at the same time I do have some reservation, Mark, because at present there are a lot of low-income housing in that area. I know someone who lives there in apartments. And I think that when this is redeveloped, you're going to get a net loss in the low-income housing pool, and that disturbs me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, one thing you said is that the 12 units -- the density of 12 units per acre, is that limited to the extent of the use of the 388, and once those are gone, there's no more 12 units per acre, or is 12 units per acre underlying the whole thing, regardless of the use of the density bonus? MR. WEEKS: Only until the density pool is used up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So once the density pool is used up that was there existing anyway, once that's used up by these 12-unit-per-acre projects wherever they would pop up, they'd use the existing density within the coastal high hazard area that was there before, and once that's used up, they don't get any more, so we're not increasing the density that was going to be contemplated for the CHHA; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. For example, after the pool is used up and if someone has a piece of property that is zoned RMF -6, they're still allowed to develop at six units per acre. If some of them were to have a piece of property, let's say it's commercial in this area, and they want to come in and rezone it to residential, under the proposed EAR-based amendments, they will be capped at no more Page 63 January 5, 2006 than four units per acre, and, in fact, be limited to three -- well, no more than four units an acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The proposed EAR-based amendments, are those the ones we're going to be hearing in -- MR. WEEKS: In March. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have -- that means you've got drafts of those now, right? MR. WEEKS: Rough draft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can I have a copy? MR. WEEKS: The FLUE is not completed yet. The only one that's completed for distribution is the conservation and coastal management element. The balance should be completed for review within two weeks, little bit longer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I come by your office tomorrow, I could get a copy of your drafts? They're public record; are they not? MR. WEEKS: Assuming the attorney's office says they're public record, yes, sir. We've tried not to distribute those, and the reason is, because they're not ready and we don't want people reading them and coming back and saying, you need to change this and this. We're not even done yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to get a head start. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The draft is not necessarily a public record, but once it's been ready for review and distributed, then it becomes a public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying the drafts that David Weeks has worked on for the current EAR-based amendments are not public record? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't believe so. I would probably have to investigate it further. You're asking me for an off-the-cuff opinion, and that would be my off-the-cuff based on the facts presented. I would have to look into it further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll call you tomorrow. If you could look Page 64 January 5, 2006 into it, I'd appreciate it. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'll be glad to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be nice to get a head start in these. MR. WEEKS: Subj ect to approval, Commissioners, or anyone, I'd be glad to provide them. MR. EHARDT: Can I ask David just a clarification? Mr. Ehardt. I think my -- sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still not done with the board. And Mr. Midney finished weighing in. Mr. Schiffer? We're weighing in on the 388 density bonuses before we go too much further. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not in favor of charging. First of all, it's a rule change. People have made commitments in that neighborhood already, not knowing that they'd be charged for that. The big fear with that really is though that we're showing all these pictures of nice urban mixed-use projects here and in the triangle sharing from this pool. Once this pool's gone, there's going to be hardly any density in that neighborhood, so the joke is really on us, that you are not going to be able to do what our pictures are showing, because we're only going to be able to have three units an acre, four if it's an affordable addition. And so these units, my biggest concern, is how they're going to be portioned out, because, you know, it's a small amount of units. We see -- every one of these paragraphs probably have more than that number of units portrayed in it. So the joke that there's not that much to go up Bayshore and then fulfill the triangle's for residential anyway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't usually do this, Mr. Schiffer, but I'm going to break in to you for a second, because that is the underlying basis for this argument, is that, because there are so few, they have a value because if they're not equally distributed, we lose opportunities in there, in that community. Page 65 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, you do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that is -- you've made the point I've been trying to make. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Paul's statement is really true, and this is a very low-income neighborhood. The intent was to make this an artist community, a creative area of town where we had low-income housing in there. That's not happening at all. So maybe they should be cleverly used. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, last weigh-in is Mr. Tuff. We're weighing in on the possibility of how to handle these 388 bonus density units, whether they be charged for, proportioned, affordable, restricted, or however. Do you have any comments on that? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I think my comments are, I'm with what Jack wants to do. I think that, as far as no charge and let that group determine where they go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would also agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So basically of the eight members, five would suggest some kind of fee basis looked into with the County Attorney's Office, there's a consensus for proportioning of the units and looking at it for an affordable housing application of some format. Does that seem to be the general consensus? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I wouldn't mind -- I don't know if you could do it -- if you could restrict it that only artists could -- housing could be those units. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't think you could do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would create the world we're looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd love to see you define artist. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Point of clarification, that that would entail, you know, having -- going to a consultant and possibly financial consultant., Page 66 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the BCC-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: At the BCC direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- follows up with it. We're just making suggestions, and we haven't made the suggestion till the end of the meeting. We still have to listen to the public and everything yet, so -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As the meeting goes on and as the day goes on, we'll see where we go with this whole thing. Catherine, did you have something you wanted to say? MS. FABACHER: Thank you. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Catherine Fabacher, for the record. I just wanted to apprise you of the fact that staff and the applicant have had extensive conversations about having to come back next cycle and tweak this, and I mean, the overlay -- no, just, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't scare us. MS. F ABACHER: We'll put it in, we'll get a few projects through, and then we'll just see how it's playing out. And just, with any new overlay or district, you really kind of need to do a little tweaking. And I'm just wondering with the great amount of, you know, research that's needed and everything, if this just couldn't come back as part of the next cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't want to make -- let's not make any radical changes right now. Let's just try to keep this thing on track -- MS. FABACHER: That's what I'm saying, that's what I'm saYIng. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- make our recommendations. And if the BCC wants to bring it back, let them suggest to bring it back. We need to get it through this board. We've heard it five times now, and -- MS. F ABACHER: Understood. Page 67 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's getting long. Any other questions of page 15? Commissioner Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I do. Second paragraph. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Just a second. He did have a MR. EHARDT: I'm sorry. I just wanted to ask David a clarification. It might be some of the legal issues you're talking about selling these bonus units and so forth. David, is it not true that there were really more than 388 bonus units that were out there in the compo plan? Weren't there 156 that were already given to another development? And I'm just wondering if that sets a precedent. I don't think they were purchased. Maybe you could clarify. I know there were some additional units. I just don't -- beyond the 388. MR. WEEKS: Right. You're referring to the Sandpiper Village PUD, which I believe just last year was annexed into the City of Naples. When the future land use overlay was adopted back in 2000, and it still reads this way, there was an exception for 156 dwelling units, and that was because that project was, I think, in the pipeline at the time or it was known that it was going to come through. That's located at the southeast corner of Sandpiper Street and U.S. 41 East. It's also in the coastal high hazard area. And it was not part of a density bonus pool. The board simply carved out an exception and said, this is -- this is one exception where additional density's going to be allowed and it's not going to come from that density bonus pool. They just made that clarification. We're not taking the 156 from the 388. That project was using the commercial under criteria -- excuse me -- conversion of commercial zoning density bonus provision that's in the future lands use element. It's been discussed more recently with other rezone petitions that are in the coastal high hazard area, but at that particular time it was not a particular issue. Page 68 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Now, Commissioner Adelstein, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yeah. On paragraph two, second sentence -- this was brought to my attention -- it says, BCC shall approve the petitions for a mixed-use project by resolution. Shall meaning they have to? So every one that comes up they have to vote yes for. MS. FABACHER: No. It means that they have to use a resolution. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what it should say -- MS. FABACHER: To approve it, right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- but it says they shall approve it. They must. MS. FABACHER: You're suggesting we change it to may? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Perhaps it should say, if approved, it shall be by resolution. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what -- MS. FABACHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So on the second paragraph, staff will make -- by the way, is someone in staff taking notes of all these potential changes? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, several. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second paragraph of, what was that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second paragraph of page 15, the word -- that second sentence of that paragraph will be reworked. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's the BCC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Under three or under four? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under three. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I have a question in that paragraph, too. Page 69 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says here that it's going to have a hearing as per 10.03.05G and that it has a CCPC hearing report as part of that process. Do we hear these also or-- MR. JACKSON: No. MS. FABACHER: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then how -- but we do provide a report. Or someone can check into that. MS. F ABACHER: Well, I just meant the advertising notification requirement. 10.03.05G. It's just the public hearing legally noticed and advertised pursuant to the noticing and advertising provisions of 10.03.05G. If it's unclear, we can change it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just -- yeah. It looks like we have to give a report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one more small question. Mr. Jackson, the third paragraph, the first line, it says within six months of the date of approval you're going to be submitting a mixed-use project. After it's been approved by the BCC, you're going to -- they'd be submitting an SDP? I mean, I don't mind if you want to put yourself into that tight of a time frame, but I'm wondering, I don't -- I can tell you from being in the business, that's not always possible. But if you think it is, I'll let you go forward with it, or I won't mess with it. MR. JACKSON: County staff can talk to that language, which was recommended by the staff; however, I think the intent is to prevent someone that wants to do a mixed-use project coming in and reserving in advance for a very long period of time a number of bonus density units and then taking his time, one year, two years, three years down the road when there are other viable projects that could have gotten along and up and running sooner. So the objective is, is that if you're going to ask for this, then you better have it all together, and you need to submit and you need build. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, in order for you to submit for Page 70 January 5, 2006 an SDP plan now, you have to -- after you get approval from the BCC, you've got to schedule a pre-application meeting, which you've got to schedule two of them, one with the general staff and one separately with the utilities staff. So you've got two pre-aps to do, and then after that, you've got to start your design. You know, I'm not sure you can do that all in six months. I'm just cautioning you, if you can't do it, you'd be in violation of this section, and I'm just suggesting maybe you want to make it a little longer is all. MR. JACKSON: I'll defer -- I'll ask Ms. Fabacher to weigh in on this. Original draft language had that the MUP process would be initiated after an SDP was found sufficient. MS. FABACHER: The submittal for an SDP was found sufficient. MR. JACKSON: Okay. So can you address the commissioner's comment? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, do you think six months is enough? I'm just -- again, it's not an issue I'm that concerned about. I was more concerned about the applicants being able to perform in that short of a time frame, and they really can't start the time frame until after they have their pre-application conferences, which now lately have required two instead of one, so -- MS. FABACHER: Well, there's two angles here. We could fast track the SDP approval, but I believe that we would have adequate time because, Mr. Chair, most of these applicants are working concurrently on the -- two things. You don't agree? MR. SCHMITT: I already have a fast track program for -- and those are based on incentives associated with affordable housing or economic development. If these fall into one of those two categories, yes. Otherwise, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just change six to nine? Page 71 January 5, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Otherwise, I'd defer to the board if they'd want to direct it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just change six to nine? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, isn't the thing, he has to submit within six months? MS. FABACHER: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, it's in his court. He's got his professionals working on it. He submits it within six months. That doesn't mean they have to process it in six months. MS. MURRAY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I agree with you. MS. MURRAY: If you preplan, six months should be adequate, more than adequate to submit. I mean, you could certainly pre-schedule your pre-application meetings to be, you know, the day after the board hearing if you wish. MS. F ABACHER: And there's no reason it couldn't run concurrently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, if you guys want to leave it like that, that's fine. I'm just telling you I -- from actual experience, I can tell you it doesn't always work that way. Okay. Let's move on to page-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, wait, wait. I'm still on 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: B, 3B. What essentially that says in there, that if -- excuse my voice here -- if that -- the person that owns the property wants to still build under the underlying zoning that he has, he has to meet all the design requirements of the overlay anyway. MS. F ABACHER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I mean, he's not opting in. He's -- but he has to design -- I mean, he has to do a project based on that. Page 72 January 5, 2006 MS. F ABACHER: Correct. That's generally the function of overlays, to put special particular design requirements and other things above and beyond the underlying zoning onto an area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I agree with that. The other question on this -- the whole topic is -- and this was presented, Joe, the day you asked us what we could do to eliminate some of the work of the commission. If we write this overlay, it's gone through the growth management plan, it was already -- it's been in since 2000 as an overlay district with requirements. Why does the commission have to see it? Why can't they just -- these people just opt in and meet the requirements of the overlay? What is the advantage of the public hearing? What could change paths in the public hearing? MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I have a comment on that. I think I can address it. The old opt-in process really took away a lot of the public participation aspect. In fact, staff was not happy with that fact, that you didn't have a public hearing, you didn't get a notice ahead of time, a neighborhood information meeting to tell you what was coming up in your neighborhood. One day under the old opting in process, you opted in and nobody knew it unless they did a title search. Next thing you know, the SDP got approved and none of the adjoining neighbors or anything had any warning that it was coming, so -- professional recommendations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, here's the point, is that, we had the growth -- the plan -- it came into the growth management plan. That's a public hearing process; that's public information. It came through an LDC amendment, which is a public -- so everybody in the neighborhood should know what was happening. MS. FABACHER: Well, I don't think -- well-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what -- Page 73 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys need to talk one at a time, excuse me. MS. FABACHER: Sorry. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the old opt-in process? MS. FABACHER: The old opt-in process was that an applicant would go and file a paper with the clerk of courts acknowledging that he wanted to develop under the mixed-use overlay district requirements and that he was going to forego any more -- any future request to go back to his underlying zoning to redevelop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer-- MR. FABACHER: So no one would know that. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I didn't know that existed. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Schiffer, may I weigh in? Is that we are-- CRA is very comfortable with this language and we're very comfortable with this process. We do feel that the neighborhood information meeting process is an essential part of it that the people know what's going to go in there. Even though we've done some underlying zoning and overlay zoning work in there, that the developer or builder or person that's going to change the uses and activity on his property, that he let his neighbors know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in other words, what's given on the street in terms of what this overlay map is, nobody can really count on that until they can get it through that hearing. MR. JACKSON: That's correct. MS. F ABACHER: And another thing -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Prior to that -- did that exist prior to this opt-in -- to this three? MR. JACKSON: Well, I think it's -- the intent is to try to make this not a kluge, which is basically -- we don't want to go through a complete rezoning process, the time, effort, money, and we didn't want to just opt in quietly and then have something pop up and people Page 74 January 5, 2006 not know about it, so we're trying to meet somewhere in the middle. But we're not in a rezone, but we're not in a quiet process, that we are in a public information process for the overlay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page 15? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move now to page 16. Any questions on page 16? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It says, a maximum density of 12 units per acre. And I just heard you say that that would only be allowed for the 388 bonus units; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess, David, this was your statement when I asked you specifically. In reference to item D, second line. I think Mr. Adelstein's referring to, and E is the second line. They're both referring to 12 unit densities. That only applies to the extent that the use of the 388 exists; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Where does it say that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the compo plan. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I could point out that under paragraph four, it's entitled bonus density pool allocation, so that refers to -- that's the subtitle of the section, so that refers to it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would like to see verbiage that says in this that states that the only use of that 12 will be the 388 bonus density units. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And it has lead-in language that indicates that, too, on page 15. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Fifteen? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Three eighty-eight bonus density units, and then these all fall under that. Page 75 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Lindy, an important thing to note, that this is new -- excuse me -- this is new language. The prior overlay did not make that clear. The prior overlay said you could do 12 units per acre. It told you where you could do it. It didn't tell you that you had this little 288 (sic) problem, which is in the growth management plan. But in other words, anybody who's buying our land development code, reading it, would have the impression that there's 12 units per acre -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- where it's shown. Not so. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I would just like something in there verbally to say that that's the only time it could be used, just those 388 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the introduction after number 4 on page 15, could -- David, could you wordsmith some language just to make it explicitly clear that the 12 units per acre are to the extent of the existence of the 388 bonus units? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Word it something like, buyer beware. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On E on page 16, David, you said those properties would access U. S. 41 as identified on the Bayshore, the overlay. Where are those properties identified, or is it -- MR. WEEKS: That's in the map within this overlay itself that we're looking at here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Page 14. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So properties would access U.S. 41 as identified. Look at the map and tell me which one of those. Page 76 January 5, 2006 MR. WEEKS: Oh, I see what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, is it all the ones that are in the activity center, or is it anything on 41, or is it -- MR. WEEKS: We view this -- going back to the genesis that's in the comprehensive plan language, and it's almost verbatim from the comprehensive plan. We intentionally -- because the objective here is to promote redevelopment, we, the comprehensive planning department, have intentionally viewed this very broadly, interpreted it very broadly so that any of the properties in the overlay, the Bayshore/Triangle overlay west -- particularly west of Bayshore Drive could be viewed as having access to U.S. 41 because there are connecting streets to do so. I think your question suggests you're aware that we have, in most other cases, in various subdistricts in the future land use element, we used the term direct access, and sometimes even define that, and it suggests in most cases that you're going to have an access cut onto that roadway. This is not being viewed that strictly. This is being viewed very broadly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That even makes me more confused. So should we identify those things as it states here or MR. WEEKS: Certainly, we-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, because you're -- MR. WEEKS: I understand your point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're giving a special class of properties, yet I thought it would be anything that's on 41. You're telling me that's not even true. It's even broader than that. MR. WEEKS: Broader than that, definitely COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I mean, you really should make that clear. MR. WEEKS: Certainly, be glad to. If I might, Commissioners, while I'm here. Another change to this Page 77 January 5, 2006 very same paragraph. I want to make a change to this fourth line. Two things; one, there's the words shall and must, and only one of those could be used there. But more particularly, it says, must provide access to existing neighborhoods and adjoining commercial properties. That suggests that if you're abutting a commercial site, you must have an interconnection, and that is not what the comprehensive plan language, which is the genesis for this paragraph, requires. So I would propose that it be changed to read something to the effect of -- starting on that fourth line -- to U.S. 41, must be accessible to existing neighborhoods and adjoining properties. So it's not a harsh requirement, a hard black and white, you must provide an interconnection. It allows for streets -- so if you're fronting on a street and there's another property that happens to be commercial or simply the surrounding neighborhood has access to your site via those local streets, you meet this condition. And again, that reflects and the comprehensive plan says. It says, will be accessible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, David. Any others -- Commissioner Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. I'd like to know if it's possible to get Don Scott -- I have a couple questions I'd like to ask him. I'm still confused on -- confused a little -- I think there's a problem with the 12 units per acre because of the drive -- the travel time it will take and because I don't think 41 is going to be improved or widened for a very long time, if ever. What is your situation here, Don, as you talk to us about the difference between eight units per acre and 12? Would it help our road usage? MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. And David alluded to it. The model has some of those trips, or essentially those units, in there already. But the opposite side of that is we are working Page 78 January 5, 2006 with the Bayshore/Gateway area to essentially do a corridor study and look at access management, build-out of the area. If you do some of the things you're talking about, shared parking, some other issues like that, to try to look at the impact to the area through build-out. So at the moment I can't answer all of the questions. Obviously, as you touch on 41, yes, that's why it's in a TCEA, is because when you say a long time, I say probably -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Never. MR. SCOTT: -- never, yeah, it's six lanes. It's pretty impacted to come back and add two more lanes to that. Probably impossible. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Could the 12 units per acre cause a major problem? MR. SCOTT: That's kind of why we're looking at the whole modeling issue and how that -- and could it? Yes. But that's why we're looking at that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But if they're going to approve 12 now, going back and trying to get to eight won't be done. So the question right now is, should it be allowed to go to 12 or allowed to go to eight units, in your mind? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But before you answer that, if the density pool is 388 and they use the 388 up, whether they use them at eight units or 12 units per acre, it's going to have the same impact. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It will be stretched out -- it will be spread over a different area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, all within the triangle. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I see. You're right. MR. EHARDT: Not just the triangle. It's the overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I mean, everywhere in the overlay is where the 388 applies. And if you have 12 units per acre or eight units per acre or six units per acre or four units per acre, Page 79 January 5, 2006 you're still only going to use 388 units. So all you need to do is plan for 388 units in regards to Mr. Adelstein's questions. And have you planned for those 388 units? MR. SCOTT: They were in there previously, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that answers the question of where we're trying to go. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It answered my question too. Thank you. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just wanted to point out that the comprehensive plan calls for 12 units an acre and the LDC amendment has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further questions on page 16? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, let's move on to page 17. Hearing nothing on 1 7 -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a 17. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I guess, David, you'd be the one, David Weeks -- is in G it states that those parcels that fall within the activity center -- I mean, what is different in the requirements in the activity center that would be different from the overlay? Is there -- and where would somebody reading the land development code find that out? MR. WEEKS: They would need to go to the future land use element, which I would say this is referring you to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And read that -- MR. WEEKS: But also -- excuse me, if I may. In the map itself within this overlay we've identified the prop -- the consultant has identified the properties that are within the activity center so that a person looking at the map could see if they're within the activity center, then this language is telling them, you need to go to the future land use element, a different document to see what uses are there. Page 80 January 5, 2006 The short answer is, the future land use element, activity center would allow for C-l through C-5 uses, greater intensity then is allowed within the zoning overlay, and it would allow for -- at least for that portion outside the coastal high hazard area, would allow a density of all the way up to 16 units per acre. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But we understand that this in the triangle, there is nothing outside the coastal high hazard area within this overlay, correct? MR. WEEKS: Within this triangle, that's correct. Yeah, the Gateway Triangle, a small portion is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further questions on 17? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: On that very same point, paragraph G on page 17, we need to insert the language, again, that provides for the exception for the development standards, that is, if a property's within the activity center, then we go to the comprehensive plan activity center language to find out what is allowed to be -- how the uses may be developed, what uses. But as far as the development standards, they would still be subject to this overlay, back to Mr. Schiffer's question a few moments ago about certain properties. So that even if you're not doing a mixed-use development, or in this case, even though you're within the mixed-use activity center, you still have to abide by the chapter four development standards for this overlay so that you have the same appearance and aesthetics, et cetera, of the overlay, even though your uses may differ. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're going to clean that up? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. And that's -- I think that's kind of gone in and out, in and out. But it's been discussed as being applicable to this area. And the comprehensive plan overlay specifically provides Page 81 January 5, 2006 that properties within the activity center would be subject to the activity center for uses but recognizes that a zoning overlay could implement development standards. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, while I have David Weeks, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, you may. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just -- something's been nagging me. I think it was last year at the EAR, but I'm not really clear anymore, that we as a -- the two bodies, the two commissions talked about restricting the coastal high hazard area for affordable units, the density bonus. These contain -- there would be density bonus units in here, if I'm not incorrect. If that other is -- that's not passed yet, right, the other thing that we've talked about? If that's passed, is this an exclusion to that? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Specific exclusion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So then that is possible to put some density bonus in that area for affordable housing for the overlay? MR. WEEKS: Within the overlay, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But wait a minute, David. Isn't it set up where we have three units per acre? The only way to raise it to four is to affordable housing? We can't go beyond four, can we? MR. WEEKS: The conversion of commercial zoning would allow you to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think that's being eliminated, from that same workshop. MR. WEEKS: No. That was discussed, but ultimately was left In. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. See, you've got the mixed Page 82 January 5, 2006 use, and that would give you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was discussed more serious than that. But anyway -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's been nagging me this whole process here, wondering whether we have created something strange. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So wait a minute now. So if somebody takes a piece of commercial on Bayshore, converts it into residential, you'll give them 16 units an acre? MR. WEEKS: Under the present future land use element that would be allowed rezone up to 16. Wait, wait, wait. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we can move on. MR. WEEKS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a nice side of the conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The EAR amendments are going to be addressing that issue as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. We'll deal with it then. MR. WEEKS: It's proposed to cap it at four, the EAR amendment, except this area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I have a question on number six. Page 17 it says, again, it's currently commercial zoned properties. They have to build with the underlying current LDC requirements. And it says, except for certain site development standards, as stated in 4 of 6 (sic). Does that mean not all the site development standards? MR. JACKSON: That's exactly what David was talking about and adding in paragraph G. It's addressed in paragraph six right below. Basically your design development standards for -- if you're going to maintain your property at the current zoning, when you rebuild or you expand over grading for 50 percent, that you will comply with the design guidelines that are in the back unless it's silent, Page 83 January 5, 2006 then you comply with the current LDC code for Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So shouldn't that say, except for, and then get rid of the word certain? Because certain gives the sense of it not being exclusive of all the design elements. If we kill the word certain, what would go wrong here? MR. JACKSON: Well, what I was trying to say is that not all the design standards are applicable. There's ones that are spelled out in chapter four that relate to the C -- to the commercial zoning categories. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'll remember that when we're in chapter four. I'll look for it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are we striking the word certain or not? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He seems to think not. In other words, if it's going to be obvious in that chapter then -- you know, in .16 and .17, then let's wait and see. I'll remember it. We'll come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the next -- go ahead. MR. JACKSON : Well, on a quick read, we'll look at it. But I think you are correct except for site development standards as stated in paragraph four. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe that's what we should reference. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kill the word certain. MR. JACKSON: Yeah, take the word certain out. Because you want them to apply to the whole thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 18 through 36 are all charts. Are there any questions on any of those pages? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we start with whatever -- your first page, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 18 back to -- and there's not many this time. I'm a good guy. That 7922 keeps showing up in Page 84 January 5, 2006 there, and what that is is theatrical production. So in other words, if somebody's reading a chart and it has all these words under the category, but then it has an SIC code, what would prevail? In other words, the SIC code doesn't catch the word. MR. JACKSON: Ms. Murray addressed that at the last meeting to your satisfaction. I'll let her do it again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. MURRAY: For the record, Susan Murray. They would be inclusive. So the words and the SIC code would work together. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what that's saying is you could have an artist studio and a theatrical production? MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And just for qualification, for the nagging question I'm always asking about the ceramics and pottery, that means that a kiln can be present on the property as well? MS. MURRAY: Are you asking me? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whomever it is that's able to give the answer. I certainly don't know. MS. MURRAY: Yes. I mean, it's part of the use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And that could be located outside as an ancillary item, or certainly shouldn't be in -- well, it could be inside. MS. MURRAY: Yeah, as long as it's consistent with the development provision. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So then -- MS. MURRAY: I'm not overly familiar with a kiln, so I don't know how they're set up. But-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm just concerned with the -- MS . MURRAY: If they're in an outbuilding as an accessory structure, then they would fall under -- Page 85 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's permissible then? Then that's good. I'm happy with that. MS. MURRAY: It would be accessory -- yeah, it would be accessory uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, your next page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My next page, just a question on 20. Down at the bottom it says, drinking establishments. We do allow restaurants. Restaurants could have drinking in it, so that's still allowed. This is just really referencing bars and stuff? MR. JACKSON: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's good. On page 24, we use to have a category called multi-family, and that was removed. Is that because it's covered someplace else? MR. EHARDT: I didn't remove it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be between motor homes and museums. It used to be there, I think. That's where you guys should tell me to get a life where I'm noticing things missing. MR. JACKSON: Can we address that at the next break we go on? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's the clue right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Brad, would you mind addressing that at the break? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine, as long as -- I want to make sure we can have multi-family, because essentially all of these mixed uses are multi-family function. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your next one? Well, there is residential uses on page 26, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think multi-family would be residential. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, definitely resid -- I mean, Page 86 January 5, 2006 if that's where it's covered, then that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would seem that you would take -- I mean, I would -- I don't know, I'm not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was there before and it's gone. That's why. MR. JACKSON: Yes. It was on the December 15th chart, and why it's not there now I don't know, unless it had to do with reformatting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But everybody understands that you can have multi-family residential based under the residential category? MS. MURRAY: Yes. I would just recommend you leave it as it is, only because -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. As long as you can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's your next page, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think I'm out of the uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Page 37 is -- you get into site design standards. Page 38? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thirty-eight. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, kind of what we -- up in purpose, the new tax it says, except for certain site development standards. Is this the same -- I think code language that put things behind a curtain is scary, so -- either we can spell it out or we can get rid of the word certain again here. MR. JACKSON: Correct. It's a -- should be deleted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next issue on page 38, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: C. Again, a misspelled word. No automatic flood, F-L-O-O-D. It's supposed to be food. Page 87 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's flood. No automatic flooding. MS. FABACHER: It's a strike-through. MR. JACKSON: What you're missing is-- MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. I think there's a double strike-through on the L. MR. JACKSON: There's a strike-through on the L. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: That's from -- that was from the original language. We left the strike-through in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you have any other things, Brad, on page 38? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I think I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 39? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 40? I have a question about page 40. I like the left column where you've changed and referenced the maximum zone height and maximum actual height. On the right column, instead of just saying three stories or 42 feet, meaning it would revert then to the left column as far as how you measure the 42 feet, you measure it by maximum zoned height, you went into a detail of how you measure now the 42 feet, which I'm not sure that's consistent with the definition of zoned height in the code. So was there a need on the part of either staff or anybody to add that additional language, or just, why can't we just keep it straight with the code like we tried to do? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that was, Mr. Schiffer wanted that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, Mark's right. The two things say -- the two phrases say different things. The intent was to have -- allowed to have eaves at 42 feet. Then we decided we had to use our zoned height in there somewhere. To have the zoned height of 42 feet, which is what you want, then you are guaranteed every Page 88 January 5, 2006 building will be a flat-roofed building, because that's the only way you're going to achieve -- and there will be actually no eaves in that case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the max you will-- the maximum actual height is 56 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you're at 42 feet with zoned, you don't have a straight -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The zoned height would be to the midpoint of a roof, to the top deck of a mansard, to -- MR. EHARDT: Well, what we were trying to do, if I may, is that the zone height is to be measured like they shown on the right-hand side, period. The overall height with roof para -- or parapet. We have something in there. Other things would be the actual height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: See, I think that on the left-hand side, the maximum zone height of structures 42 feet is a problem to achieve what they want. They want four-story buildings in some cases. MR. EHARDT: Where are you now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is it a problem? I mean, if your actual height is 56 feet, all the embellishments that you want to add to give you the varying degrees is fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'll tell you why. That if it's a pitched roof, the actual -- the zoned height will measure to the midpoint of that pitched roof. So that means you're pushing the roof down into the -- MR. EHARDT: Oh, that's not what I said. I said, that's the actual height, the overall height of the structure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But we're using our actual height definition in the code, which has a meaning. And I guess Page 89 January5,2006 MR. EHARDT: Wait. We may need to change the meaning here or use a different word. Because what I was trying to get at is the actual top of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is 56 feet. That one there's no question, no problem with that. MR. EHARDT: No, wait a minute. Oh, okay. Which one are you talking about, first of all, the first one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And I said the wrong word. I said actual when I should have said zoned. The zoned height is the -- is to the midpoint of a roof, the top of a flat roof, which is why I think you're going to get flat roofs, the top of a deck in a mansard and -- MR. EHARDT: But I'm defining the zoned height here being measured by -- to the eave. Is that not sufficient enough or do I need to clarify that? Let me -- what we're saying is that we want to hold that eave line at 42 feet or whatever, you know, it might be according to how many stories we're talking about. And then we had asked, Mr. Strain had asked for an overall height of the building, so we added a dimension for the overall height, the top to the peak, or wherever it might be. Now, if I'm using the -- if I need to change a word to clarify that COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, here's the problem is that in Collier, the word zoned height has a meaning, the definition. Should be bolded here if that's what it is. And that defines how to measure the height of a building, and it varies based on different roof structures and things. So in other words, if you do have a zoned height of 42 feet, you cannot have an eave height of 42 feet. MR. EHARDT: So I need to change the word, or come up with a different word for what I mean by zoned height? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think the intent of what's supposed to happen is -- Page 90 January 5, 2006 MR. EHARDT: Okay, all right. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Schiffer, we've -- for the last four meetings we've discussed this and we've put the language in exactly like you want it. You wanted to measure the zoned height, so we came from the first habitable floor to the eave, and then that is our definition, and that's the definition that we put in here, and it's been agreed to. Now, the earlier conversation was with the county's definition of zone and actual height. So we've clarified that. We've put in here so that we have that common height maximum of a building, we measure it from -- in our measurement, not county measurement -- from first habitable floor to the eave so you get the 42 feet for a maximum height, zoned height of a building. And then at the request of Commissioner Strain, we wanted -- you wanted a -- an actual height and we put the actual height in there, and that is the most tippy-top thing in the sky. So we've defined it exactly like you guys want. I don't understand the difficulty. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, here's the difficulty is if I have a plan in with the eave height of 42 feet and a roof on top of that, then the plan reviewer may say, hey, the zoned height of this building exceeds 42 feet. So I think if you -- we should get rid of the maximum zoned height, the structures of 42 feet, and just -- because we have a defi -- zoned height means something in Collier County. MR. JACKSON: We've defined zoned height, 42 feet, first floor to the eave. We've defined it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You -- Where did you define that? It says maximum zoned height of structures is 42 feet. If I take that back into the definitions -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Look to the other side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go further-- MR. EHARDT: Maybe there's a way of putting it -- and putting the zoned height -- Page 91 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Joe, let me explain something to you. The attempt was to be consistent with the land development code, so if someone reading your overlay or any other part of the code would see zoned height and they would know it's 42 feet and they would know what it means. MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my intent for suggesting getting there. Now, I thought that was clear. And when I read this in the left column, you said, zoned height, actual height. I thought great. If I move into this district, I know my zoned height's 42 feet. I know how to measure that, go right to the LDC, and it tells me. Then I read your right column and it gave me a definition for zoned height that you perceive, but it doesn't -- why are you defining it when the LDC already does? The intent was to be consistent with the land development code. And it wouldn't matter to me if it was 42 feet, 52 feet or 72 feet, as long as whatever the code says it needed to be to fit within what you wanted as your guidelines, it was a consistent definition throughout the code, so we don't have multiple definitions in the same book. Now, staff is sitting here -- correct me if I'm wrong -- do we -- is the zoned height definition that we have in the code different than what they're proposing in the right-hand column here? Can anybody answer that? MS. MURRAY: I've got the book, and I can compare while , you re -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I know the answer because I deal with this. The answer is, it is different. In other words, we don't have an eave height. Cities like Palm Beach measure off the eave, other people do. We don't. The zoned height would be the midpoint of the slope on a roof, it would be the deck of a flat roof, it would be the deck of a mansard, Page 92 January 5, 2006 which is usually up on top of the mansard roof. So it is not going to give you the ability to do a 42-foot eave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. From your perspective then, would you have any problem using the county's definition for zoned and actual and putting in the height figures that fit within that definition? MR. EHARDT: I don't think we would get that common -- to the eave dimension the same across the thing, which is what we're looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because your objective is that this is not a maximum. This is a mandatory? MR. EHARDT: A maximum -- no, no. It's a maximum for three stories or four stories, but you would have a consistency as far as the eave line went, if there's two four-story buildings next to each other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They'd have to be exactly the same height at the four-story level. MR. EHARDT: At the eave, yes. Now the roof may vary. One may be a parapet roof and one may be a hip roof next to it, but at least the eave would be somewhat consistent -- or be consistent, is what we're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, the problem has been that there are different ways to measure heights of buildings. There is a system that measures from the eave. Our definition could not be applied. Ifhe wants to set the eave height, we can't use our definition, because our definition is roof dependent. And, again, I said that the only way you would get an eave, and it would be a faked out eave at 42 feet, with our definition would be flat roof buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at some point, I guess, this needs to be resolved. I thought it was something that had already been resolved. MR. JACKSON: It was, and I don't understand why we're going back. And we're beating this horse to death, okay? There isn't going Page 93 January 5, 2006 to be much meat left on the bones when we get through with it, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can explain why, okay? MR. JACKSON: Mr. Schiffer, you were the one that made the argument and the point that a zoned height, and we had the 14 feet and we were going to measure 42 feet. We put that in here. And for the last two meetings, this commission has had no problem with it. And now here we are, we're at the time for approving it and you have a problem with it again. Now, if we need to put a word in there somewhere, we agreed -- we, the planning commission and myself as representative for the CRA -- that we would define in this overlay, which is allowed to be different than the LDC code, a zoned height measured from the first floor to the eave, and then we wanted to put a maximum height, an actual height of the building in there, and we put that number in there. Now, again, I ask the question, I don't understand what the difficulty is. We have defined it as you wanted the last meeting of December, you had no problem with it, the language is the same, and now you have a problem with it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's not a problem that we have. It's a problem that you're going to have if this is unclear, that's why we need to get it shaken out at this meeting. Ms. Murray, if you were to read the columns on page 40, one saying zoned height of 42 feet and the other saying three stories or 42 feet to the building eave or top of the flat built-up roof, is that sufficient for you to make a determination as to how you would measure heights with an SDP for a building of 42 feet? If staffs happy with it, then I am. I was more concerned about being consistent. MS. MURRAY: Yes. I mean, yes, we could make a determination with this language. But I agree with you, our past discussions have been consistency related. And I just caution that there just may be some confusion with applicants about which they Page 94 January 5, 2006 should apply. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just say this, Susan. MS. MURRAY: And that's all we're trying to achieve. MR. EHARDT: Could I offer maybe a clarification? Upon the right-hand column where it has the three stories or 42 feet or four stories and 56 feet, if we said in that same column the maximum zoned height is, and then go on with those words, then they would know very clearly that that's what we're measuring height from. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How would you come up with that number? Susan, let me ask you this question. I come in there and I have a building and I have a roof on it. The eave is the lower part of the roof. And I have an eave at 42 feet, like the right-hand column would like me to have. And my roof, let's say, goes 15 feet in the air. Would not your plan reviewer measure to the midpoint of that roof and say, hey, your zoned height is actually excessive of 42 feet? MS. MURRAY: Are you asking me a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I thought I was. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. I didn't real -- I thought you were directing it towards Joe. I'm sorry. But let me back up just before we get back to that only because my recommendation to you would be, if you're going to write something that is different than what is already defined in the code, I recommend that you don't call it the same thing, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. MURRAY: So that's -- I think that's the first thing you need to decide is, do you want to measure it differently in this district? And if so, how. But don't call it what we're already calling it in the LDC if they're not the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's where I was trying to go. Page 95 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my concern is, if staff can handle multiple definitions of the same thing in the code and this works for staff, that's fine, but please do not have an applicant come in here with a variance request because of this interpretation being skewed in the future. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. We can't -- I can't have the -- it defined one way in the code and a -- I would prefer not -- let me put it this way. I would prefer not to have it called maximum zoned height in the Bayshore overlay if the defini -- if it's not consistent with the definition in the LDC. That is just going to be massively confusing to staff and mistakes -- and the applicants, most importantly, and mistakes will be made, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- and we're hearing here today that the applicant can't live with the definition zoned height in the LDC, but they can live with the definition shown in the right-hand column. So the simplest thing would be, is simply to change -- delete the word zoned from the left-hand column definition and then leave the word actual because we've agreed on the actual height. Does that get us to a point of compromise? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So Mark, what you're saying is MS. FABACHER: Mr. Chair? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- eliminate maximum zoned height of 42 feet from the left-hand side would give us exactly what we want? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. EHARDT: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then leave the maximum, and that's what we have. And Dave -- MS. MURRAY: And the actual height is as defined in the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, 56 feet. Page 96 January 5, 2006 MS. MURRAY: Then we're okay with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then that gives us the best of everything. They got what they want -- MR. EHARDT: We'll strike that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you've got a definition you can live with, people driving by see a building, they know how high it's going to be at the maximum point. Catherine, you had an issue? MS. FABACHER: I did. Under the LDC currently -- I'm talking about maximum actual height now. In the LDC the maximum actual height is excluded of appurtenances. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think so. MS. FABACHER: Well, I think-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan has the definition. Can you -- MS. F ABACHER: I think there's an exception -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- put it back up, Susan? MS. FABACHER: -- a height exception for appurtenances and towers and tent houses. MR. EHARDT: That would be fine with me. MS. F ABACHER: Well, I guess it would because that is going to give you -- and everything on top of -- but whereas here, when we came up with the maximum height here in our discussions, you said the maximum height for this district would be inclusive of those appurtenant structures on a roof. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is-- MR. EHARDT: I don't know if I said that or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is without the exclusion-- MS. FABACHER: I think so. David and I talked about that. MR. EHARDT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the definition says without the exclusions, so the maximum height's 56 feet. Page 97 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's nothing above it. MS. FABACHER: Oh, without the exclusion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was why that definition was just there. MS. FABACHER: All right. Sorry. MS. MURRAY: Yes. MS. FABACHER: I thought there was some-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to page 41. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, while we're on 40 though, we're going to eliminate under all four of those categories, the two lines that have maximum zoned height in it. MR. EHARDT: In the left column. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. EHARDT: The only thing that should be in the right-hand (sic) column is actual height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is actually where you started. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing in the left column would be actual height. MR. EHARDT: Left. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 41? I have I question on the bottom. It's talking about buildings where they're changing the use and that -- they demonstrate the required parking does not fit within the preexisting structures and may apply for a parking reduction. The only way someone would not be able to fit the parking in is if they simply built too big of a building. Is that what this is trying to address? MR. JACKSON: Paragraph 9? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. JACKSON: The key word is the fourth word, existing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if you have an existing building and you're changing the use and the new use requires more Page 98 January 5, 2006 parking, because the building was existing, you went to a more intensive use, you still don't have to put in more parking; is that what it's trying to do? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. MS. MURRAY: All it says is they -- it's really kind of not -- unnecessary to have this in there. It says that they may apply for one. Well, okay, yeah. I mean, the code already allows them to do that. We may have had this discussion before, I don't know. But it doesn't grant them any relief, this sentence doesn't. It just says if they can't meet it, they may apply. But the code already allows you to apply. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is intended as informational? MR. JACKSON : Yes, it is. The evolutionary side of it all was because we had some existing proj ects that had difficulty, and the change of use could not comply. And then through discovery, we found that there is a process in which they can get a deviation for parking through going through the CDES program. We had put in a number of criteria. Staffhad some difficulty with it. We discussed it, and so we went back to, okay, as long as they -- and we wanted to clarify here in paragraph 9, that if they had an existing building, they changed the use, they could not handle it because they didn't have the land, they were bounded by some means, that they could apply for a deviation. We just wanted it to be clarified here for any person that wanted to develop or redevelop in the Bayshore overlay area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, does staffhave a concern? I mean, although -- I know your position is it's not needed, but does it hurt to leave it in there? MS. MURRAY: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I don't want to reinvent the wheel. We've done enough of that. Page 99 January 5, 2006 Anything on page 41 besides that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, page 42. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Item three. Shall be provided in the four, in the forum. Three words there have to come out. In the four. MS. F ABACHER: Typographical error. Thank you for pointing that out. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Four says shrubs -- and it should, at least. You see, "shrubs least 24 inches." It should be at I east. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions on 42? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. And I guess, you know, it really goes back to the suburban landscape requirements in urban areas still. So if Nancy wants to give her presentation first, I think this would be a good segue. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. Did somebody else want to say something? MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry. I was just going to say, I have a handout. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I hope it isn't changing things. MS. FABACHER: That's why I waited till now to hand it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, don't do this to us. MS. MURRAY: It's not changing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MS. MURRAY: It's a copy of the old language you had last time. MS. FABACHER: Page numbers are key to the page numbers in your packets. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have the old book. MS. FABACHER: Oh, good for you. Page 100 January 5, 2006 MR. GUNLOCK: Well, good morning, Commissioners. And for the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, and I'm a Landscape Architect with Zoning and Land Development Review. And at our last planning commission meeting, there were a lot of questions and concerns about the appropriateness of landscaping within the overlays. And the best way for me to answer the question as to whether or not landscaping's even important in these areas is just for me to show you, so I have a brief PowerPoint presentation that I'd like to show you. I expect that it will be less than five minutes. And it may generate some questions, and I'd be happy to answer them for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully it will answer questions too, so go right ahead. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Landscaping is important because it creates people spaces. And when we talk about the objectives of the overlay, we talk about increasing pedestrian mobility. And it also creates green spaces that connect buildings to streets, it breaks up parking areas and increases profit margins and property values. And there was a recent University of Washington study that showed that well landscaped areas increased profits by nine percent. And it's also consistent with what we expect here in Collier County. We expect beautiful green spaces. And here's some examples of how we make our communities more walkable. We're concerned about cars driving down the street. Some of the roads are a little fast. For example, Bayshore Drive, and in the triangle, Davis. And that strip of landscaping can make a pedestrian feel more secure. Landscaping also creates people spaces, and we want to draw people to the Bayshore and triangle overlays. And on the left-hand side you'll see a space. That's actually a connector from the front of the commercial areas back to the parking areas in the rear. Page 101 January 5, 2006 And, again, on the left-hand side, that's actually a little pedestrian park that was created, but it also serves to bring the people from the front commercial areas back to the parking in the rear such as what we would expect on Bayshore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are these pictures taken? Could you tell us as you go through each one? MS. GUNDLACH: Sure. So far all the pictures -- actually, I could probably say the entire presentation was photographed on 5th and 3rd. The purpose is not so much to say, hey, let's go and recreate 5th and 3rd. Certainly Bayshore and the triangle can have their own identities. But what I'm trying to show here is the importance of integrating the green landscaping to soften the hardscape, the concrete, and, in essence, create spaces that people are drawn to. And this -- this shows landscaping between, again, the front of the commercial area, the importance of it, and creating spaces that people want to be at. And here's a perfect example of what happens if you don't require it. I mean, that's an example of a building. It's actually a redeveloped building, and they have no landscaping between it and the street. And actually the image on the left-hand side is on the same street. And you can see the difference. I mean, which would you be drawn to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With my pick-up, I'd go to the one on the right. I could drive in and out easier. MS. GUNDLACH: Uh-oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Plus the prices would be cheaper, too, but anyway. MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, it's a Carvel. I hope they keep their prices the same no matter where they are. And this shows the importance of breaking up -- this is what I would categorize as a typically small parking lot, perhaps, you know, what we might expect to see when we redevelop Bayshore. If we don't require landscaping, it's not going to be there. I mean, Page 102 January 5, 2006 I can tell you from -- I've been reviewing landscape plans for the last 10 years, and when we say a 10-foot buffer, that's what we get. We don't get 20. We get 10. So very rarely do they give us more than what we require as a minimum requirement in the form of landscaping, dimensionally, that is. Here's an example of a larger parking area. I mean, look at the difference. And so I think you can see here where it's just so critical that we do require landscaping in our overlays. And here's another critical point I want to make. It's really important that you have landscaping to separate pavement from vertical concrete in the form of buildings. I mean, just look at the difference in the two spaces. And here it is again, another example. It doesn't necessarily have to be landscaping right up against the building. It could be set back a certain dimension. In this case it's probably about 10 feet. But it's important. And so that was just the -- I figured it was easier for me just to show you, you know, the difference between not having it and having it. And our recommendation to you as staff this morning is that we just simply go back to what we had in the overlay district previous -- previously. It allows us more flexibility. And we would also recommend that we come back next cycle -- we certainly do not want to hold up the approval of these overlays this cycle -- come back next cycle and address the landscaping in further detail. One of the primary reasons I'd like to come back next cycle is, this needs to be properly vetted among the landscape architect-- architectural community. There's a lot of changes that we want to -- that we want to make to this, but it needs -- it needs to be heard by them as well. And we get the benefit of multiple minds. And I believe they have a lot to contribute to this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, Nancy. And I'm Page 103 January 5, 2006 sure we're going to have a few questions. Before we do, looking at the time, members of the staff and other people in the audience who are here for the AUIR, I can assure you we will not get to it before lunch. So the earliest we will take lunch is 11 :30. The latest is 12 o'clock. The earliest we'd be back is 12:30, the latest one clock. So somewhere between 12:30 and 1 :00 we will come back into this if this isn't done. If this is done, we'll go into the AUIR at that point. So if you all want a break, I'm just letting you know that's the situation for this morning. So thank you, Nancy. And Brad, I'm assuming you have questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I guess. Nancy, go back to the 5th Avenue, the walkway between two buildings, there's a patio, some chairs. There was a planter in the center of it. There was a palm tree and a planter. And I guess as you're doing that, we can narrow it down. I mean, I have no problem with item number two, which is stating, put a buffer -- 10- foot buffer between commercial and residential. Good idea. Let's not play with that. It's the foundation plantings that I have a problem with. The foundation planting would make that unable to be done because it would require five foot of planting alongside those buildings, assuming those are separate owners, and the property line's down the center. So my fear is we won't be able to do that. The picture on the right, by the way, is planting within the right-of-way. That's not even stuff that's being controlled by this ordinance. A lot of the pictures you showed is planting in the right-of-way, which we certainly want to maintain and have. It's the stuff against the building that I'm fearful of. So let's take number three. You're requiring no buffer between commercial and abutting, which would be a 10- foot buffer between Page 104 January 5, 2006 the buildings. You do come here where you want a buffer between the parking of 10 feet. But the buffer between the buildings. So what you want to do is you -- what you're requesting in the code here is that -- and one thing about the landscape, I mean, this has been going on for quite a while. I can't imagine landscape architects feel left out. I mean, this -- we've been ad nauseam. Look at David Jackson's face every time he has to come back here. We've been dealing with this for a long time, dealing with the landscape issues for a long time. So we've put it off to bring the landscape architects in. Where were they? MS. GUNDLACH: Well, the significant changes haven't occurred until recently. MS. MURRAY: Right. Last meeting. I mean, we've -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But anyway, what is the intent to do? So in other words, I go in there and I take a buffer, which is all along the property line, 10 feet wide. I have that area. Where is that area supposed to land? I mean, it's going to be -- it's a huge amount of landscaping. MS. GUNDLACH: Which document are you talking about? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking at number -- MS. GUNDLACH: Are you talking about 1506, or are you talking about -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The one we were given to reVIew. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. The one you were given to review -- you have -- the one that was passed out this morning is the one that we recommend you go to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason we didn't have this before the meeting? Is this the same as we had before? MS. MURRAY: Yes, it is. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we can go back and get our old notes from before? Page 105 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what is this stuff we have in here going to do? We can just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm confused. What was the purpose of today's handout? I thought this was just to give us reference to what was available before. MS. GUNDLACH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And not -- but what we're recommending for approval today is what is in the bound packet; is that correct? MS. GUNDLACH: No. MS. MURRAY: No. Commissioner -- and I'm sorry. Let me try to explain where we're coming from. Again, given that at the last meeting we had some significant changes that were suggested, recommended, or what have you, talked about, staff attempted to address -- address those, and that was the information that you got in your packet. Unfortunately, again, a timing issue. Nancy and I met yesterday, went over the changes, or the day before, I'm sorry -- went over the changes, and really feel, as professionals, we can't recommend those changes. Our attempt was simply to try to address what we talked about at the last meeting. And, again, it's a matter of timing. The handout was simply just to refer you back to the old code, which is, at this point, we feel like we can support. We have been working through the whole process, Nancy has been. So it's not new, it's not old. It's just acceptable at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I want to get through this at this meeting, first of all, and I didn't realized that the handout you gave us was for consideration of approval. I thought it was for reference as to what we had done for the last meeting versus what we now have in front of us. Page 106 January 5, 2006 MS. MURRAY: That's our -- that is reflective of our recommendation as far as the landscape provisions go, and that is what you had in your last packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that handout that we have today was in the last packet, it's not one we reviewed for today. What we reviewed for today. What we reviewed for today was the one in front of us in the packet. MS. MURRAY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, out of fairness -- and it's probably Brad more than anybody on this commission, in order to have adequate time for Brad to review this and have any questions that he may have had last time, but to refresh his memory -- Brad, would we be better off deferring this till after lunch so you could have time to read this over lunchtime, and we can finish this up right after lunch, we can finish the rest of the overlay now? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If we're going back to where we are, I can -- I can remember the problems I had with what we used to have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then if you have concerns then over the handout -- I didn't have any landscaping questions of my own last time, you did. And if you have concerns, I'd like then, if you can respond to this handout, then that's probably what we should be focusing on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think I can. I mean, the concern I have is that we definitely want a landscaped community down there. Again, a lot of stuff you're showing is, if you go flip through some of these slides, is right-of-way landscaping, which we're hoping will occur. It's not -- this is not what we're dealing with now. It looks nice. You're saying this is what we want. Yes, we want that too. But go back. For example, there's one on 5th Avenue where you had the building, the sidewalk, and then some landscaping on the street. That's right-of-way landscaping. That's not covered by this Page 107 January 5, 2006 ordinance. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. How about we look at the image that would be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean -- MS. GUNDLACH: You don't require landscaping. You get what's on the left. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. We don't want what's on the left, MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's not -- there's nothing that we would want to propose that would cause that. And showing those two options, again those are suburban options between suburban functions. MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, this is not suburbia. This is -- this is adjacent to 5th. This is just the north edge of 5th right here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, there definitely should be landscaping in that. But go back. Keep going. I mean, you're going to the ugly picture. And there was a picture you showed as being good. The thing I want to point out is that it does show no landscaping on the property. It's in the right-of-way that we're -- MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. That would be an image of -- actually, this is a rear of a building, too, of an existing building. It shows landscaping between the parking area and the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then let's say maybe we should have landscaping between parking areas and buildings. That's not something anybody's proposed yet, so that's a good idea. MS. GUNDLACH: That's what we call building perimeter landscaping. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Perimeter landscaping is around the foundation of the building. The only thing that's allowed to go through that is walkways. You want perimeter landscaping on 80 percent of the building. Page 108 January 5, 2006 MS. GUNDLACH: Which would include something like this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All the sides, all the back, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I think she's-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, she's not finding the picture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think she's trying to say the picture on the right is foundation plantings as staff perceives it. Is that what you perceive it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it's the face of the columns, I would consider that to be foundation planting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that something that you're trying to say is wrong or right? I'm trying to get a picture myself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My picture is the amount of it. In other words, if you have 80 percent foundation planting, you're going to have planting alongside all your building. You're not going to have an urban space. Go back again to that walkway there. You couldn't build that because you would have to have planting alongside the face of the building where they have seating. And it's a nice little courtyard. It's MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. I think I know which one you're -- MS. FABACHER: The very first one. MS. GUNDLACH: It's in the beginning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stop right there a second. Stop there. MS. GUNDLACH: Oh, that? Okay. I was thinking maybe this one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That is the one I said second. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the first -- but this one, by the way, you would have landscaping, a five foot requirement, if those are a property line between those buildings. I don't think -- then I Page 109 January 5, 2006 think we want what we have here. MS. GUNDLACH: If this is what the property -- okay. I see what you're saying. You want some more flexibility in the placement of the foundation plantings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or another way to go about it -- I mean, maybe it's the percentage. Maybe it's a -- go back to the slide before, too. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The slide on the right, again, is -- the slide on the left, there's no landscaping on the property. The buildings -- and David's got this set up where the buildings are five foot back. You're not going to have much landscape anyway. The prettiness of this is the landscaping on the left, which is in the right-of-way, not part of the issue we're talking about. MS . MURRAY: And so if you don't get landscaping in the right-of-way and you don't have perimeter, then what does that picture look like? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Stark. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. It looks like the ugly example. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, that's not my -- my ugliest one's here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then the county -- let the county deal with it in the right-of-way. In other words, if you take it away from there, you're right, it doesn't look good. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, I know we've got a lot to get through today. And I was wondering, is this something that you feel is critical for this first draft -- first round of the overlay or could it be resolved as we get into the critiquing or the -- I think Catherine said that there's going to be some fine-tuning of it at the next LDC cycle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, I definitely think Page 110 January 5, 2006 we have to fine-tune it. What the staff should have done -- staff has an excellent suburban landscape code. No one's put together an urban landscape code, and that's really what we should have. It should apply to all these overlays. It should be something that we could throw in. What I don't want is a situation like the last one that required all of the buffers that we have in the suburban thing, that means that two property owners are going to have 20 feet of buffer between them. You're not going to build a downtown where every -- and these are very small lots. I mean, these lots are 100 feet across, so you've got a lot with, you know, 20 foot of buffer on the perimeter of everything. It's not going to be the downtown that we're looking at. MS. MURRAY: I don't think you're getting any disagreement from staff on the theory of that. I think that it's not something that's just going to be piecemealed together as a patchwork quilt from our, you know, existing code. And I think that's what we're perceiving as happening in that -- and in part we're having difficulty in recommending some of these certain sections. If the thought is to encourage right-of-way landscaping, maybe we ought to be looking at devising some agreements between the county and the developers there either in the form of an LDC or some form where we can encourage that, and I don't see that in here either. So it's like a lot of pieces of the puzzle are missing -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Missing. MS . MURRAY: -- to try to create that. And rather than just eliminate ones that are objectionable, maybe we ought to be looking at this wholesale through using the expertise we have in the community. MS. GUNDLACH: I really recommend we come back next cycle, you know, after we've had an opportunity to get some of our professionals involved. I mean, a lot of them, you know, work throughout the state in urban areas. I think they have a lot to contribute to this. Page 111 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what are people going to deal with -- I mean, I definitely think that's a good idea. That's actually -- should have been done. You know, this is six months been gOIng on. MR. JACKSON: Well, from my point of view, Mr. Schiffer-- David Jackson -- the -- we took the recommendations from your December meeting, and it was a -- it was difficult to put it together, get it fully staffed, to get it -- some good professional advice, coming together and putting a good meeting, because of the nature of the time frame of where we were. You know, the holiday season and putting it together in a time line to be here. I recommend, and I support staffs comment, is to revert the landscaping portion for the Gateway and Bayshore overlays back to the December 15th format and insert that. The only change that I would recommend is for the foundation plantings, instead of being 80 percent, which is one of your concerns, is to reduce that number down to 50 percent, which is what we included in this one with major other changes. I do feel strongly that we need to go and fully staff this up, come up with some kind of an urban master plan or a design plan that is a little bit more comprehensive and well thought out, going to the area, taking a look at what we've got, look at our building stock, look at roads, see what we've got there. We've got an MSTU that has 10 feet of landscaping that they control that's in the right-of-way. Then in the Gateway area we have very little, if any, right-of-way to landscape. It's all sidewalk or it's 45-mile-an-hour road. So we need to think to look at those things. So my recommendation is to support staffs comment, revert to the December 15th copy, exchange -- change one number from 80 percent to 50 percent, and then in the next LDC cycle, come back with something that is fully staffed out and approve by staff and the CRA. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would ask a question of Mr. -- Page 112 January 5, 2006 Nancy, are you comfortable with the 50 percent number? MS. GUNDLACH: I -- actually I think what would be better is just to hold the 80 percent, but be more flexible in terms of where we let them locate it. I mean, not nec -- maybe within 20 feet of the perimeter of the building. That way you could create a space, oh, gosh -- MR. JACKSON: I understand from your pictures -- MS. GUNDLACH: I want to go back in here and get -- MR. JACKSON: It doesn't have to be adjacent to the building but could be around and move around and give them the flexibility to make a very well-designed space, because we are working with a lot of preexisting buildings that were built back in the '40s and '50s, and there were no codes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, could you, between now and the BCC meeting, provide some language that incorporates the flexibility into that 80 percent? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, and my -- MS. GUNDLACH: Ifwe could achieve something like this on the left-hand side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again, the right-hand side of that is right-of-way parking. Could we do this, Nancy? Could we-- we're all talking about landscaping as if it's vegetation. It could be decorative walkways. So could we keep your requirements, and in place of that, it could be landscaping or decorative walkway? Here's the thing I want, David, is we have a five-foot setback between commercial buildings MR. JACKSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We build two buildings five feet MR. JACKSON: COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- next to each other. And that's Page 113 January 5, 2006 really the intent that you want. MR. JACKSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't want a 10-foot strip of dark grass or -- nothing could grow in there anyway. MS. GUNDLACH: Or maybe you don't want a five-foot strip of concrete either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what do we want in there? In other words, is that a service access, you know, that the garbagemen might use to bring stuff around the building? MR. JACKSON: Right. And at one time Mr. Ehardt had suggested that the side setback, instead of being five, was a variation between five and 10, which would allow somebody to set the building a little further back and put some landscaping and do that little walkway where you had, between buildings, where they could have access to the back parking; however, at the last meeting, you -- you wanted us to put a fixed hard number, so we put five. So if we can live with -- and staff has no problem with, we could do between zero and 10 between commercial buildings and be able to have that flexibility to put in some plantings or seedings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave, that five is a minimum, so somebody could do that. MS. GUNDLACH: Like I said, we get minimums. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what it says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, did you have a-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I just wanted to make a final comment on this, and we really need to wrap it up. We've spoken about it being urban and urban, urban, urban, and I agree, it's not an urban code; however, this is also a project that is in transformation and we will see a long time before we have a lot of these things come into place. I can't imagine that we cannot refine it more effectively in the next cycle. And whether it be 80 percent or 50 percent, whatever's Page 114 January 5, 2006 appropriate, I think it's -- it really can be done. And who's to say that an urban code, anyway, shouldn't have foundation planting and shouldn't have other things? So I think you're well on your way to doing the right thing, and I would hope that we could just get this movIng now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In order to get this issue to resolution, is it a consensus of our group, at the end of our meeting today, we'll recommend that we go to the staffs addendum dated 1/05/06, as presented to us at the meeting? Is that the general idea? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be my view. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why can't we go over what they proposed, an alternative of that? I mean, we haven't looked at that yet. That's what we reviewed when we got -- sent the package out. I mean, if the staff wanted us to go back to the old thing, then why did they send us this new stuff -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it's page 110 in the old book. MS. MURRAY: We were trying to address your comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think that the -- Brad, I mean, we can go over it -- MS. MURRAY: In the end what we came up with was something we felt we professionally couldn't recommend. I mean, that's all it is. You know, we attempted to try to do as you suggested, and it just didn't work out for us professionally. So I think we can add the suggested language about the flexibility. I think we already kind of agreed on that, so -- MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, if you could take a look at it over the lunch break, and if you have some concerns, then we can finalize this when you get back. Let's just finish it up on this issue, and we'll have public discussion at the end of the -- at the end of the discussion on the Bayshore overlay. Page 115 January 5, 2006 At this point we're going to take a lunch break. We'll be back here at 12:30. MR. FOGG: I have to leave. I've been sitting here. I wanted to talk about this specific item. I have a brief comment that I -- MS. MURRAY: Do you have any registered -- I don't have any registered speakers, so I'm sorry. MS. FABACHER: No, but I believe Nancy had some people she had -- MS. GUNDLACH: Aren't there two registered speakers? MS. FABACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Fogg. I'm so sorry. We do have public speakers for this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Mr. Fogg, Mr. Fernandez. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Fernandez is going to have a lengthy discussion. I'm going to request he come back after lunch, if that's okay. Mr. Fogg, if you've got another appointment we'll accommodate you, if you could -- you have five minutes to come up and speak. MR. FOGG: It will be less than five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please come up and address us to the mike, sir, thank you. MR. FOGG: I thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is George Fogg. I'm a Landscape Architect. I've been practicing for some time, longer than you people have been doing this work. Over my long years, I can only say that the presentation that Nancy made I think is clearly indicative of what it appears that most of you wish to have. My comments would be, very simply, that I concur that -- with the latest revision that has just been talked about, that was just handed to you, would be appropriate. The buffer requirements and other components in that, especially in relationship to the comments of this alleyway with the trees, these are all appropriate comments and I think Page 116 January 5, 2006 need to be considered in a future cycle amendment. It is important that we achieve the desired urban character of this overlay district but we want to keep a desirable landscape appearance, essentially similar to that character of the 5th Avenue that we've been viewing, 3rd Street, the new extension of 5th Avenue that is the new area -- not the 5th Avenue. I don't remember what they call it -- down in Naples where they've been landscaping the street areas. I think it's critical that this part of it in the refinement of the overlay landscape requirements, that this part of it be looked at, and, perhaps in your consideration, be made part of the requirements that, when these developments go ahead, that the streetscape be necessarily part of that total package. I know Mr. Schiffer indicated that that's a streetscape situation. It really is part of the total urban fabric situation and is a long-term practicing professional, both rural and urban areas. I can only strongly recommend that we approach this as staff has suggested at this time, which is to adopt the ordinance that was given -- the copy of the adjustments that were given to you today, that we look at it as a professional group and come back with the necessary refinements when we've thoroughly looked at it and where we aren't taking and throwing bricks at one another. I would prefer to have quality rather than bricks. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And sir, did you say you were a landscape design professional? MR. FOGG: I'm a landscape architect. Been practicing for 50 years now. Happen to be a fellow in American Society and Landscape Architects, and I'm a vice-president of a maj or architectural landscape, architectural firm out of Miami. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all. I appreciate your input. Thank you. MR. FOGG: And a local resident, by the way. This is my home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Thank you for attending today. Page 11 7 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to ask him a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, we have one question from Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the concern I had -- and this was what we had before -- is that we couldn't build a 5th Avenue. In other words, requirements in here were such that we weren't able to build what we had at 5th Avenue, which is why we wanted to change it. I mean, do you think, based on what you hold in your hands, you can do -- and I walked around 5th Avenue with the latest revisions, which is a little bit different than the others, and you weren't able to do that. I mean, that was what was going to prevent you from building 5th Avenue was the landscape requirements. MR. FOGG: I think that all of us -- we were discussing this amongst ourselves, the landscape architects, some of which had to leave -- were discussing this amongst ourselves this morning. We recognize that the current Collier County code would make it literally impossible to achieve this kind of a result. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. FOGG: We also recognize though -- and I didn't want to speak about it but, I will bluntly -- if we don't have specific requirements that are necessary to achieve the results that we've all observed today, won't get them. It flat out won't happen. The developers will not provide them. The owners will not provide them. Therefore, we have to have something to guide us at least so that we can, okay, let's adjust it a little bit and achieve this or this now. If we have to have a special commission, recommendations to the county commissioners, fine, but let's use something now, to put it bluntly, at least a pretty good size two-by-four to hit somebody with if we need to, and then refine it so that we can get what all of us seem to think we want to get. I agree that that's what we want. We don't want a great huge buffer between the properties. That would not get us the effect. Page 118 January 5, 2006 So I think we all want the same thing. I am convinced through my long, long years of practice that if we don't have something pretty thorough, I mean, pretty significant in our overlay district requirements, we're going to get the alternative of the bare parking lot and the bare -- we just don't want that bare building, bare parking lot. You've said that, and I think all the other commissioners have said that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I agree, and people designed to minimums, you're right about that. What did you find out that the landscape requirements were changing in the Bayshore overlay? MR. FOGG: What happened is, I got information that clearly indicated that -- at least when I read it, and I have a copy of it sitting in my briefcase. When I read it, I couldn't find what was going to happen. It looked like the landscape was pretty much left out of the formula. And I don't feel comfortable. I feel much more comfortable -- and by the way, I would like to digress momentarily and say that the consultant's provision of diagrams and photographs is to be strongly admired and should be copied in the entire code, not just in the overlay district. I can read the plans and the pictures. I'm not always sure about the words. But this is a good example of, I think, where we should be going, and I strongly applaud. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the problem is, is the landscape ordinance, even in the past issue, you can't build what's in these pictures because of the buffer system. MR. FOGG: I don't think we should be hung up on that specific item and leave out the rest of it. If you wish, I think maybe you direct the staff to put a proviso in there that permits an adjustment of that situation. I don't think we should change wholesalely (sic) what we're Page 119 January 5, 2006 doing. I think if that is a specific concern, then just address that specific narrow item by saying, as it was suggested earlier, that the buffer -- I mean the buffer may be adjusted to fit the criteria of that particular property where the concept of a landscape site be maintained. I'm not being very specific because I don't have specific language. I do better when I have it in writing in front of me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Fogg. Now, with that -- MS. MURRAY: Did you have somebody else? MS. GUNDLACH: There's one more speaker. I think she'll be very quick. Just -- we're going to lose her at 12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. I didn't realize that. Go ahead. MS. FABACHER: Kristen Petry, sorry. MS. PETRY: Good morning. I'm Kristen Petry, and we own a landscape architecture, landscape construction, and landscape maintenance company here in town. I'd just like to let you know that I agree with the comments of Mrs. Gundlach and Mr. Fogg. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Are there any other people that -- MS. FABACHER: Mr. Fernandez, but I think we determined he'd be after lunch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. He's going to -- he has a little bit lengthier discussion to have on another issue. So hearing no other speakers, we're going to take a lunch break until 12:45. Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's 12:45, but -- oh, we do have a quorum. There's five of us here. With that, where we had left off is, Mr. Schiffer was going to Page 120 January 5, 2006 review any final comments he may have on this, pages 41 -- or 42,43, 44 on the landscaping issues to see if there was anything that had to be addressed now or could be delayed till one of the criteria's modified as we go on with the LDC amendments. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I actually just got it, Mark CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so I haven't had a really good chance to look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Subway set the -- you know, that land speed record for how long it takes to make a sandwich. But I'll tell you what, move on. I'll do it while we're -- we've got to do something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the landscaping issues that are in question are on pages 42, 43, and 44, so let's bypass those issues involving landscaping on those couple of pages at this point. Does anybody have any other issues besides landscape on pages 42, 43, and 44? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None? On page 45? On 4.02.17(B)( 4), it talks about height of structures again, and I just want to make sure we're consistent. The 50 feet that we're talking about in that there, is that the actual height or is that -- how is that measured? MR. EHARDT: Should be actual height. MR. JACKSON: Should be actual height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: And that has to with marina structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what we can insert before the word 50 that -- or before the word height, maximum actual height of. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maximum actual height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of 50 feet, right. Page 121 January 5, 2006 On page 46, any questions on page 46? On the top, it -- well, this is a landscaping issue, uh-oh. I just have a clarification I need for it. I'm not complaining about it. It says on the top in item E, an additional 10- foot landscape buffer is required around the perimeter of the outdoor boat sales area. Is that, in addition to what? MR. JACKSON: That's original language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but I-- MR. JACKSON: It precedes me by a few years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're adding 10-foot to something, but we just don't know what we're adding it to? Is that fair to say? Okay. Maybe staff could look at that and get -- not now, but at some point make a clarification. MR. JACKSON : We'll put that in -- on the docket for this next cycle to clean that up and fully define what that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 47, any issues, other than the striking of the reference to zoned height on page 47? I'm assuming we would want to proceed there just as we proceeded in the previous chart. On page 48; anything on page 48? Boy, you guys had lunch and turned quiet on me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, they did a good job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 48 there's -- in the middle of the page after the details, there's items A and C which regulate the height of a building. I don't have any problem with it myself. I just want to make sure, from a legal perspective, if someone wanted to go higher to keep out of, say, higher insurance rates or to help their FEMA position, would this prevent them from doing that? And if it does, can we legally prevent them from doing that? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. I'm sorry. Would you-- would you repeat the question again, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 48, item A and item C, about Page 122 January 5, 2006 just below the detail. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: FEMA gives you the maximum height you can do. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: A garage floor? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm talking about-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You said 24 inches of elevation; is that what you're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, on A, first of all -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it says that the first habitable floor can't be greater than three feet above the minimum first floor elevation designed by National Flood Insurance Program. The minimum. Now, FEMA talks about minimums. And the higher you go, the more you save on your insurance. I'm not saying it's good to go higher. I just want to make sure that we can't prevent somebody from doing something to make their proj ect more safe if they want to stay out of a flood potential. And I want to make sure the code doesn't put us in that position, so that was my only question. And A and C are both limitations to how high you can go in regards to minimum versus the maximum. And I'm not sure that if someone wanted to go higher to be less prone to flooding, that we have a right to prevent them. If we do, that's fine. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I haven't studied this vis-a-vis the FEMA regulations, but I would argue that local governments impose height restrictions in different zoning districts all the time, and that may preclude somebody from going higher, and then they may -- which may cause the situation that you allude to. And I don't know of any case law or anything that says that that could be problematic. If you want further research on it, we can certainly do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Margie. First of all, this isn't height elevation. This is a maximum first floor elevation. Page 123 January 5, 2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: On the habitable floor. But a height restriction may operate the same way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just throwing it out there. But if you don't believe it's an issue, then there's nothing that needs to be said. MS. F ABACHER: There's a couple things. I think -- I don't know if I'm right, but maybe Susan could help me. But I think you could possibly go and get a variance if you wanted to have your garage be higher than that. If you look up at E, it says, a maximum of two feet of fill shall be allowed to get up to FEMA standards. So if you're going to change this other one, the garage, I think it refers to this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think what it -- by a maximum of two feet of fill, if you don't want to use -- once you go up with your fill, if you go higher, you've got to use stem wall. MS. FABACHER: Right. But you can't do that on a garage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I know that. MS. FABACHER: Right, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm not -- A is the one -- A doesn't reference a garage. I think -- MS. F ABACHER: And then I have one more comment, being a former flood plan administrator. You can have your garage floor below base flood -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MS. F ABACHER: -- as long as you, you know -- what is it, equalizes for the hydrostatic pressure? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Flood proof it, right. MS. F ABACHER: Well, equalize for hydrostatic, meaning there's a flowway through, and you don't locate any of your electrical or mechanical equipment below base flood, which means your light switches, and you couldn't put a washer and dryer in there if it was below, but you could still have a usable garage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 124 January 5, 2006 MS. F ABACHER: I'm just saying, there are options. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my only concern was people wanting to go higher for safety reasons. Ifwe can prevent that, then I just -- MS. FABACHER: Well, and they may want to go higher for handicap reasons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Enough said. Page 50? I'm sorry, go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question on 48. There's a typo. It's national food insurance program instead of flood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, down here they gave out food stamps, so it was a dual insurance program. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's a dual program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a dual program. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a 49. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just in -- and the illustration shows steps coming off the front of the porch, what used to be allowed in 4A, just to clean the illustration up. There's -- up in the illustration there, front porches, there used to be allowed seven feet into the setback and an additional three feet for steps. But the three feet for steps are crossed off. The illustration still shows the steps in the front. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, good point. MR. EHARDT: You want me to take the steps out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, you've got to use the podium, I'm sorry . MR. EHARDT: Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I wonder why we got rid of that in the first place. I mean, that's -- MR. EHARDT: I can't remember if someone asked that we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All your pretty illustrations Page 125 January 5, 2006 show it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, all you've got to do is make the diagram consistent with the language, if that's what you'd like to do. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then we're -- over on F, we -- 4 F, we show that steps shall encroach no more than three feet into the front setback, which, the way that porch is configured, it would probably look pretty to have steps the full seven feet of it, so -- MR. EHARDT: I -- I'm trying to remember what I had last time. I had that three feet there? I'm not sure what you're -- you want the steps in or out? I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I like the way you had it. For some reason we took it out. So if we took it out, we should make the drawings match. MR. EHARDT: I'll have to look at that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And why we limit it to three feet; in other words, take that seven foot porch, it would be nice if the steps could run the whole, you know, depth of it. MR. EHARDT: You mean the whole length of the front of the porch. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or the side of the porch is what I'm talking about. MR. EHARDT: Well, I just -- I think we were saying that in that three feet you can have steps from the property line up to the porch. I'll have to look at my illustration. I can't remember why we changed that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we took it out-- MR. JACKSON: This came out of a conversation between Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Strain concerning -- Mr. Strain, your concern was the width of the stairs, the height of the stairs, how many steps, three steps, two steps, and it was a -- you know, a free-for-all for a few moments there about the steps and the stairs. We prefer that you allow some steps to encroach further beyond the front porch to allow Page 126 January 5, 2006 somebody to achieve access for that two-foot stem wall or that fill that may be required in there for that part of it there, is that -- you know, that architecturally and construction-wise, it's built to code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I think A and F are maybe where the contradiction occurs. F says, steps Shall encroach no more than three feet into the front yard setback, which means they can't be further than three feet off the back side of the 10 feet. A said they can have an additional three feet encroachment allowable for entry stairs beyond the seven feet that the porch is. So one has stairs seven feet -- starting seven feet out, and the other one has stairs starting at the 10 foot setback line on F. I think there's a clarification needed. That may have been where the original point was coming from. MR. JACKSON: Okay. Well, that would be a matter of whether there's a porch on it. W e'lllook at that and we'll clean that up. Good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then as long as the diagram that you have on page 49 corresponds to whatever you clean up, that's all that I think we're trying to say. Any more on that page, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 50? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 51? On this one, under your accessory unit, in the first sentence you, again, refer to the rear of the property for the accessory unit. Based on the fact we struck that from the definition, you may want to strike that from that first sentence as well. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: B, it says the fence shall have a what? Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on page 51. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Fifty-one? I'm sorry, excuse Page 127 January 5, 2006 me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway-- MR. JACKSON: Mr. Adelstein, what was your question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That was on 52. I'm a page up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: His is on -- we're still on page 51. If you -- did you follow my comment about the rear? Okay. If you go down to E, the maximum height of a structure containing a guesthouse over a garage is limited to a maximum of 20 feet measured from the grade of the lot to the eave and with a maximum overall building height of 26 feet. By overall, do you mean actual? MR. EHARDT: Yes. MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll change that to actual. And then the rest of that sentence says -- and since it isn't zoned height, I guess it reads consistent with the way we're defining things, so that works. And under F, height requirement measured to the eave with a maximum actual building height of 26 feet. Is that -- I think that then becomes consistent with the correction we just made on E, right? MR. EHARDT: Right, actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on 51 ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, page 52. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: B, the fence shall have an, and then you have O-P-A-C-I-T-Y. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Opacity. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Opacity. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Opacity. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What does that word mean? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Opaque, something that's Page 128 January 5, 2006 opaque. Something you can't look through. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Opaque, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fifty-three. Any questions on page 53? MR. JACKSON: I do have one point of clarification on page 53. I believe it was the second meeting that we had, we talked about the coastal high hazard area and mobile homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. JACKSON: Okay. And at this point, for the record, I'd like to get a clarification from staff and/or from the planning commission about mobile homes in the area that a currently -- has zoned mobile home lots or a currently zoned mobile home condominium unit, a co-op, that if a mobile home owner has it destroyed or wants to replace it because of age, that they can do that, that they're not denied the ability to replace their mobile home for either damage or because of time and use. And number two is, if somebody buys a vacant mobile home zoned lot, that they can put a mobile home on that lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the coastal high hazard? MR. JACKSON: Correct. And my entire area is in that pretty much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, are you the right person to respond to that? MS. MURRAY: David is probably going to have to help me out, so -- MR. WEEKS: Excuse me. The future land use element specifically states that new rezones to permit mobile home development within this subdistrict, referring to the urban coastal fringe, south U.S. 41, are prohibited. So since we're not dealing with the rezoning, it would not be prohibited or, conversely, would be allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So ifsomeone's home got Page 129 January 5, 2006 destroy, they could actually come in, and as long as it met whatever codes were applicable, and put the new mobile home on there. MR. JACKSON: Correct. If they had to bring it up for height or codes. And that was a question from some mobile home owners and people that owned the lots. When they saw this language there, mobile homes were stricken out. They says, what do you mean, I can't do that? And so that was a clarification. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 54. Any -- it's all crossed out except for the bottom two. Page 55? MS. FABACHER: Oh, excuse me. I think we had to make an addition, didn't we, David, that we wanted to put back in about the -- I'm sorry. Catherine Fabacher -- that we wanted to put back something in about the neighborhood meeting conducted by the applicant in conjunction with the overlay, with local -- with area overlay advisory board -- what was that last part in parens we were going to use? MR. JACKSON: Well, the language we wanted to put in here is that the neighborhood information meeting would be conducted in conjunction with whoever was sponsoring the overlay. And they wanted pretty much boilerplate language because it's going to be in chapter 10, that talked about all future mixed-use project overlays that may be coming in for the county, and they didn't want to have to amend it every time with a new adding it -- you know, either the Bayshore CRA advisory board or the Immokalee CRA advisory board. They didn't want to have to keep amending it. So they wanted it kind of generic. But what we wanted to make sure was that any mixed use proj ect for the neighborhood and for an information meeting, it was conducted with whatever the -- whoever the local advisory board was, whether it was the CRA or if it was a special unit or district. So in paragraph two, you can see there that it doesn't read real smoothly if something was omitted. The end of the sentence, Page 130 January 5, 2006 conducted by the applicant or, and then for. So that the drop-off there should be -- say, the local advisory board conducted in conjunction with them. And this is to provide-- because usually your local advisory board has the feeling and the pulse of the community and knows who to contact and who has the hard points and soft points and can help bring them together as part of the process and provides input into the mixed-use project with the development or investor that's in the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, then on number three, are you going to change the reference to the CRA advisory board -- MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to the same whatever local board is-- MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir, that's the next step. It says, the date to the neighborhood information meeting, period. And that's not before the CRA board. That takes that out and puts it up in paragraph two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. JACKSON: So it's not redundant and not too specific so that their chapter 10 language can pretty much stay as it is and doesn't have to be modified every cycle. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So let me ask you. The county is going to send out this notice, but it is -- it is brought about by the advisory board? MR. JACKSON: No. The notice is sent out by the applicant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm just reading here, what I thought I read, it said something, written notice of the meeting shall be sent by applicant. Okay, sorry about that. MR. JACKSON : Yeah. The applicant is the one. Just like it is in any other process -- rezoning process, the applicant is the one that bears the cost and has to do the mailings, put the sign on his property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, my eye dropped to a second line. MR. JACKSON: That's fine, sir. And we're just trying to Page 131 January 5, 2006 include the local advisory board who was the genesis for deciding and building the overlay anyway, that they stay engaged in the process in the neighborhood information and for the project redevelopment process. Now, this may not be specific to other areas when they do that. But for the CRA, we are very engaged, and we will be there for a very long period of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mrs. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I have a question. Do these mixed-use projects have to come before the CCPC? MR. JACKSON: No. They're meant as an incentive fast track. They're staffed up by county staff. And after the neighborhood information meeting, they go directly to the Board of County Commissioners, and the Board of County Commissioners -- Mr. Adelstein is the one -- are the ones -- are the ones that look at the mixed-use project and approves or denies, and along with the allocation of bonus density units if they are requested, approves or denies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on 55? I have one. And I guess it's a question for staff. Susan or Catherine or somebody. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number four talks about posting a sign on the out -- we have a requirement in the LDC for posting of signs. I'm not sure, is there a reason why we just don't reference the LDC, or -- there's a lot of language here that was added to accommodate that issue, and then -- do we need it? MS . MURRAY: Catherine, is this different than the LDC requirement? I thought you did a different set of requirements for this. MS. FABACHER: Well, I did it separately because this -- to make this one from mixed use, because if I cite the whole section that refers to some other pro -- it all has different applicability. Understood? Page 132 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as a proc -- no. The -- MS. FABACHER: That's why I made a new G and explained this was the mixed use because the other ones I would cite would be for rezonings or PUD amendments and so forth. I didn't really want to cross-reference something in a section that had applicability to another process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wanted to make sure it won't be duplicative. Page 56. Any questions on 56? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we have finished the Bayshore mixed use district. Now-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Want to go back to landscaping. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we ought to break out the -- yes, we do. We've got to go back to that. And before two o'clock we have one public speaker. MS. FABACHER: We now have two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two public speakers. And I would like -- I would assume it would be appropriate to take these two separately or -- that's how we've been doing this LDC cycle. MS. FABACHER: Right, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- then before we go to the final resolutions on Bayshore and the public speakers, Brad, do you want to finish up with your landscaping issues? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's try this, and maybe Nancy can come up and we'll-- actually, Nancy and I should have gone to lunch and worked it out probably. But, that's okay. Nancy, let's stay with the one that you proposed in the packet, not the old one. Because it's not that much different. I mean, there is some things missing in the old one that you might want in the new one, like the water management landscaping and stuff, okay? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Would you like to make some Page 133 January 5, 2006 recommendations? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So let's just go down. G, we're on page 42. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Forty-two of the new? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of the -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The book? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the packet, the bound book. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The bound book. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number one, no problem. Number two, no problem. Number three, what I'd like to do -- we can come back. For now just get rid of the line that says, how -- the buffer square footage, because it doesn't really say how to do that, but we may come back and visit that. But for now I suggest we cross it off. MS. GUNDLACH: That's something we can consider when we bring it back next cycle. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For sure. And we should -- that's where we really should focus on. Number four -- MS. GUNDLACH: Well, I mean, I wouldn't -- go ahead. I'm not prepared to make any recommendations at this point. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, let me go through it first, because some things actually go back and fix that. Number four, the building foundation. What I think it should be is the foundation planting within the side setback shall be -- get rid of the minimum of 50 percent of the building width. In other words -- wait, let me say what I'm saying, then I'll go back. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'm saying is that, within the side setback only, if the setback for the side is 10 foot or greater, Page 134 January 5, 2006 then we should have a foundation planting within that area, okay? And I think a five-foot -- and it could be, as long as it's within that area. F or example, they could put it on the property line, have a walkway alongside the building, or they could put it on the building and have a walkway along or a patio on the property line, okay? MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. So some flexibility there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And it's only on the side setback, because the front, we've eliminated it. And then going up to parking, number -- well, number five, I think's fine. Leave it the way it is. You want to decorate the retention, which you really should do. Number six is -- I would try this, is the parking lot and/or access drives abutting commercial properties or buildings shall be required to have a five-foot perimeter landscape buffer. And what's that -- most of the pictures you showed, the horrible ones, were paving up against buildings. So what you're saying is, if you're going to park behind your building, you've got to have at least five feet of landscape. Preferably what somebody does is put a five-foot walkway, five-foot landscape, and then the parking. But this gives them the option to do it the other way. MS. GUNDLACH: Actually this is landscaping around a parking lot, item number six. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is perimeter parking, right. And I -- MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. Not necessarily up against a building. It could be adjacent to -- that parking lot could be adjacent to another property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But if you think of it, if a parking lot is not up against the building, then you have probably landscape anyway. At least hopefully you don't have paving. MS. GUNDLACH: You probably have building perimeter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. If you want, you could Page 135 January 5, 2006 change that to access drive or any paved area just to prevent what you're trying to avoid if somebody said I'm just paving for the sake of it. And then I think -- we definitely have to come back, but I think that would make the rest of this -- seven is fine, eight is fine, and nine is fine. Now, one problem, if you look at the picture, the impression I get is that would probably be two par -- two separate parcels. The -- would the parking perimeter problem cause a buffer to have to go down that property line to eliminate the ability to do this shared parking, which is going to be -- for this neighborhood to be successful, they're going to have to be able to do that kind of configuration. MS. GUNDLACH: They punch right through the landscape buffer and connect the parking lots. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what I'm thinking, if you look at that illustration below, the property line is probably the center of the drive. MS. GUNDLACH: I think that's a street or a driveway access shown in the middle there. Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, remember the -- MR. EHARDT: Joe Ehardt. What I -- was intended here was to show that you could have a building that has part of its parking on the side and maybe in the rear. So this is like a double bay of parking. That would be one parcel. The building on the right-hand side would be -- a zero lot line, be on the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would be -- okay. MR. EHARDT: And that would have whatever building foundation planting, if there was room to do it. If not, it doesn't have it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I thought if you go back to 41, do you see the illustration on top of 41 where you're doing these accessory parking zones, which I think's a really smart idea, Page 136 January 5, 2006 because what you could do is -- I assume what that was is, two buildings were sharing the parking between them, and that that's what we were showing, which would probably, in my case, again, put the property line down the center of that property. MR. EHARDT: Well, that illustration is really a block with two streets on either side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. EHARDT: And they're getting their access from the side street for the parking in the rear. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then that's it. And I think, Nancy, if we go back and maybe play with the wording, it would eliminate that big sea of asphalt, which nobody wants. I do agree that people landscape what the code says and that, you know, the code minimum becomes their standard, so we do have to be careful. Do you have any problem with that? I mean, the only thing that doesn't do is -- I mean, when you take like 80 percent building foundation, you know, a building, let's say, is essentially square, and we can't have it on the front anyway, so we really can't even achieve 80 percent with a square building -- MR. EHARDT: Well, you can have some of it on the front on Bayshore, if you've got a five-foot front setback. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, we -- number seven kind of eliminates the requirement for a buffer. You've got a five-foot setback -- but do you really, you know, in the streetscape, do you imagine the land between Bayshore and the building to be landscape? Don't you see cafes, outdoor -- MR. EHARDT: Well, it could be both. They have that building foundation buffer, and I guess, you know, they have a certain percentage. It would be where they want to put it. If they want -- excuse me -- to put it in front or they want to put it on the side, that's their choice to make it. That's why we used a percentage of the perimeter of the building. Page 137 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'm saying is, if it's a square shape, let's say, 80 percent of it means you're going to have it in the front, where I don't think you want it. MR. EHARDT: I think we changed the percentage in this case to 50 percent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But again, they're back requesting -- MR. EHARDT: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're back requesting 80 . agaIn. MR. EHARDT: Oh, I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, that's -- MR. EHARDT: Oh, I'm sorry. What I was going to say, in that illustration that shows the street wall, if the building on the left-hand side of the page and that parking lot are the same parcel, then with this perimeter landscaping, you would have a 10- foot buffer of landscaping next to that building on the right-hand side going around, according to the way we've -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm proposing to make that a five-foot buffer, just -- MR. EHARDT: Well, I don't know if you'll be getting many trees in there, but you might be able to get some palms or something. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, do you think it should be 10 feet? MR. EHARDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this number six, the 10-foot buffer -- MR. EHARDT: I would say it should be like I had it -- we discussed this and put that -- left that in there, yes. But this one was eliminating -- now, this particular way we wrote was eliminating the buffer between commercial and commercial uses, which could be more like 120 feet. Page 138 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It would be. MR. EHARDT: Right. And I'm saying it would go to 10 feet here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this will be 20 feet, if the guy has the parking on both sides. MR. EHARDT: But what I said further down in there is that you couldn't have two of these parking lots adjacent to each other. The next building would have to be over to that side. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where do you see that? MR. EHARDT: B, no two street walls shall adjoin on a common property line. In other words, I don't want 120 feet of street wall. I want maybe 60 feet, if you've got, you know, just one bay of parking going back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But like if the -- the concern I have is the parking's behind the streets -- these buildings, I mean, the intent is, the parking will be behind these buildings, so -- MR. EHARDT: There may be some behind the building, yes, that's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's the area that would have the 20 feet. MR. EHARDT: That would have -- depend if it's -- it would have 10 feet, and it could have 20 if it's butting up another commercial property. If there's another parking lot behind there, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then what we really should be doing is connecting them and sharing the parking spaces. MR. EHARDT: Well, I think we can certainly connect them, but the buffer may still stay there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Anyway, that's my proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, I want to -- is any of those objectionable with staff? MS. GUNDLACH: I'm not prepared to respond to them right Page 139 January 5, 2006 now. I'd like a little time for us to consider this, and I think if you would like to make a recommendation for or against them, then we can come back and address them at the -- at the next hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not-- MS. GUNDLACH: Support them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm hoping we're not going to have another hearing on this. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You mean the BCC? MS. GUNDLACH: I mean for the planning -- for the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the BCC won't have the benefit of Brad's input then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, this wasn't supposed to be putty at this stage, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess it's going to leave it up to this panel to decide what they want to do. MR. EHARDT: Excuse me. Didn't we decide earlier when we're talking about Bayshore, that the landscaping thing was going to be resolved in the next cycle and that we were going to adopt the one that we had previously? I thought that was discussed. That would apply -- would apply to this, too, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff gave it to us, but we didn't really form a consensus -- MR. EHARDT: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on that. I just wanted to make sure the panel was comfortable. Brad had not commented on it because it was just given to him. He was going to take some time over lunch and come back with some comments. He's now done that. Staff is not in a position to comment on his comments. So what's the feelings of the panel? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I guess let's look and see what the existing -- you know, there isn't a strike-through. Is there -- on any of these pages, is there a on the old landscape requirements, the Page 140 January 5, 2006 one that exists today? If we leave it, that's maybe where we leave it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, if staff was left with direction to try to take a further look at these issues that Brad's raised and provide a response to those issues to the BCC both explaining his position and yours, is that something that you feel could be done? MS. GUNDLACH: Absolutely, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, might that not resolve it for today? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Say it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If staff took your position on each of these items that you just mentioned, analyzed it, came back with their, either acceptance of it or rebuttal of it and presented their explanation to the BCC as part of our stipulations, would that resolve the issues as far as getting it passed today? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, can I see it -- I mean, shoot it to me, let me comment on it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any problem with that. MS. GUNDLACH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that might -- that might work for everybody, because -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A question. And actually, you know, there is some strike-through language in the landscape. Should that not be in this packet? I mean, why was that taken out, in other words, unless it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this was supposed to be a cleaned up packet with all the highlighting and everything? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The strike-through from existing? MR. JACKSON: No. Any existing strike-throughs are in the packet. The other strike-throughs you see there is from about four or five other boards. As we progress through them, we show that -- the transition of language changing over the DSAC and the EAC and Page 141 January 5, 2006 yourself, you know. So there's several iterations of it. So we've cleaned all that up. And if it was original language, you see it here in this booklet, and it is a strike-through or an underline for addition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have something you wanted to add? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, yeah. Inasmuch as, it struck me that if Brad -- and I have no problem with Brad giving further consideration to the matter after he's had conversation or reviewed Nancy's work. The issue for us, we would probably not know it. So I would ask that we be included -- if he's going to make comments, we be given the copies of that so that we know what it is that's transpired in case one of the commissioners should ask us a question or someone else should ask us a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, once we vote on it, it's not going to hurt to distribute it to us. That's fine. Nancy, just mass mail everybody. And we know where you stand, we know where -- and Brad can deal with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll respond the same way back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask David real quick. David, the strike-through here, you're saying this is not language that is in the existing overlay? It was the proposal somewhere along the way that was taken out? Okay. It could be, because it's underlined and strike-through, so okay. MR. JACKSON: All right. It was added in, and then over time we struck it out because it doesn't fit, or through comment and review. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We've finished with the Bayshore mixed-use district with the exception of the final recommendations. Now, before we go there, let's ask public speakers to provide Page 142 January 5, 2006 their input and then we can decide on how to finish this off. Catherine, do we have any public speakers? MS. FABACHER: Yes, we do. We have Mr. Michael Fernandez first, and then Mr. Patrick White. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You need to use the speaker. We heard you, but you need to get closer. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. MS. FABACHER: We have first Mr. Michael Fernandez, and then we have Mr. Patrick White. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good afternoon. I've provided staff with quite a number of comments that they can digest in between now. Some are just clean-up items really. But I'd like to highlight just a few items, the first one being in consideration to existing zoning. For instance, if I have a piece of commercial, right now I'm able to build -- C-4 would allow me 75 feet and other development standards. Under the proposal that you've considered today, we would have the uses of, let's say, a C-4, C-5 zoning district, but we'd have to live with the development standards, the new ones. Well, not include -- we'd actually be living with the standards that are in here, which, for instance, would say, they would limit us to three stories, for instance. It's a significant change. I know in public meetings that happened -- and people referred to the angry meetings that were held with people in the CRA, landowners that have commercial property. I believe there was a commitment made to those landowners that they would have the option of either working under the existing rules or working and opting in to these new regulations. The development standards that are being proposed would significantly reduce the amount of development that they could use on their property. And I think that's a consideration. So anything that's either commercial or residential that's Page 143 January 5, 2006 transferring into this mixed-use NC district, I think that they should have the ability to either go under the existing regs. with the current development standards, or go into the new program basically. And I understand the wish to have more uniformity, more consistency between buildings and so forth, but it could be a very, very huge change in what somebody can do with their property. The second thing is, there's a lot of comments or considerations relative to the -- these proposed changes. We're not sure where they're going to ferret out, whether it's landscaping, setbacks. You have a process proposed that's going to take an applicant to propose a regulation for a mixed use -- or a design for a mixed use to give it to staff, allow staff to review it, it would then go to a public meeting, go to a CRA, and eventually go to the Board of County Commissioners. I would propose an amendment to the criteria that's proposed here, and I'm going to hand it out. And on the cover, what you're going to see is the deviation proposal that was included and adopted by the Mercato PUD, and that was a separate zoning district, but it was put in there because it was a mixed-use district and it has certain stand -- or certain challenges. And what I've done is just kind of worked from that and propose that we would be allowed to do deviations from the standards that are located in here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Fernandez, have you shared this with the CRA representative? MR. FERNANDEZ: I've had an opportunity to talk with Joe, and yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, you can't ask questions off the podium. So if you don't mind responding to Mr. Murray when you get back to the podium, that way the court reporter can pick up on it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Certainly. Yes, I'd previously handed out information about the Mercato and those changes. The actual text that I came up with is fresh as far Page 144 January 5, 2006 as taking that concept and putting it into and attaching it to the proposed language that's in the criteria for mixed use approval. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if there's a rebuttal, they're able to speak to that, any issue. MR. FERNANDEZ: I hope so. I mean, Susan's only seen it for a few minutes, and Joe himself. But basically it would say, for instance, if there's a requirement that -- for landscaping, a perimeter landscaping and I've got a project that says, well, I'm going to have a cafe over here, I'm not going to be able to meet that, but I'm going to have a better product and I can show that to the public, the CRA, and to the Board of County Commissioners. They would ultimately have the decision whether or not to grant me essentially an administrative variance from that provision that's in the code. If they say no, then it's no. But I think it gives them some flexibility. Mixed use projects are unique animals, and they are more challenging. You've got contextural issues between -- especially small parcels are very -- are even more challenging. And this would allow us to also learn. And eventually, I guess, we will fine-tune these LDC requirements and amend the -- this overlay several times probably until we kind of get it right. But in the meantime, this gives the developer an opportunity to propose something that he believes is better and have a methodology and a criteria for review. And so that's -- it's something I think is very, very significant. I'm working on a very large parcel, and I have some of the same issues in that, for instance, I have requirements for front setbacks for parcels for a large -- for a parcel with great depth, and I can't meet these regulations. In other words, I can't put all the buildings right up front. These regulations are mostly custom designed for small parcels. So if I have a bigger one, it's a different kind of a challenge that hasn't been addressed. I'd like the opportunity to propose something in a public forum and take it to the board and let them make a decision Page 145 January 5, 2006 on it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you want to go directly to the board? You wouldn't go to the administrative group, the representative of the CRA -- MR. FERNANDEZ: No, you're misunderstanding. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- or the advisory board? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. This would -- I would only submit that as part of the mixed-use approval process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: So when I submit that conceptual plan to staff, it says here that staff has -- in order to review and evaluate a requested deviation, county manager or his designee or staff, may request materials, calculations, plan themes necessary to render a determination. They would do their little staff report, it would go to the CRA, it would have the neighborhood meeting, and then it would go to the Board of County Commissioners. So no, it's not a separate process. It's part of the mixed-use approval process that's been proposed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. My question is simple. Maybe I didn't put it simply. But you're going to make sure all of the parties know what it is that you're intending to do? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. Again, it goes to the exact same process. There's a lot of public information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, you had said this is like the Mercato PUD . You gave us copies of both. I've just quickly tried to read them. MR. FERNANDEZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Mercato is very limited in its ability for deviations. It limits it to an Exhibit D for development standards as incorporated in their PUD. MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your introduction is extremely more Page 146 January 5, 2006 broad. It's more than just standards. It goes to all kinds of challenges inherent in mixed-use theme developments and their associated conceptual development plans. And deviation at times are warranted and address contextural programmatic and land parcel inherent issues which are unanticipated and not directly addressed by development standards for mixed-use developments provided herein. I'm comfortable with what we approved for Mercato because it was limited, and we had a document to which it was limited to. This is pretty broad, and I don't feel comfortable with that. Ms. Student, did you have a legal comment? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah. I'm just getting this language right now, and I guess one of the concerns that I have is, we normally do deviations in, you know, the PUD context. And Mercato was a PUD context. This would not be a PUD context. And it looks like we're, you know, starting to blur some distinctions here. And I would need more time to study it out, but that's a concern that I just wanted to put on the record. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mark, actually, if you look at that administrative deviations number one there, it says that staff can make administrative deviations from the Mercato PUD itself or even the land development code, so that's staff doing that. Our proposal is that we can get deviations from the land development code, this overlay district specifically, and it has to go through a public process, and it gets approved by the Board of County Commissioners. That's certainly significantly more oversight than just allowing staff to grant any deviation from the LDC, that's what this -- the Mercato basically was allowed to do in consideration that it's a mixed-use. We have mixed-use standards here, you know, the combination of residential and commercial. For instance, one of the most challenging things I've found in doing mixed use is refuge collection, where to put it for sound, noise, odors and so forth. Page 147 January 5, 2006 It may require me or suggest to me the place that's someplace that the LDC or the overlay positions say no, but it makes all the sense in the world. I want to have that opportunity to go to staff, to the neighborhood, and to the Board of County Commissioners to have them review it. I think it's a very significant amount of oversight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no -- there's nothing prohibiting you from presenting this document to the BCC just as you are to us today. MR. FERNANDEZ: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any other things you wanted to mention in regards to this project? MR. FERNANDEZ: Just in passing. I do think there's a lot of things that need to be considered that haven't been considered, and I've given some of my comments to staff. For instance, there's a parking requirement here that says everything's going to be one to 250. F or instance, if I have a commercial piece of property, I can go put a restaurant on there, which normally would require one per 60 or, you know, a frac -- significantly more than one to 250, and -- or the greater of one for every two seats. So I could put a restaurant with a million seats in there and provide a very, very small -- like one out of eight parking spaces that I normally would be required to have. There's a lot of things here that we well intended, because in a true mixed use where you have a lot of uses and it kind of mixes up, that's fine, but there's nothing to say here, for instance, that I have five little parcels and each one of these decides to become a little restaurant, and everybody kind of struggles with it. There's a lot of things here that haven't been thoroughly considered. I've made some comments that staff will have a chance to look at, hopefully, in the near term, and I'm sure there's going to be future LDC amendments, but at least for mixed-use projects, I think we really need that deviation process, and then also going back to that -- the first issue, which is basically, I'd love for our clients to be able to Page 148 January 5, 2006 preserve their rights under what they currently can do. You had a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you attend the meetings that developed this program with the CRA board and the other -- and Mr. Jackson's group? MR. FERNANDEZ: I've attended some meetings. I haven't been thoroughly immersed in this, only since our client retained us to start looking at some of these issues, and I'm representing a couple different landowners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did your client attend? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the input that you are now providing could have been provided at an earlier date. MR. FERNANDEZ: Actually, it was. Like I said, for instance, relative -- well, some of these issues, like the deviation request, well, the criteria wasn't presented to you until you got this packet. It was never presented, nor the methodology. So this is brand new, so it couldn't have been addressed before that. In terms of whether or not our property rights for, like, existing zoning, again, in public meetings, I was -- I believe that the general public had an opinion. And in talking at lunch with David Jackson, he agrees that essentially those in agreement say okay, look, if you've got C-4, C-5, C-3, we're not going to take your zoning away from you. You can opt to do that or you can opt in for this other. So now basically by just saying yes, you can still do it, in other words, you can have the land uses, but by changing the development standards, you've really changed the -- what was understood by the public. So I think it's just morphed into something that the public's not aware of, those landowners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question. In the mixed-use approval process, is there anything preventing you from requesting Page 149 January 5, 2006 deviations during that process? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, actually, through that process, basically they're going to be evaluating against the code here. So I'm just saying, I want to make a provision that says that. And if I don't put it in there, then I'm going to be measured and I'm going to have to comply with the landscaping, the parking, everything that's in there, and there's going to be -- it just hasn't -- there's going to be a lot of unique things, small parcels, big parcels that are mixed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you feel that if you requested a deviation in that application, it is very clear, you're up front about it, staff would review it and make comment on it, it would go before the board, they would have to review to make comment on it, too, so wouldn't that be available anyway? MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't believe so. If there's no provision -- Catherine, maybe you can -- if there's no provision for deviation, I don't know that you can -- MS. FABACHER: Well, there is. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, for a variance, right? MS. FABACHER: No, no. I'm prepared to address it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. The intent was to go before the -- for the mixed-use approval process, the intent was to go before the BCC to have them determine intensity and allocate essentially bonus density units and make those decisions, okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: There may not even be any density bonus Issues. MS. FABACHER: Right. Now, when you're talking about intensity, you talk about the scenario with the four restaurants next to each other, the board would look at that, someone would come in and say, you've got too much intensity here for shared parking and for these low parking, and that would be a board issue that they considered based on their criteria. They're not to -- when you want to Page 150 January 5, 2006 get deviations, you do that at the site development plan level where you get an administrative deviation from staff. MR. FERNANDEZ: First of all, like the restaurant -- MS. FABACHER: It's written in 25 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, you can only speak one at a time, please. MS. FABACHER: Sorry. MR. FERNANDEZ: For the restaurant example, that's not a mixed use. It doesn't go to the board, okay? That's by right. It says I can put a restaurant on there, a little restaurant, and the guy next door can do it, and the guy next door can do it. It's a permitted use. I can put a restaurant, and that's my new parking requirements. It's not a mixed use, so it doesn't go to staff, it doesn't go to the public meetings, and it doesn't go to the board ultimately. You know, correct me if I'm wrong, but, you know, I can ask staff all day long for deviations, but if there's not a process specifically that says they can grant relief from landscape codes and so forth, their hands are tied. MS. F ABACHER: I believe there is an administrative process to give you relief to give reductions in parking. MR. FERNANDEZ: There's a few things, but this would give -- this would give a lot more latitude -- MS. F ABACHER: All right. But let me just -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- to the county. MS. F ABACHER: Let me just say this. You know, I mean, the whole point was to make this a quick process. Now, if we're going to turn it into a PUD where we have to go before the BCC with the entire site plan and have them critique all the elements -- we tried to eliminate that to let you just come basically before them with your conceptual plan, ask for a certain amount of intensity -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, I think we understand what Michael's argument is. MS. FABACHER: Got that? Okay. Page 151 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And why don't we just go on from here. Brad, you had another comment you wanted to make? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I had -- Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can go after Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mike, what you're saying is what you'd like to be able to do is that in these different zonings, there's geometry that the zoning has, setback height and everything. Once they're within this region, the overlay, they can't obtain that setback, because they're gone. They have to build according to the overlay, correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct, and not even the board has the ability to grant deviations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, that's actually the case right now with the existing overlay. MR. FERNANDEZ: With the existing overlay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, there's -- MR. FERNANDEZ: But the existing -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- phrases in there that are saying -- you know, that 2A says exactly that, that, you know, you have to go by the overlay and whatever your zoning is. I mean, look at page 13, 2A. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I mean, there's lands there now that are not part of or subject to the overlay that are being included now that are going to be part of this. And certainly, for instance, restaurants aren't covered the same way that they would be under these new provisions. But that's just a couple items. In terms of like a review process, the City of Naples has a general development site plan review process that they process in three months, and it has the full gamut, and you submit drawings, and it goes to that review. So it can be a complete process and done quickly and you can grant deviations from it. MR. SCHMITT: And I -- Page 152 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can I -- Mr. Murray -- Bob was next, Joe. Could you let him finish. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just -- just to clear something in my mind. The way -- and you gave us this example as your approach. My recommendation to you, if I have it right, from what you've said, you seem to have decided to go to the county first, and then you would go to a public meeting and the CRA. My recommendation, if you're going to bring this forward, which is questionable, but you ought to, in the spirit of cooperation, it would seem to me logical to go first to the CRA advisory board or to the responsible parties, bounce it off of them, and then go through the process rather than the other way, because what if the community who is supporting this whole thing doesn't like this idea? You put yourself at odds with them. Now, that's just a recommendation and premised on the assumption that I had it -- that I heard you correctly. MR. FERNANDEZ: I mean, that -- I think that's fine. Normally every consultant loves to do that if his client allows him. For instance, this particular project, we vetted it out with a lot of people, and it's a fairly detailed site plan that we've been working under, but we couldn't develop that site plan right now because we couldn't meet these limitations that are part of this overlay, that would prohibit developing a large parcel of property right now. We couldn't take advantage of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the merits of it I'm not questioning. I'm just talking about process. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, did you have -- MR. SCHMITT: Well, first of all, I think Michael's mixing apples and oranges. We do not have a design review board like the city does. We do not bring in the SDPs for public vetting. Certainly if the board wants to go that direction, that's a board decision, but I guess we would have to schedule this board Monday through Friday from Page 153 January 5, 2006 nine o'clock in the morning till Friday at five o'clock at night. That's the different volume of work we deal with. You're talking about presenting to the board a detailed site plan for them to review and review the criteria associated with the deviations. Right now the process is -- that's not what -- this process, as Catherine pointed out, is not that. We're not bringing a detailed site plan that -- those things are done administratively in the review aspect, or the reviews by staff. So I guess in the short of this, Mr. Chairman, a good proposal, but I think it's something if we want to pursue, we need -- staff needs time to digest this, look at it. And I would say we move this to the next cycle at the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the board's had enough input on this matter, so -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Joe, I'd make one quick comment on that. I mean, I don't have a problem with just staff reviewing it. In other words, if the Board of County Commissioners is going to review a conceptual site plan, and then staff wants to take on the burden of deviations like they did with Mercato, then why not? MR. SCHMITT: But we already have existing processes for administrative variances and deviations. If you exceed the dimensional limits, then it has to go through the board through a board action. And I'm sorry, that's the criteria in the code. What you're asking for -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm just asking what other projects got. MR. SCHMITT: -- is for the board to give staff more authority in dealing with dimensional variances and deviations, and I've got to tell you, I have one petition coming before the board Tuesday that may turn the pendulum completely the other way and take more of it away from us than what we currently have, so -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: -- I'm just -- I don't know if this board's ready Page 154 January 5, 2006 for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Michael. MR. FERNANDEZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there one other speaker? County-- oh, wait a minute. Not that side. The dark side's coming up. MR. WHITE: Yes, the dark side in the form of Patrick White, with the firm of Porter, Wright, Morris, and Arthur. I have no client that I'm representing today; however, I'd like to make a few observations, if I may, and, perhaps, a suggestion, and look for some confirmation about the process here. I'd start out by noting that notwithstanding what Mr. Schmitt and Ms. Fabacher have said, I think everybody who's looked at these provisions, in particular the devised definitions for Bayshore mixed-use district will agree that what it says under mixed-use approval process is that it's a process that pertains to mixed-use site development plan submittals, SDP plan submittals. And I agree that there's the notion that the provisions that talk about the mixed-use approval process speak in terms of a conceptual site plan. I think what Mr. Fernandez was suggesting was that it may be appropriate for those applicants who want to go through this broad-based mixed-use process and have those degrees of detail for their plans, but recognize as a result of having done that detailed work, they need some type of a relief or deviation, why would that be anything that should be inconsistent with what the Board of County Commissioners otherwise does when it considers deviations as part of a PUD? Now, I acknowledge that PUDs are at the point on the development cycle time line where uses are being authorized along with design, but here it's just site development plan design. And if you've got a detailed enough plan and you can make the determination based upon the criteria that are being provided for deciding a deviation, it sounds to me like that's the appropriate place to do it, that Page 155 January 5, 2006 it's not an addition beyond what the staff itself has proposed in terms of the mixed-use approval process, being a site development plan reVIew. That's just an observation. So I offer that for your consideration, as well as the staffs. It sounds like there was a bit of a dialogue and difference of opinion when it seemed to me that they were really more consistent than not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you're saying though, Patrick, isn't it -- and you're trying to tell us that basically the process that's already in place in this document provides for a deviation simply by the fact you're going before the BCC with a detailed plan of some sort in which you could include the deviation request within that process? Is that -- MR. WHITE: I think it makes sense to subsume the deviation process within the request. And that if you otherwise want to use the word I think that the staff uses when it looks at site development plan requests administratively, and there are things that they believe ought be altered that an applicant asks for, those, I think, are called exceptions. And I think Tom Kuck had some degree of latitude in that regard. And I think what Mr. Fernandez was suggesting was, he'd like to have that same type of discretion but he wants to put it into the public hearing process. Set some criteria, create the process, add it in as part of the mixed-use approval process, which is already site development plan design based. So it just seemed to me that it was the right place for it, and I don't know that it swings the pendulum in any further direction or distance than what's already being proposed at the beginning of today. So that's just an observation. The only reason I bothered to fill out a speaker request is because -- concern about things that I've heard about the process itself generally today and to be able to advise a client who's asked me about Page 156 January 5, 2006 a particular legal issue. And my understanding in reading through these things is that if you are anything other than a conditional use listed in one of the BMUD subdistricts, then you're allowed to go forward as a permitted use, just straight to SDP, unless you're one of these mixed use proj ects. And if you're a mixed-use project, then you have to go before the board and submit your site development plan. And if that's, indeed, the case, I think I can pretty easily just get someone to confirm that that's, indeed, the way the process is going to operate. I can probably get out of your hair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's a reasonable request. Can someone from staff confirm that the only processes through this Bayshore mixed-use district will be -- that it will have to go before the BCC, are the mixed-use process and the conditional uses, if any are applied for? MS. F ABACHER: It was the intent in -- and I'm going to need some help from my colleagues -- intent in drafting this. We replaced the opt-in process, which was kind of -- you filed a piece of paper, and then the next -- you went to your SDP, and then the next day the neighborhood saw your building go up. So the intent to go from the opting into the mixed use was to give a public participation aspect to it. But at the same time, staff was of the opinion that when you passed the overlay you're not rezoning properties to NC and all these others, that you would have to do the mixed-use process on the mixed-use districts. MR. SCHMITT: But I think the question -- MS. FABACHER: To be mixed use. MR. SCHMITT: Well, I think the-- MS. FABACHER: To be an NC, to be an NC. MR. SCHMITT: But it does not prohibit you from going through any other process, the GMP amendment or coming in under the straight zoning that currently exists. You can still apply and come in Page 157 January 5, 2006 under that zoning. So, I guess, is that what you're asking? