Loading...
CCPC Minutes 08/17/2006 R August 17, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 17, 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 Tor Kolflat Brad Schiffer Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff ABSENT: Paul Midney ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Planning Services Jeff Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 August 17, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good morning, everyone. This is a resumption of a meeting that was continued for the Land Development Code amendment cycle one. I'd like to start the meeting with a rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And it is sure good to see Ms. Caron today. If you could take roll. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, I will. It's good to be here. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here, yeah. 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: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is a 100 percent attendance today. This is great. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We're missing one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't -- Paul hides behind Donna sometimes. I can't see him. Page 2 August 17, 2006 I have some housekeeping items that we need to get through here first. The very first item on the agenda for my discussion is what we just received from Ray Bellows. And Ray, I sincerely thank you for doing this so efficiently, and I ask that you, on at least a monthly basis, give any new ones that come up. MR. BELLOWS: That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can keep the book current. MR. BELLOWS: My plan is to have them sent as soon as they're rendered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be just great, and I'll be asking you periodically. So just -- I mean, if there's nothing new, then just say so, but I want to make sure the record's clear as to what we're getting and not getting. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, these books show what the Planning Commission members need to know. These are official interpretations rendered by the zoning department over at the county in response to citizens' requests or landowner requests for clarification of the code. The reason that it's important for us to review these -- and they go back some years. In years past it was my understanding that when these were issued, if it involved a clarification that obviously needed to be clarified through an LDC amendment, staff would eventually, in their amendment cycles, include a clarification to that issue. I'm not sure that that's been a consistent process. And the intention of these is for this board not only to know what needs to come up in a possible Land Development Code amendment so that we don't have to worry about interpretations, but also for us to review them and see how other people are interpreting our intent. And if it's inconsistent with our intent, then maybe that needs to be discussed at this board, because we are one of the boards that does Page 3 August 17, 2006 recommend changes to the Land Development Code. So these are going to be very important. I'm going to hope that the members read these. And the older ones, we just have to assume, unless anybody knows from code review that they haven't been implemented into changes, but the newer ones especially, if there's anything there that any member of this board wants to discuss, wants to talk about or feels needs to be implemented in a change in code, then we need to bring it up. And we need to be more proactive in the way things come out with the code that we're dealing with here today. That's the first issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I talk? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern that I also have is I'd like to see, Ray, could these be somewhat posted on the website? Ideally if we could have a hyperlink from the section of code that they interpret, it would be wise. Because here's the concern is, the people who are using the code should be, you know, privy to any kind of decision that was made on interpretation of it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The county's in the process of revising and improving the website, and that has been a recommendation. I'll discuss it more with Susan Murray Istenes, but we'll make every effort to get it on the web. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now that it is documented -- now that we have it in book format, it might be real simple to at least PDF the book and put it -- and post it somewhere. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hyperlinks may be more complicated, but one step at a time we could get somewhere. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or just an index. Now, the concern is, some of these may be old and some of these may be irrelevant now, you know, because the code has changed to fix it. But I think if somebody went through it -- and when these happen, maybe Page 4 August 17, 2006 you have an index with a section of code so anybody who's reading the code can go to that index, see if there's ever been an interpretation, and then read the interpretation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, again, thank you very much. It's going to be a big help to us. We certainly appreciate you putting that together for us. MR. BELLOWS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So another issue I want to talk about is today's meeting. We have five issues to discuss today, and I will fill you in on what those are and then tell you the order that we intend to get into them based on who's present in the meeting today. This is not the order in which we're going to hear them, but I'll just give you the five issues so you know what we're talking about. One of the issues today will be the acronym and abbreviation issue that we've -- that Mr. Kolflat has -- has parted some -- or supplied some data on. The other issue's going to be the Bayshore/Gateway overlay. Another one will be the Copeland overlay. Another one will be activity center number 9 issues, and Mr. Pickworth is here for that. And the last one, not necessarily last one today, but the last one on the current list is the coloring -- the color issue. Now, there was another one that these members were told about involving transportation and setback issues. That's been withdrawn. That will not be heard today nor will it be heard this cycle. So as far as the order in which those five remaining items are heard today, the first one will be the activity center number nine, and Mr. Pickworth is here for that, and the second one will be Bayshore/Gateway, and that will be two of the -- two or three people are here for that. And then after that I'd like to go into whatever the public is here Page 5 August 17, 2006 for. Although, I'm looking at the public that's out there, and we just may go right into the abbreviations, the Copeland, and finally the color issue. We'll hold the color issue off till last because one of the citizens involved in writing that issue may be here about midmorning. I'm not sure we need to ask any questions of him. But if he's here at the time we hear it, then that just makes it more convenient. So the other issue we need to get into before we start the meeting is comprehensive planning wants to talk to us about some availability dates for this board for the future. And with that, I'll ask Corby to talk to us about that. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Corby Schmidt, for the record, principal planner with the comprehensive planning department. I've got a few handouts I'd like to provide to you in a moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got mine, thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: What you see before you is suggestions for dates for upcoming meetings to consider EAR-based amendments, the AUIR, capital improvements elements for certain projects, and 2005 cycle Growth Management Plan amendments. I believe last time I was before you you had already set some dates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: We're asking you to change those dates. You see here on the sheet in front of you October 11 th and October 12th to consider those EAR-based amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, Corby, the last time we suggested the 12th and the 26th, but the 26th is not a day that is available for this room; is that what it boils down to? MR. SCHMIDT: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the 11 th and 12th would be a Wednesday and Thursday. It would be in between our 5th and 19th regular meeting in October. These are the -- these are the responses to Page 6 August 17, 2006 the ORC report from DCA in regards to the EAR-based amendments; is that right? I see Randy nodding his head yes. MR. SCHMIDT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How does 11th and 12th work with the board members? MR. MURRAY: Eleventh, good for me. The 12th is not good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many -- who can't be here on the 11th? COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One. Who can't be here on the 12th? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One. Both days are okay. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. The second grouping, your shared meeting with the Productivity Committee. Three dates given to you there, November 20, 29 and 30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if I'm not mistaken, Corby, there's 15 people on the Productivity Committee, and there's nine people -- if I'm not mistaken about us, there's nine on ours. That's 24 people to discuss the AUIR, which last time for this panel took several days with nine of us. You've allocated three days for 24 people. I think we might get through the first element in three days with 24 people if everybody wants to talk on it, and I would imagine a lot of people will. Has anybody suggested or thought of maybe letting the Productivity Committee hearing it on their own and us hearing it on our own and come back at the -- some date in the future that's a deadline date with the best we can do by that time instead of having a combined meeting, trying to operate with 24 people in the same meeting? MR. SCHMIDT: Just a moment. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Randy Cohen, Page 7 August 17, 2006 comprehensive planning department director. If you recall back during the last A UIR process, the direction from the Board of County Commissioners was to have a joint special meeting between your body and the Productivity Committee. As a result, we've taken that direction and we've set up a joint meeting, obviously, between the CCPC and the Productivity Committee, knowing obviously that this room is extremely difficult to hold 24 people, but at the same time, in talking with the County Manager's Office, my understanding is that they can set this room up and set it up to accommodate 24 people with -- while sharing microphones at the same time. So it's going to be a little difficult, but it can be done. We realize that with the two bodies together, it's going to take quite some time, that's why you see the separation between the adoption date of the AUIR and January by the Board of County Commissioners and your particular special meeting dates that are set forth right there, because we anticipated, potentially, that there was going to be some necessity to adjourn this particular type of meeting to another location possibly in December and the beginning part of January so we'd have some flex time built into the process. And, again, that's because we're taking the direction from the Board of County Commissioners that you meet jointly, and that's the rationale behind it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's two things maybe that-- and I'll certainly defer to any board member who has a comment. First of all, any meeting that's of that size with that many people is going to be very cumbersome to be effectively productive. I don't know what would be wrong with both groups reviewing this independently and coming back with recommendations to the BCC. They'll get the same recommendations