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm trying to get to the very simple question. The district -- if you want to go with a mixed use -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or you want to go as a conditional use to any of the underlying zoning, for those two purposes and those two purposes only you have to go to the BCC and go through that process. Any others, it's by right. Is that where we're at? MS . MURRAY: It operates just like any other zoning district. You have a list of permitted conditional. I think the only thing different here is, that if you're in the neighborhood commercial subdistrict or the BMUD waterfront subdistrict, then you've got to go through the MUP approval process if you want to use those uses. MR. WHITE: And if I understand what Susan said, I agree with what she's saying if she'll accept the notion that, you have to be mixing uses, which I take from the purpose and intent section, which is under 2.03.07, capital letter 1(1), small letter a, on page 13 of your packet, kind of in the middle of the paragraph there, the left edge starts with the words, a mix of, and then it says, commercial uses, including retail and office. I'm assuming that's not a finite and complete list, there's maybe others. And then it says, and civic amenities and residential uses. Well, the mix of uses there would seem to be commercial ones with residential ones, and the idea that you could also, if you were going to add in civic amenities, whatever those may be, that that is a mixed-use project. Nowhere else is that phrase specifically defined, but I think we've all been talking in terms of the general planning notion that mixed use means a series of commercial mixed with some other series of residential uses. And in specific, I think that's what 2.03.07, capital I talks about for the mixed-use approval process. MS. FABACHER: Well-- Page 158 January 5, 2006 MR. WHITE: And those are specific to NC and W subdistricts. MS . MURRAY: Correct. If you're -- I think if I hear what you're saying correctly, you're asking if the definition of mixed use includes residential and some other use other than residential, that mixed use would not be comprised of commercial land, light industrial, for example, or commercial and civic. There would have to be a residential component, is that -- MR. WHITE: I think the general notion is that would be true in a planning context. But here it seems that for Bayshore, there seems to be a desire to have some set of commercial mixed with some set of residential. Kind of a TND, traditional neighborhood design concept. More generally I think what Susan's saying is also true, that mixed use could include any combination of commercial with industrial, industrial with residential, residential with either of those, and that is true. But here I think the rules that are being proposed by the county are ones that talk in terms of just commercial mixing with residential. And assuming that's the case and it's limited to just the NC subdistrict and W subdistrict, those are the ones that only have to go through the mixed-use approval process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the case from staff? MS. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. MS. FABACHER: I'm sorry. But are you looking at number seven on page 1 7 where it says, permitted accessory and conditional uses? It says, for properties located within the BMUD and C. or BMUD W, districts, permitted, accessory and conditional uses shall be in accordance with the underlying zoning district except in an approved mixed-use project. When MUP approval has been granted, permitted uses shall be in accordance with. So we anticipated under Page 159 January 5, 2006 this process that you would have to go for mixed-use approval if you wanted to get the uses in NC and W in these two tables. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you want any of the uses listed in the NC commercial subdistrict or the BMUD waterfront subdistrict, you have to go through the mixed-use process, which is a process before the Board of County Commissioners? And the other -- only other time you would need to go before the BCC is if you wanted an underlying conditional use to the original zoning? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that's the criteria we're trying to find out. MR. WHITE: Well, I don't want to disagree with Ms. Fabacher, but the phrase is in there on the fourth line, page 17, under number seven is, except in an approved mixed-use project, which tells me that first you have to be a mixed-use project, which we've, just a moment ago, recognized means commercial mixed with residential. My point is, if I have a client who wants to come in and is just a commercial or a residential use that's permitted otherwise by right in either of those subdistricts, that they do not have to go through the mixed-use approval process. But just like any of the other subdistricts in the overlay that are P, that you go straight to site development plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was my understanding. Is that staffs position? MS. MURRAY: I'm going to have to ask for clarification from Catherine, because you wrote it. Sorry to put you on the spot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why are we going through an overlay with all this detailed zoning and criteria if it isn't to provide uses by right rather than have to go through this whole process again every time we go into a separate piece of property? I would assume we're doing it to be efficient. MR. WHITE: I understand that there's a provision, you know, kind of back on page 13 that says if you go through the mixed-use Page 160 January 5, 2006 approval process, and effectively you got what you asked for, that whatever underlying zoning district uses you may have had, those are truncated. Those are kind of cut off. You're effectively electing yourself out of that, and that is 3( d), small letter d on page 15. I said 13 but I meant 15. So I understand that that happens for those two subdistricts when you get mixed-use approval. But other than that, I don't understand that the result would be anything other than if you have something that has a P next to it and it's a single use in any of the subdistricts in the overlay, that you're entitled to go straight to site development plan, you have to meet whatever the additional criteria are for site design that are specified if you're in NC or W, and there may be some that more generally apply throughout the overlay district as well that I'm not familiar with. But accepting those things, you know, kind of being willing to do those things, I think it's just straight to the administrative site development plan review, and the staff will apply those additional standards if they're appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need to get to the bottom of it. Mr. Jackson, did you have a comment on this? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. I'm not sure where Catherine is -- you know, or David's going to go on this, but the intent from when we drafted the overlay was that the mixed uses, yes, when you're mixing different types of uses, of which one of the major components would be the residential side -- I'm not too concerned about the civic side. If you have a site that's vacant, a piece of land, or a building that has a preexisting building that's vacant and somebody wants to come in and develop or put in a business that is in compliance with that underlining land use, let's say it's C-4 and it's an existing building, he wants to put a grocery store in there, an existing building, not mixing any other uses with it, that it would go directly to the SDP process and not be through this MUP process. Well, if he has a vacant lot and he wants to build a 10,000 square Page 161 January 5, 2006 foot metal building and put in his small machine shop, not mixing anything else, he goes straight to the SDP process. However, if that machine shop guy later wants to come on and put a second story on and add residential, he's back into the MUP process again. That's the way I see the intent, and it's over to staff. Now, if I'm different from where they see it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're wrong, I think we're all thinking wrong, because that's along the lines I've been trying to think. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I ask a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, when you gave that explanation, you gave sole uses. But you also agree that if he wanted to mix uses that were allowed in the underriding zoning, he could go straight to SDP, too? In other words, he could be mixing already allowed uses. In other words, your example of, I guess, a lawn mower shop repair, let's sayan office -- I don't know. I mean, but in other words, just the fact that he's mixing uses isn't the issue. The fact that he wants to get uses that are in addition to what the underlying zoning allows? MR. JACKSON: Correct. Ifhe's got a small strip mall in there and he gets a machine shop, an office and hairdressing place, it's all allowed by C-3 or C-4. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. JACKSON: It's only when he wants to add a use that is not under that C-4, would be an R, or residential designation or public institutional wants to put a library in there, then he's mixing the uses that is not allowed by the underlying use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we used to have -- remember we had Ibid (phonetic) Hall of Fame where we used to have a statement that said that, you know, you could get the residential -- you know, you had to do a mixed use to get residential and commercial or commercial and residential. I mean, we say it another Page 162 January 5, 2006 way now. MR. JACKSON: It's said in a much more concise way that the staff put together that says, yeah. And when you start taking a piece of commercial property and you start reaching out and bringing in some residential property as part of that project, I don't know if that -- and it's a single use. I don't know how staff would look at it. But to me it would still be -- it's still single use, and it would -- because the residential seems to be the thing that we're really concerned about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, can you salvage this? MR. WEEKS: Yeah, let me give you what my take is on it, and hopefully my colleagues will tell me where they disagree. For properties within the neighborhood commercial or waterfront subdistrict, they have two choices. Choice one is, I'm going to develop per my underlying zoning district. That means I go to the LDC, and whatever uses are allowed in my underlying zoning, whether it's C-5, C-l, RSF, whatever it is, that's how I'm going to develop that piece of property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By submission of an SDP, right? MR. WEEKS: SDP, subdivision plat, whatever the normal SDP process -- LDC process is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: If I want to do mixed-use development, then I must go through this mixed-use approval process which will, amongst other things, limit me to the intensity of commercial uses of no greater than C-l, C-2 and C-3. I think David just alluded to -- David Jackson, that we previously had the numerous footnotes throughout, and they were saying, you can only do this use if you're doing a mixed-use project. Well, we did away with all of that by concisely stating, if you're going to do mixed use, here's the process you have to go through and, as Catherine pointed out, paragraph seven on page 17, if you're doing a mixed-use project, then, and only then, you go to table one and table two to see Page 163 January 5, 2006 what the various uses would be allowed under that mixed-use project scenario, moving away -- well -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask a question. And in both cases you build your building to the design parameters of the N C or the waterfront? MR. WEEKS: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: And the third scenario we talked about much earlier in today's hearing, that those properties within the activity center, which aren't limited at all by the uses in this subdistrict, those also would be subj ect to the development standards over in chapter four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any questions of David from the panel? I appreciate your input, David. That has helped to clarify. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. I think Mr. White was talking about, that if your -- if your property is underlying C-3 but you now have NC over it, he's saying that -- he's asking if you can go and use the things on table two here, the special table and the special mixed-use uses, without getting a mixed-use approval, if you don't have a mixed use. That's what -- I think that's what we're talking about. Because, I mean, I agree on underlying zoning. If you meet the underlying zoning, you just go to SDP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Patrick, you're going to have to reclarify what your question is, because I certainly would like an answer. I'm dismayed that this has gone all these months and a simple question as to what needs to go through a process and what doesn't can't be answered by staff. I thought that would be -- something that could easily be resolved by that. Well, there seems to be a conflict already. MR. WHITE: I think that the conflict, if there is one, is in how the staff intends to have this apply and what may be presently written. Page 164 January 5, 2006 If the staff intends effectively for any single permitted use, whether residential or commercial, in NC or W to not be allowed as a matter of right, that has to be expressly stated. It is not stated presently, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that per the tables? I think that's where the question is. I think staffs already said -- and I'm -- that if you want to use a use on the underlying zoning district, C-3, C-4, whatever it is, you can do that by going right through the SDP process. But if you want to use a use from the table and use the NC waterfront standards of those tables, then that's where the question seems to be, and I'm not sure what the question is. MR. WHITE: And I know that Catherine pointed us to that provision in subsection seven. In itself, has in it, as I mentioned a few moments ago, an exception that says, you've got to be a mixed-use proj ect. So I'm left with a lack of understanding of how we get to the place where a single-use project, which is not by definition a mixed-use project, is somehow precluded from having permitted by right status where there's a P in the column for NC or W -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: -- so that they could go straight to SDP, nor am I aware what the rationale is for that because I haven't heard it yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand your question better now, and I think it's a legitimate question. MS. FABACHER: And let me say this, it says that you have to go through the mixed-use approval process. It doesn't say that you have to be mixed use, as Mr. White has interpreted it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But his question is the process. You have to -- if you want to do a single use in one of those tables, a single commercial use in one of those tables and not a mixed use with residential, just a single commercial use, do you have to go through the mixed-use process? Page 165 January 5, 2006 MS. F ABACHER: I'm going to defer to David. MR. WEEKS: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. WEEKS: Absolutely not. That table -- tables one and two only apply when you're doing a mixed-use process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then I think we've resolved the . Issue. Mr. White, did that answer your question? MR. WHITE: If there's no clarification from other staff, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Mark, let me just say one thing. David, if a guy mixed two allowable uses, would that ever be confused as a mixed-use project? MR. WEEKS: Not in my opinion, absolutely not. That goes back to the underlying zoning, so I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mixing two underlying zones. MR. WEEKS: -- could take 10 uses, if my zoning is C- 3 and I have 10 different uses allowed by C- 3 that I want to do on that property -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mix them up. MR. WEEKS: -- good for you. Go through the straight normal nonmixed-use approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You guys have pulled all my teeth. Let's go on and see if we can finish this up today. Is there any other public speakers? MR. WHITE: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MS. FABACHER: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing that, I would like the board to make a recommendation concerning the Bayshore mixed-use district, and that's the section we just got through dealing with that Page 166 January 5, 2006 went from page 13 to page 56. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There was some -- if I may, Mr. Schiffer, Commissioner Schiffer, brought up the question under the tables in the old book, page 46 versus the new book. He said some things were left out. Do you recall that, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. It was mixed use, and I'm comfortable that that's covered under-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're comfortable. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- residential. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But there were -- okay. If you're comfortable, all right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it was multi-family. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I'm happy if you're happy. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm happy. Dave's the guy we've got to make happy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There has been a series of corrections or suggestions made to staff as we've gone along. There's been one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, about two dozen different corrections made. They've involved issues all the way from the density issue of suggesting charging and proportioning units and allocating to affordable housing, to foundation plantings and landscaping issues and having staff provide Mr. Schiffer with their rebuttal to his comments, and also whatever rebuttal they have, make sure they present that to the BCC in deference to Mr. Schiffer's request for corrections. All those things taken into consideration, does anybody on this panel have a recommendation they'd like to put forth for this particular portion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I would make a recommendation if you would recite the particulars, if you have them written down. Page 167 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All 24 of them? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We have to. There's no other way to do this. MS. MURRAY: Mr. Strain, if it would help, we have them written down. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have them written down. Does that satisfy everybody? MS. MURRAY: I need some clarification on the fee one though. What I had written down was four -- five out of eight of the CCPC members wish to have a fee associated with the bonus density units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. MURRAY: And that was my last note, that I didn't know if you wanted to expand on that or had details that I missed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there are two other issues involving the units. It was the expression that I thought was the majority, or all of us, that there was some concern about how the units should be proportioned. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Equity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not all go to one player, as an example. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other concern that needed to look at some way of implementing affordable or gap type housing in with the mix. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that was the consensus. If anybody on this panel is disagreeing, please speak up. But I think that was all part of our discussion that we would like to go forward as a discussion to the BCC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Marjorie wants you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. I just wanted a clarification Page 168 January 5, 2006 on the issue of the fee or charge, or whatever you wish to call it, for the bonus units, that that would be a recommendation to have that studied further because we'd need to do that in order to write it in here, and I thought that -- that's what my understanding was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the recommendation is that a fee be established. Now how that happens, I'm not -- you know, we have a legal department that should be supplying legal opinions. If they want to send it out and get more studies, that's up to the board to let them do that. But as far as I'm concerned, we're looking at -- this board and a majority of votes suggested looking at a fee. How that's done is up to the board. I mean, we're just going to suggest that to them as well. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just to clarify about the -- you know, that since we have a substantially working-class neighborhood now and, you know, what we've -- I've also been asking the question lately, what does this do for affordable housing? And I don't want to see this end up accelerating the loss of affordable housing stock in this neighborhood. So what can, you know, we do to keep the proportion of affordable housing mix similar to what it is now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's in reference to the additional density? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. And I think that's where we're all coming from, too, Paul. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And the fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And did you have any other -- I mean, Susan, at some point -- I've made notes. I'll be glad to supply them to you. MS. MURRAY: I have a ton of notes. If you want to give me a copy of yours, I could compare that. It may be helpful just in case, but Page 169 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I better type it first. You'll never read it. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then, Mark, you'll check to make sure that everything is in, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I'll meet with -- I'll sit with Susan and we'll go over the issues and make sure they get -- or Catherine, whoever's making the changes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I made a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There is, and you've got a motion on the floor. What he made, and then he asked you to give him the details, now it came from over here. I think we have a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The motion has been made to recommend approval subj ect to the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Recommend approval, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- subject to changes that-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Recitation unnecessary because it's already included within the notes and the various -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, second by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. Page 170 January 5,2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One down. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could we just go ditto on the next one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes and no. There's a few things that are a little different, but I assume we can do most of it. And Mr. Jackson, or Catherine, whoever's the most authoritative on this, I believe almost all the issues that we've talked about this morning and through now apply equally to the Gateway Triangle mixed-use district. Okay. Does anybody on this panel have a disagreement with that? I think we always intended this as the whole thing. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there -- I have a few, but are there from other board members, any other issues regarding the Gateway Triangle that are different issues than appeared in the Bayshore? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I think I have just a few that I might want to ask. And I think one of them, Mr. Jackson, you guys already brought up on page 83, side yards, all other, and there's two numbers in the copy I have. One is highlighted and one is not. It says, zero 10 feet minimum. I was wondering if you mean zero to 10 -- to 10 feet, and the highlighting just didn't get the word to in there. MR. JACKSON: It's zero or 10 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that -- we need to insert the word "or" there. MR. JACKSON: Right. A little bit more of an urban scape that could go to zero lot lines, of which many buildings are already that way, or 10 feet to add the landscaping or for the access to parking in the rear. Page 171 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I -- did I hear 87, somebody say 87? COMMISSIONER CARON: Eighty-seven, same, same. MR. JACKSON: Correct, the word "or" did not get inserted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 83, Mr. Jackson, same page. You've got the 12 units per acre in the minitriangle. Is that 12 units per acre limited to the use from the 388 density bonus units? MR. JACKSON: The way it is stated in the growth management plan or the future land use, it says 12 units are authorized in the minitriangle area, and it specifies it as that portion of the triangle that goes between 41, Davis, and Commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So these would not come from the 388 density bonus. MR. JACKSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Weeks, guess what? We need you to comment on this, and you're looking puzzled. We're on page 83 of the Gateway. We're talking about the 12 units per acre that apparently are now applicable to the minitriangle that do not come out of the 388 density bonus units that we previously discussed. MR. WEEKS: Did you say, do not come out of? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we just found out. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what they're telling us. MR. WEEKS: That's where Mr. Jackson and I have a disagreement. MR. JACKSON: In fairness is, we're reading English language as typed, black and white, but the way I understand the words to mean, it's that the minitriangle, when this was written, had 12 units per acre for a mixed-use project. That's why it was designated as a catalyst project in the plan and it detailed exactly what it had. And it also followed on in your conversation, Mr. Adelstein, Mr. Murray, about height. It also said it was exempt from any of the other four- and three-story height limitations because it was a catalyst Page 172 January 5, 2006 project, thereby it got 12 units per acre and it was allowed to be developed as whatever the set standards we wanted for height and setbacks, et cetera. And then that's the way I read the English language as printed. And as I understand also from a person that was involved -- I don't know Mr. Weeks' involvement in the drafting of this language when it was drafted in '99, 2000 and approved, was that was the intent, that that was such a significant point of land or piece of land within the Gateway CRA area that it needed to have special rules, criteria for redevelopment, otherwise it would never be offered. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You don't mean that you construe that that is could build a 30-story building there. MR. JACKSON: No. Well, we put -- no. It was -- I mean, if it developed now under the C-4 status, they could go up to 75 feet. We put in here -- and we put in limitations. And it's the limitations on the height, actual and zoned height, was based on non-scientific computations of what it would cost to be able to make it profitable for that catalyst area to be redeveloped. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a moving target. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you comment on the 12 units per acre, because this does contradict what we were previously told about the 12 units per acre, so -- MR. WEEKS: First -- thank you, David, for, I guess, setting the stage. He's absolutely correct that a plain reading and the intent when it was adopted in 2000, December of 2000, was that the minitriangle would be allowed the 12 unit per acre and it would not be subject to the density pool. So why am I standing here telling you different? Because frankly we as staff goofed -- I'm hesitant to say the board did, because I don't think they were aware of this. Earlier in the year 2000 when we adopted amendments to the Page 173 January 5, 2006 future land use element and map, the coastal high hazard boundary changed, and it used to run right along U.S. 41 east. Being that the minitriangle is on the north side, it was outside of the coastal high hazard area. The error on staffs part was when we took this overlay and the future land use element to the board for adoption in December, we failed to recognize that change in the boundary. The boundary actually runs from the east, runs along U.S. 41, until you get to Airport Road and then goes north, which means this minitriangle is within the coastal high hazard area. So it really is going to come down, I believe, to an interpretation. Now we have this -- the plain reading of the language saying, yes, you're allowed 12 units per acre. And by implication -- if not, certainly the intent was that you are not subject to this density pool, but that conflicts with what I would call a pretty clear mandate from the Board of County Commissioners that they don't want to see increased density within the coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many acres are in this minitriangle? MR. JACKSON: The entire area is a little over 14 acres, 14 plus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 168 units. MR. JACKSON: Correct. And the way I understand in talking with people of the legal -- cut of the legal cloth is that this is -- you know, this is passed, this is law, this is what it is. And if we don't want to -- it to be what it is, then you need to change it. But it is what it is right now, therefore, there's 12 units for that 14 acres because it says it's so. And to not allow us to go forth and address it for what it is as it is in stated legal language and approved in the overlay, I don't know that that is what applicable -- I'm trying to look for a word here to not be condescending or derogatory. But it says that it has it. It says it has 12 units with development standards to be approved by the Board of Page 174 January 5, 2006 County Commissioners at a later time. It is what it is, otherwise, my counterpoint to Mr. Weeks is, change it. Take the two years to do it, but right now I've got it what it is. And if I can get a catalyst project in there under these guidelines, I would like to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the true value is that you have 388, plus what'd you say, 168? That's the totality of those units, and those equate to a value. We're starting to get up to some heavy numbers, I would think. MR. JACKSON: Well, sir, please remember that the 388 would have been developed there anyway. Those were already there. Those are not affordable units on top of anything. Those were by right. If the Botanical Gardens had developed by Sable Bay or Botanical Place, those 388 units would be on that virgin land right now, okay. So you can't throw the 388 in there and come -- now, the 168 for these 14 acres, if all 14 acres are assembled, is true. That is -- that is on top of. So the number we're looking at is a maximum of 168, if Mr. Strain's math was there right. But that is if and only if all 14 acres are assembled, and that may not happen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Let's just go back to the coastal high hazard. This is right on the perimeter of that line, correct? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, it's inside. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's inside now. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's got changes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But wait a minute, doesn't the -- it runs down Davis Boulevard, correct? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It runs down Airport. Page 175 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It goes up Airport, does some jogging, and then comes down Davis. MR. JACKSON: No, I think the -- I've got the picture of the map. I believe it goes straight up Airport-Pulling and does it -- take a dogleg over Davis Boulevard, and then follows the Bay, I believe. MR. WEEKS: It goes up Airport, up to the vicinity of, I think, north of Poinciana Village neighborhood, and then is starts jogging to the west. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is this on the perimeter of that line, or is it well within? MR. JACKSON: It's on the perimeter. MR. WEEKS: Well within, because in this area the boundary runs up Airport-Pulling Road. The triangle is over at the -- is formed by Davis Boulevard, U.S. 41, and Commercial Drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is your EAR-based amendments going to fix this? MR. WEEKS : Yes. Yes, it will, but I should mention that the issue, I think, is -- from a staff point is over. Marjorie has opined that basically -- well, tell them. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The intent at the time the amendment to the comprehensive plan passed is what controls under the law. And I believe that that intent, Mr. Weeks explained to you, was that in the mini triangle or the Gateway Triangle -- MR. WEEKS: Minitriangle. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- that those 12 units were on top and didn't come out of the density pool. And it's the intent that controls. And since the CHHA has changed, this would be appropriate to be taken care of in the EAR. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Controlled to what level? How many units would there be per acre? MR. WEEKS: So what I'm telling you is the staff position is, to agree with Mr. Jackson, that the 12 unit per acre for the minitriangle is Page 176 January 5, 2006 not coming out of that bonus density pool unless and until the time comes when the board should change the future land use element to say to the contrary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you're doing through EAR-based amendments when they come up. MR. WEEKS: Being proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then they'll do what? They'll take -- they'll add these units to the base units, the 288 (sic), or they'll take them out for sure? MR. WEEKS: The proposal would be to make the minitriangle bonus -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exempt from -- MR. WEEKS: -- part of -- no, part of the density pool, because it is in the coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would take away the additional 168? That's what the EAR-based amendment would do. That's what the BCC directed when they said, remove all density bonuses except for X. There's a few they left in. They left one in, affordable housing or something, didn't they? MR. WEEKS: Even that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's coming out, okay. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Strain, I don't think the board was specifically aware of this bonus provision. I wouldn't want to say that they included that necessarily, but because it's clear at the broad level they're very concerned about density in the coastal high hazard area. We want to bring that to their attention. So we, as staff, are proposing that that density bonus pool be used for that minitriangle and see what the board says. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This wasn't one that was mentioned because it wasn't brought up. MR. WEEKS: Correct. Page 177 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's going to be no units in that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Scott, I hate to wake you up. I know you're nodding off back there, and I don't blame you. You had previously -- I'd like to ask one question. You had previously said that you had weighed in and acknowledged that the 388 were in the concurrency or you had to allocated for those. MR. SCOTT: It was in the long-range plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. What's the additional 168 we're now talking about? MR. SCOTT: I'm not particularly sure. I checked on the others, but I'm not sure about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sorry to bother you. That's all I wanted to know. Well -- MR. JACKSON: Mr. Strain, I would like to leave this portion of this in the overlay, Gateway overlay, and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners with your comments on there about the EAR-based amendments and what's going to be in the future. And at their discretion, since they did not know that this was -- bonus density units allocation was there, let them discuss it at that time, and a review of this document, and decide what they were going to do with it. And I know that the five commissioners are now aware of the extra bonus density in that triangle and that they will be keen on discussing it when it gets forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm sure that -- well, that could be an option, but we also have the ability to comment on it, and I think we generally tend to do those things. MR. JACKSON: I don't have any problem with comments on it. I would like to leave it in and forward it with your comments and recommendations.C Page 178 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can only recommend anyway. So we told you to take it out, you really didn't have to do it. We just recommend it. MR. JACKSON: Oh, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as 12 units go, that's with the base underlying zoning then, not to mention in this document, it still stays with the base underlying zoning until the EAR-based amendments take it away. By additionally mentioning it in this document, I think you emphasized the presence of it and emphasized the fact that it's going to have to be dealt with in the EAR and we may have more of a problem taking it out by putting it in twice. Maybe we're better off not including it in here. MR. JACKSON: I appreciate your point of view. My point of view is, based on what I'm hired to do, I want this in the overlay. And I need it as part of what we're going to do and what the overall master plan is for that area, in the Gateway area. The mini triangle is a key catalyst project. I'd like to leave it in and then work on taking it out or having it denied at the BCC level. But for me, this is my job. I need this language in here for me to do my job, and that's what I'd like to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Are there any other comments from the board? Why don't we get the consensus on this so that when we finish this document, we can decide on what to do. Any COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we can't make a motion. I just want to get a consensus, because at the end we'll make a motion that will cover the whole thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I realize that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to say, I really support Dave in what he's saying. I mean, first of all, those units that Page 1 79 January 5, 2006 are in there aren't going to go very far anyway. So, you know, the illusion we have of what the -- if we close our eyes and picture the neighborhood, joke's on us because we're not going to have that much residential anyway. So I definitely think anything to keep the density up in that's extremely important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: I've made myself very clear a million times on what I feel about density in the coastal high hazard area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does that mean that you're not in favor of this 12 units per acre? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not in favor of the 12 units per acre in the minitriangle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My position, I already stated, I think it's already there as an underlying zoning. Until the underlying zoning's changed, I don't see why we need to emphasize it any further, especially knowing it's in the CHHA. We're just kind of compounding a negative. Lindy? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I tend to agree with Donna, that this is not a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Paul, we're weighing in on the 12 acres additional in the minitriangle. What's your thoughts on it? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm a little bit confused because I don't think we should have a real high density in the coastal high hazard area, but I don't want to do anything that's legally wrong. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I won't know what to do with that, but anyway. Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you know, likewise, now, I associate the coastal high hazard area with the affordable housing issue. We know we have density but we know we have problems with Page 180 January 5, 2006 hurricanes and the like. So, quite frankly, I'm with Donna, and I'm of the opinion that the -- probably you can use them, but, perhaps, it would be best if they were not there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I also agree with Donna at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Russell? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I think they should stay there, be there, written in there, and that's what it is. I'm with Mr. Jackson. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me kind of -- here's the funny thing is that the coastal high hazard line is placed someplace. The units are happily there. The fickle line moves, and all of a sudden there's a horrible event that happens. I mean, they're still in the same place. I mean, first of all, they're going to be high-rise units. They're not going to be on the ground. They're not going to be susceptible to flooding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This document isn't going to remove those units. This document doesn't do anything to those units. All it does is add them instead of -- their underlying zoning stays in place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I think -- but what it does is it takes away from the potential in other parts of this neighborhood. One thing that is extremely important, is what Paul's saying, this is an affordable neighbor that is not going to be affordable anymore if we cream the density. It's going to be all high-end housing. We're going to wipe out the affordability of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the consensus on the board is five in favor, two against, one perplexed. How does that sound? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe that's true, perplexed (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to page -- and Brad, I think you stepped out. What we're trying to do is just hit the pages that we feel are different issues than what was in Bayshore. Page 181 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can -- there's a speaker in the bathroom, I could hear exactly what you're saying. I agree, everything that we did here should be transferred over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 92, I had -- I have two more, I think, and that's it. On page 92, number five, it talks about shared parking requirements shall be consistent with those provided in subsection 4.05.02, then it has an exception that the county manager and designee can approve or deny requests instead of the zoning and land development review director with the review by CDES administrator, Board of Zoning and Appeals or planning commission. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That just -- it's taken somebody-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Flip a coin. MR. JACKSON: That should have been all deleted, right? That highlight should have been deleted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. JACKSON: It's a wrong nomen -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good move. MR. JACKSON: It's a wrong nomenclature. MR. SCHMITT: It's some notes and some comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's all getting -- delete all the highlights. MR. SCHMITT: Those are notes and comments that should have been deleted. MR. JACKSON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number six, they're talking about a reduction in parking standards. This reduction -- the last sentence says, this reduction can apply when the site conditions do not allow the required parking to be physically feasible. Now -- and it's the county manager or his designee that can make this reduction. Usually you guy like criteria so you're not put in the hot seat. Do you feel the criteria being physically or unphysically Page 182 January 5, 2006 feasible is something you guys can rule by? MR. SCHMITT: The criteria is described in the administrative process, and so I think by applying that criteria, that's -- for the administrative parking variance, that's all we need. It's already in the code elsewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as you're-- MR. JACKSON: Paragraph six was also supposed to be deleted, and I think that was part of just working the computer to make it go, because we didn't want to put the 25 percent reduction in there. We wanted to work through the existing system that they've got in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wouldn't -- see, I think it would be better to have it removed. Does staff have any problem with that? MS. MURRAY: No, no problem. MR. JACKSON: No, we have discussed that. That was supposed to have been deleted, and as you can see it connects to paragraph five, so I think that it was a -- MR. SCHMITT: That makes paragraph seven, paragraph six. MR. JACKSON: -- a mouse error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other -- the last remaining item I have is page 97. Second line, it starts with county manager or his designee, then there's parentheses, normally the administrator or county development environmental services division. Why do we even have that parentheses in there? Who cares what it normally was. It's just, it is what it is. MR. JACKSON: That should be deleted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are all the comments I had on the Gateway. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 101? I'm not exactly sure what that is. It's a chunk of code out of another part of the LDC. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the thing we deleted earlier. Page 183 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, this is gone. MR. SCHMITT: That is the entire NIM process, neighborhood information meeting process, is what that is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But for just the triangle or for Bayshore also, or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in Bayshore, we discussed it and actually made changes to number two and number three. MS. MURRAY: Correct. MR. JACKSON: That's correct. It's chapter 10 in the LDC. And earlier I explained the intent was to make it a placeholder for all future mixed-use project overlays that came in, and tried to put language in there that allowed the neighborhood information meetings to be jointly conducted with whoever the local advisory board in the area was, if they so desired. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And all this other criteria for parking and everything makes sense there? In other words, six -- MR. JACKSON: Six A through F? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, if -- I'll catch up on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, are there any public speakers left for this? MS. FABACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me. I have one little omission to read into the record before you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go right ahead. MS. F ABACHER: It's just something that got changed in Bayshore but didn't get changed in Gateway. I'm on page 60 in Gateway. I'm under paragraph three of section three, the mixed-use approval process. At the very end, after it says environmental services division, it should read something that we added in; after the SD P has been approved, the applicant shall provide a legal description of the site, Page 184 January 5, 2006 and the approved proj ect shall be identified on the Collier County official zoning atlas map. We just didn't make the change here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Okay. With that I think we're ready to finally vote on the Gateway Triangle mixed-use district. The outstanding -- we had four or five additional comments. Susan, I assume you got all the comments. MS. MURRAY: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other issue that we have that we got a consensus on is the issue concerning the density. Five in favor of removing the 12 units per acre and two in favor of leaving it as it is. With that said and the comments on the record that Susan's kept track of, is there a motion to recommend or deny -- or recommend approval with the stipulations -- deny or whatever, with this particular COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. So moved what, Mr. Adelstein? Recommend approval out of the corrections and comments that we provided? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I was going to say it, so moved, if you'd let me finish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry. It was seconded. I thought you were done. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. And I understand that like our prior one, this is consistent with the growth management plan. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. I hope that's sufficient. Oh, Page 185 January 5, 2006 well. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Let's hope so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those -- any further discussions on the motion? (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? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We are done with the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle. Probably a very happy day for Mr. Jackson. MR. JACKSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir, for your patience. MR. JACKSON: Thank you for your time and your diligence. Your comments are well noted, and we'll make the corrections and get them forwarded through the staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have no old business. By the way, we are going to wrap up this hearing, close, take a break, and then go into a new hearing for the AUIR, and we should take a couple minutes to get there. So do we have any old business under this hearing? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd just like to say something. Joe, remember last time you asked us some things that maybe Page 186 January 5, 2006 this board could do instead of the BCC? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe you want to bring up in front of them, maybe we're the ones reviewing these -- you know, these mixed-use applications. And let me tell you why, because the BCC has gone through the compo plan and made allowance for it, they've done the overlay zoning, so they must trust that that's what they want in these neighborhoods, so maybe it would be just up to this board to discuss the -- you know, how these things, you know, became reality. MR. SCHMITT: You mean, what you just -- as part of the entire mixed-use overlay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's all designed. To get that mixed-use approval, you have to go before the BCC. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe that's something that the planning commission could handle because the BCC's put the overlay and zoning requirements on top of it anyway. MR. SCHMITT: It's worth bringing up to the Board of County Commissioners during the -- even during this amendment cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: As part of this amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, maybe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good idea. I mean, make a suggestion, if they want to use it. If they don't feel comfortable with it -- MR. SCHMITT: We will look at -- and make that suggestion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it really is a planning issue. It's roads, sidewalks, arguments over buffers. MR. SCHMITT: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Something that they don't enjoy, I'm sure. Page 187 January 5, 2006 The other thing is that all of the amendments we went through prior to this -- because this concludes cycle two for us, correct? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could the website be updated? It's -- like some of it's hanging back in August, some of it's in October. MR. Schmitt: The amendments themselves that are posted? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, can't we see -- in other words, we've made a movement on things, we've made changes to things. It would be nice to see what's gone before the commission, and that should be on the website, I believe. MR. SCHMITT: We'll get it updated. MS. FABACHER: We're sorry. We're just lagging behind, putting together all our packets. That's our very next step to update that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody's waiting for the AUIR, I can tell. This meeting's adjourned. We'll take a -- well, David, I'm sorry. MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry to interrupt. Mr. Chairman, point of clarification on the motion on the Gateway Triangle overlay as pertains to the mini triangle. Was the motion to not allow the 12 units in the minitriangle, or was it to make that 12 unit per acre subject to -- to the density pool, taken from that density pool? MS. FABACHER: Subject to the pool. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had all thought -- a lot of us had thought it was from the density pool, but the motion was made with the consensus not to support the 12 units being added. So however the Page 188 January 5, 2006 BCC wants to determine that. I think -- it was my assumption, probably the majority of this board, that 388 was already going to be applied anyway, and I'm not too concerned one way or the other. MR. SCHMITT: Clarification. What I thought you motioned was to take any reference of the 12 units an acre -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Out. MR. SCHMITT: -- out, right, because the underlying premise is that that density exists now. When the EAR-based amendment makes that change, there'll be no requirement then to go back and amend this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's correct. MR. SCHMITT: Is that clear, David? MR. WEEKS: Well, no, sir. The underlying zoning for the entire minitriangle is C-4. It has no density. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Zero. MR. WEEKS: Zero. So if your motion is to remove that provision that talks about the 12 unit per acre bonus, that means they're limited to commercial development only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or what they get out of 388. MR. WEEKS: Okay. So it is -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Unless they come in as a mixed use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the 388. COMMISSIONER CARON: With the 388. MR. WEEKS: Okay. So it would be subject to the pool. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's what the intent was. MS. FABACHER: I see what he's saying. MR. SCHMITT: I got it. Now I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now we're adjourned. Page 189 January 5, 2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:35 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Strain, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS Page 190