even if they review it jointly. The problem is, reviewing jointly is going to be much more difficult to get through the process. Page 8 August 17, 2006 Likewise, as far as the locations go, on an issue like this with a room that needs to accommodate, if it has to be a collective body, why don't we just do it over in room 610 over in the developmental services building with staff that's usually already there, and you've got a table layout that can accommodate everybody pretty easily without having to bring additional costs in to rework this room. MR. COHEN: We understand the concern about meeting, you know, jointly and it being somewhat cumbersome. You know, from our standpoint as a department and as a division, obviously the board provided us with the direction that we're following and set that policy. F or whatever reason, they decided to do that. They did that as part of the AUIR. The rationale behind doing it in this particular room was to afford as much due process and public participation to people that could not attend this particular meeting because we could televise it from this particular location, and that's why we chose to recommend that we have the meeting in this particular -- in this particular forum. We understand also that if the meetings do go on and the boardroom is not available, which in many instances it's not, that adjourning to room 610 over in CDES is an option, and we'd probably recommend that we do so for subsequent meetings because what would transpire is, after we have the meetings here, the general public would be aware that we are adjourning to that location, then they would have some notice as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, first of all, I think the accessibility of the public is better at developmental services in some regards from the parking lot in this place. As far as accommodating the television, we've had plenty of meetings over there, and each time it's been broadcast and it's never been a problem. And I know Mr. Adelstein had a comment, and then I'll see who else does, and then if none other, I've got a couple of suggestions. Go ahead, Mr. Adelstein. Page 9 August 17, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What would be wrong if we did ours, two times, us, and they did theirs, and then after we've done that, come to a third meeting when we now can talk about where we are? If you've all got to talk in one situation, we're going to be sitting in this thing going back and forth. It would be very simple for them to handle the meeting -- the first meeting and us handle our separate first meeting, and the same thing with the second meeting, and then at the third meeting we can all go together and say, well, here's what we've come up with and probably come up with a better answer faster than we did if we sat down together and tried to do it. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, that was vetted before the Board of County Commissioners as an option, and they decided as a collective group for you to meet jointly. I don't know what more I can say beyond that. I mean, that decision lies with them and -- you know, in terms of how they wanted that to transpire, and that was the direction that we received from them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I watched the meeting in which this was taking place, and I didn't see anybody come up and say, by the way, if you really want both groups to do it, do you realize there's 24 people going to be in that meeting, and we have issues on how to accommodate that many people in the meeting and it could get awkward with that size. I think had those expressions been made to the BCC, especially when they've responded positively to other such common sense concerns, they'd find a way to correct it. I watched the meeting. Nothing like that was produced. Nothing like that was said to them. And I'm suggesting that -- two things. If it has to be a collective meeting like that, maybe staff ought to go back to the BCC and suggest, as a result of this group's input, we look at holding the meeting over in development services to accommodate a more uniform way of having 24 people in the same room at less cost Page 10 August 17, 2006 to the staff and the taxpayers of having to re-set up and take down this room each time. And secondly, in lieu of having a joint meeting, allow us to have separate meetings with a joint recommendation, like a summary recommendation to go to the BCC so that we don't have to deal with 24 people trying to make comments on every single page of that document. MR. COHEN: In addressing your first question, the board didn't mandate that that -- that the meetings take place here, so they can go to room 610 over in CDES. So if it's this board's collective decision to do that, we can accommodate that. With respect to the second item, we could take that to the board in terms of an executive summary and ask them to do just that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has everything got to be -- can't anybody have just a discussion? I mean, why do you -- this executive summary, can't someone during a discussion period with the BCC simply say, an issue's come up, this board totals 24 people, it may be cumbersome to get through a meeting effectively on the AUIR with 24 people trying to comment on every page. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: God, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was a suggestion by the CCPC that we have separate meetings with each group with a precise one report coming to you guys after both meetings are had. Does that have to go into some kind of formal executive summary? Why can't someone just have that discussion with the board? MR. COHEN : Well, typically most of our items go to the BCC with an executive summary. It doesn't have to be anything elaborate, and then it's scheduled, you know, under either the county manager's report or some type of separate action item. But that's typically what transpires. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, does anybody on the planning commission have any comments or thoughts on this? Does my Page 11 August 17, 2006 suggestion sit well with the rest of the planning commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. IfI-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. We would be -- if we thought the last process was long, this one would seem interminable. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I like Mr. -- I like Commissioner Adelstein's suggestion because I think it accomplishes both duties. If the BCC wants us to meet collectively, okay. That could be a summary meeting. It, too, would probably be long, but still. Working independently as the bodies, we would attack the issues from the points of reference that we perceive, and then joining together, perhaps, for the one meeting or, perhaps, two -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: At the most. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to conclude it. We would, I think, honor what the intent of the BCC was, and I would advocate that. Absent that, I don't disagree with the chairman, the two of us can bring forward our own recommendations, but that's obviously not what the BCC wanted. So maybe we can make this work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you say it's not what they wanted -- COMMISSIONER CARON: No CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that wasn't provided as an option to them in the way this came down. I watched the meeting. So I'm not sure they don't want that. I just know that the way it was tossed together at the meeting that they never really got into the discussion after the comment was made, well, why don't they have the CCPC review it, too. Oh, that's a good idea, and that's kind of where it was left. So-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they didn't get into any depth of Page 12 August 17, 2006 discussion of what they liked or disliked. It was just not discussed much further after that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's true. MR. COHEN: And Commissioner, I actually wasn't going to disagree with you. I was actually going to agree with Commissioner Murray that I think the intent of the board would be met if you did meet possibly separately and come up and vet it that way and then have a joint meeting to get some commonality with respect to the Issues. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That would work a lot better than this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if staff has the latitude to open up the room over in developmental services for this -- for that hearing issue, for the EAR-based amendments -- or the AUIR, I'm sorry -- if we held those over there, your problems with scheduling just about disappear. MR. COHEN: Yeah. And what I would like to do is, that being said, if we're going to do the separate meetings and then meet collectively, what we can do is schedule these particular three dates that we set up for you to actually meet here and vet your issues in this particular facility, and then, you know, get with the productivity committee and set up separate dates with them, then find a combination date for this group collectively with them as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would work well. I'd like to -- if you wouldn't mind moving forward with that. Do those dates work for everybody in this room? Well, let's do them quickly. Does anybody not work -- let's start with the 20th. Everybody-- who cannot make the 20th for sure? COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? Who cannot make the 29th? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, one thing is, I don't Page 13 August 17, 2006 have my calendar for next year. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't either. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's one right underneath you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no, but my personal calendar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is November. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: This is not -- my calendar is not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not next year, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, some of them are next year. The point is, can we -- I mean, first of all, something like this would be excellent to handle over the email so we could all have our personal calendars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go through the -- let's go through discussing the dates, and then you can respond to Corby -- Corby, could you send these out by email to each one of us requesting that we respond to the dates? And the only thing I ask is to make sure you have acknowledgement of a quorum at each date in order to move forward. MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioners, we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that work, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think so, because I have some meetings that I don't know when they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I wanted to do was at least get it on the table that -- these dates conceptually for us. So the 20th and 29th and the 30th, please consider those in November for the AUIR. As far as the CIE capital projects, which is shown on here as February 5th and 6th, that is between our meetings, which is something we've tried to do. Our first -- well, maybe not. I'm looking at March. Yes, it is. The first meeting in February for us is the 1 st, Page 14 August 17, 2006 and our regular meeting -- 1st and 15th are our regular meetings. So 5 and 6 would be in between. That's something we've asked staff to do in the future. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What day is 5? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five is Monday; 6 is Tuesday. And then what I'll do is just walk through this to make sure the dates are conceptually where we like them, and then when Corby sends us an email, you can each look at your schedules and respond to them at that point. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark, also Randy's going to add one more day where we do meet jointly? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. We'll do that by email. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Just put that in there also, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then February 19th and 20th, which is, again, after our last meeting in February and before the first one in March, so we've got another in-between date. So with those conceptual dates locked in or lined up, maybe everybody could take a look at their schedules with email and respond accordingly. And all Corby needs to know, at least five of us are going to be there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Corby, does that get you where you need to go? MR. SCHMIDT: It does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now, as far as today's schedule goes, I see Mr. DeRuntz is here today. I'm assuming it's for the Copeland issue? It is. Page 15 August 17, 2006 And what we'll try to do is, we'll start out right now with the activity center number nine, then Bayshore/Gateway, then Copeland, and then the abbreviations and then color. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, point of order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Shouldn't we first adjourn the regular meeting? I know we had nothing on the agenda, but we did -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We haven't opened it yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, the advertised meeting for today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't until 5:05, and it was cancelled. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. This is a continuation meeting of the LDC, is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that meeting was totally cancelled then, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Mr. Pickworth, are you making the presentation on activity center number nine? MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, sir. I don't know if Mrs. Fabacher wants to make any introductory comments, otherwise, I'll certainly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is on page -- starting on page 119 for the commission, and it goes to page 120, so it's a one-page Issue. Mr. Pickworth has been very patient coming back here many times. I'm sure your client has been very patient too, so -- MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. My name is Don Pickworth. My client is the owner of the City Gate PUD/DR! project that, as you know, is on the east side of 951 just north of the White Lake Industrial Park. And we are in activity center number nine. The background here is, what we're asking for, as you can see by the proposal, is to allow clock towers as a permitted use within the Page 16 August 17, 2006 activity center. And many of you, I know, were here and involved in various of these public affairs back around between mid '90s and 2000 when this started, but I'll just kind of capsulize it for you. As you may recall back, I believe it was around '96, we used to have our activity center -- well, we still have our activity center concept. The activity center number nine, which is that intersection out there at 951/75/Davis Boulevard, was originally much more restricted in its area than it is today. And back then, the proposal came in to expand the size of the activity center to incorporate some additional areas within it, particularly the areas on the west side of 951 where I believe there's some proposed big box type of commercial developments planning to go right now. And the amendment to the compo plan said that the county would develop an interchange master plan so that this would be a, quote, Gateway to Naples. And so the idea was that they would expand the activity center, but at the same time, we would put some regulations into effect that would give it an identity, give an enhanced look over what the normal requirements were. So subsequent to that, the county went through a master planning process, and I was involved then. I was representing another property owner, and so I went to all the -- they had a series of meetings on this out at development services with various stakeholders. And most of the discussion at that time really centered simply around the architectural aspects of it, i.e., trying to -- I don't know if limit's the word. What they want to do is get a handle on the various types of architecture that would be in the activity center when the buildings developed. So that was, to my recollection, probably 95 percent of the discussion that took place because there was a lot of concern about that. And they ended up with a plan to have -- you know, require certain architectural themes and elements. You got to choose between Page 1 7 August 17, 2006 a few different themes and you had to carry that through within your development, and that's where that basically ended up. And we have regulations in the LDC and have had for some time which cover that. I guess what we're proposing is simply a further -- in furtherance of that same thing because there's obviously more to creating a, quote, gateway to Naples, more to creating identity of an area than simply architecture. And so we are suggesting and desirous of seeing the ability for a clock tower to be in there. I mean, my client has plans to do something that's pretty tasteful and nice out there. Interestingly enough -- and I only have one of these, but, here, I'll pass this down. MS. FABACHER: I believe they have it. MR. PICKWORTH: They have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the picture from WilsonMiller, yes, it was included in the packet. MR. PICKWORTH: Okay. I didn't realized it was. You can see that even the original -- and this -- even though it says second draft on it, that's the one that ended up being adopted by the county, and it does show a clock tower. So I guess what we're asking is that the LDC be amended to allow this. I think we still have some discussion that we'd like to do with staff on some of the particulars here that -- we think it can be improved some, but, you know, that's something that we can discuss with staff in the coming -- in the coming days. I think probably for our purposes today, we'd like to get your input and whether or not the idea of having something like this in there is acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't this part ofa settlement agreement requireInent? MR. PICKWORTH: Well, the settlement agreement only requires that the county process and consider it. I mean, we didn't try in the settlement agreement to get the county to agree to it. We -- our -- I mean, we think it stands on its own regardless of the settlement Page 18 August 17, 2006 agreement. We think it's a good idea, and all we asked the county in the settlement agreement to do is to consider this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying it's a bad idea. MR. PICKWORTH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I personally didn't have any questions on it. MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah. The settlement agreement only said that the county would process it and consider it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, sometimes when people make presentations, they end up generating more questions than they would have had if they didn't make a presentation. And the reason I'm bringing this up is under the reason that staff put forth, it says, this LDC amendment change is stipulated as part of the settlement agreement between the City Gate LLC and Collier County. Is it stipulated? MR. PICKWORTH: No, sir, no, no. I'd -- I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did we get the wrong information then? MR. PICKWORTH: I don't know. I didn't -- no. We have never -- I mean, we -- in fact, even though he's now in private practice, Mr. White was involved very much in the discussion of this back then. But no, we -- I mean, we're not trying to overreach. For one thing, I don't think it would be legal for the county to make an agreement, a contract to amend its legislation. We couldn't do that anyway. And we never asked the county to do that. We simply asked the county to consider it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The word stipulation is not yours then? MR. PICKWORTH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I was trying to find out. Now, with that being said, Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't see why we can't say, Page 19 August 17, 2006 make a motion to state that a freestanding tower be added and agreed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what the amendment does. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's what -- it's right there. Mr. -- I knew you'd have a question, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing -- and obviously we're looking at paragraph 3. 3- A, could we word that -- because we have a term called actual height that is measured from the crown of the road. So if we could use our definition rather than make one. MR. PICKWORTH: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is -- the clock tower shall not exceed an actual height of 35 feet. And then I don't mind the next line just to clarify that it's measured close to the tower because our definition would be the perimeter of the whole project. MR. PICKWORTH: Sure. I'll defer to staff on that, whatever definition that normally is your working definitions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other one would be C, is you used the word clock faces. The concern I have is, we don't want a digital clock up there. So we don't want someone to build a tower and put electronic numbers up there. So you think that -- you think that locks us in by using, in C, the clock tower shall have clock faces and nobody would confuse that with a digital sign with the time on it? MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just put no digital clocks will be allowed? MR. PICKWORTH: Sure, that's fine. I mean, our intention is not to put a digital clock. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not you I'm worried about. And then why did you limit yourself to two sides rather than four sides? MR. PICKWORTH: Well, we were going to have four sides. I Page 20 August 17, 2006 think -- I've talked to Ms. Fabacher. I think they're okay with four sides now. I think what we submitted said four sides and it got changed to two, and I think we're going back to four. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then C will be, the clock tower shall have clock faces. Why don't we just cross out, in case somebody made a pretty octagon tower with eight sides? You want to limit it to four, okay? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Change it to four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we do 16? Mr. Klatzkow, did you have a comment that needed to be interjected? MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah. Just a point of clarification. The paragraph 3 starts with freestanding clock towers, plural. My assumption is we only want one clock tower here. I just want to make sure the board agrees with that before we change this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pickworth, did you have any intentions of doing more than one? MR. PICKWORTH: No, sir, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we can do -- we can unpluralize the word tower. Thank you, Mr. Klatzkow. MR. PICKWORTH: No. We think the proliferation would, again, go the opposite. We don't want that. I mean, I think we'll -- in that whole activity center, one or two tasteful placements within it would \vork. You get a whole lot of them and I think you've got, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, I'm sorry to have interrupted you. I know how relevant Mr. Klatzkow's issue was to what you were saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- and also, that kind of confuses me. So in other words, there's only going to be one tower in the whole activity center, or does other developers have the ability to put towers? Page 21 August 17, 2006 MR. PICKWORTH: Well, I think the way it's written now, other developers within the activity center would have the ability to do it. And I'd -- you know, I think that that -- but I think within a development -- because most of the individual developments out there are fairly large. If each development out there is limited to one within its boundaries, then you're -- you know, you're not going to get very many because you only have a small number of properties then which \vould even be eligible, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, the plurality of that really refers to the whole district, not his particular parcel. So if we \vanted to limit it to one, I think keep that plural, and then some\vhere in -- COMMISSIONER CARON: State that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you know, add an E or something that states only one clock tower per project. MR. PICKWORTH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Usually it's -- those activity centers are in quadrants on each corner, so maybe it's per quadrant or per corner. And between now and the time of the second reading, maybe you and staff could work out the proper language to make sure that we -- MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah. We had some language that we had submitted. It kind of got lost in the translation. We can go back to that, because we had considered that. This activity center isn't a perfect quadrant thing like some of the others. So -- but yeah, we can come up with something that will work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CT-IAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It just occurred to me we don't have a little Switzerland there. That wouldn't be the greatest. But is this one of those where, I know it's not subject to the underline. But is this one of those where abutting is more appropriate than adjacent? Page 22 August 17, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you finding adjacent? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under D, landscape buffers adjacent, or is it abutting? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you're in the -- okay. I didn't -- I wasn't even looking at that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, you wouldn't have been. But is that one of those where it's appropriate? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess it would depend on what the elements after D that aren't on this sheet would say. I mean, I'm not sure it's relevant -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Yes, the absence of that makes it impossible to know . Yes. Thank you. Okay. That was my only comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we've provided enough direction for the second hearing. Thank you, Mr. Pickworth. MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now we get to hear from Mr. White from the dark side. Mr. Jackson? Whoever's going to be representing the CRA advisory board on this matter involving the changes to the Bayshore/Gateway area. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. F ABACHER: Catherine Fabacher, for the record. We have two kind of separate sources of things. Mr. Fernandez and Mr. White are here exclusively for the administrative deviation. While Mr. Jackson may have some input on that, he's here kind of for the housekeeping issues and the two overlays, for clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the first thing on -- page 53 is where we start. The very first words say, adding administrative Page 23 August 17, 2006 deviation language. So who wants to address that? I mean, if -- it's Mr. White and Mr. Fernandez then, is what you just told me, so I guess maybe Mr. White is the right person to address it at this time? MR. WHITE: If that's your preference, Mr. Chairman, that's fine. Patrick White. I need to provide you with a copy of text that as recently as yesterday afternoon we were able to provide to the staff, and I do have copies here. There's a very small amount of text that we've added based upon comments we've most recently received since your last scheduled meeting, but -- where you didn't have a quorum. So with your permission, I'll hand those out at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: I've already provided them to staff and the court reporter. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Haven't we met before? MR. WHITE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a copy, thank you. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. JACKSON: May I be recognized and make a comment before Mr. White begins? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, executive director, Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency. In prelude to what is about to be discussed here, it probably will be very lengthy and a very gnarly and contentious discussion. I believe staffhas gotten to the point that these deviations are to be reflected and applied to -- and correct me if I'm incorrect, Ms. Fabacher -- to the Bayshore and Gateway overlay districts. These are deviation -- admi nistrative deviation requests are not site specific, they are not project specific, even though there have been people who have Page 24 August 17, 2006 alluded to that. I have 1,720 acres of area that has been developed beforehand in many different ways. The codes have changed a lot. We are trying to redevelop and do urban infill. It doesn't fit the wide opens in the rural fringe and all the other stuff. This is a special case. We need to be able to look at things differently within the redevelopment area boundaries in order to effect mixed-use projects. I have three mixed-use projects current at the preapp. meetings. I have three more that are in the works and will soon be coming to the staff. We need to be able to do urban infill and redevelopment. So we need to look at things differently in the code. This is not a suburban code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Jackson, I have-- MR. JACKSON: I just wanted -- for you to get that in your mind and to take out any misconceptions or perceptions or whatever conversations people had that's specific to overlay, sir, and it has to do with urban infill projects within those 1,720 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, your opening statement that this could be a gnarly and contentious discussion, I honestly didn't have anything that I saw that was gnarly or contentious, so maybe I need to look hard er based on what you just said. COMMISSIONER CARON: We need to take a break and review this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I'm a little surprised at your statements, and, secondly, is this something the CRA advisory board, of which I understand you're involved with or director of, is endorsing or not endorsing or have you taken a position on it? MR. JACKSON: They have endorsed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKSON: And we will see when we review the tapes on the replay on this \veekend and read the notes, you know, of how long the meeting and how long the conversation goes it. Page 25 August 17,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. JACKSON: I mean, if you all are onboard with it, then this should be a short meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was. I'm not sure now. Do I look closer or not? MR. JACKSON: There's nothing wrong with it, we're just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, thank you. Go ahead, Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Well, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Jackson, I think. Suffice it to say that what we brought forward is our best efforts to attempt to achieve the overall goals and objectives that are stated in the Bayshore mixed-use district and the Gateway Triangle district with respect to a set of regulations that have been developed literally over the past couple of years where I think it's probably safe to say between the staff time that's been invested as well as of the consultant, there's probably something close to a million dollars already invested in a regulatory set of reforms. And what we are bringing forward for you today, as you'll recall, is the, I would say, final work product, but that would be subject to, of course, the gnarly and contentious debate or not that we have today for your consideration as to some rules that are new, in a sense, and not new. Previously this commission has looked at the notion of deviations and administrative deviations, I think, in a balanced way, but they've been concerned about what discretion and authority is afforded the staff. The ones that have been brought forward this year, in fact, do apply to relatively new processes, but they also apply to existing regulations. The Bayshore mixed-use district, the Gateway triangle district regulations, as Mr. Jackson had indicated, are a relatively new set of regulations. It is a new programmatic effort for redevelopment in a Page 26 August 17, 2006 very well-defined geographic area. What that means to me is that the scope of applicability of these regulations is relatively small. What the administrative deviations are intended to do is, first, to further the overall goals of the redevelopment regulations themselves. Although the Bayshore mixed-use district rules have been around for quite some time, in their present form they've only been in existence, I'd say, not even a year, and that's why you're just now starting to see active projects. In fact, as recently as last week I was approached and have been retained by a new client where these may become critical aspects of whether or not the actual goals of mixed-use projects are something that will be able to be put into an existing parcel of land for development, for redevelopment. So what the intent here was was to create a set of rules, administrative deviation process, that will allow for minor adjustments and fit between the new set of rules for redevelopment projects in a very specific area. And when the last, we provided these to you -- although we didn't have an opportunity to discuss them, we did give you all a copy of the yellow or goldenrod version. Other members received them by email. I'm assuming that you had an opportunity to look at those, and whatever comments you had we will address today. The only thing that is different in today's handout will be the actual text in red that you'll find at the very end of the document on page 3 at the bottom and a few word changes that were made near the beginning, one of the provisions. That first change is one of -- we can go over those initially just so we're all, quote, hopefully speaking from the same page -- talks about the scope of applicability of these regulations. And it takes effect on page 56 of your packets under LDC section 2.03.07, capital letter I, number 5, small letter a. And two changes were made to this. One of them was a Page 27 August 17, 2006 structural change and is probably easy to dispense with. You'll note that if you compare to your prior version, the last paragraph there, starting with the word conditions, was moved to the end of the provision so that it would flow more smoothly. Similarly, the small letter i was struck so that it reads as one continuous provision and links the words in the BMUD and C all to the first paragraph under a. Turning to the specifics of the new text in red. The intent here was to recognize that although -- the vast majority of any deviation requests that are being anticipated and are coming to light in projects that are moving through the pipeline are the regulations under section 4.02.00; essentially the design requirements for Bayshore mixed-use and for Gateway triangle respectively. The added text is, and other applicable sections of the LDC, because we discovered that in various projects, that are there are other provisions that come up as part of the actual site planning issues. You'll recall that the point in the process where these administrative deviations would be applicable is sometime after the mixed-use project would have a conceptual approval with a conceptual plan presented to the Board of County Commissioners. And so the notion is that although you will not have all of the detail available for the Board of County Commissioners, there would be a pretty good idea of what the scale and scope of the project is. There may be some indication of what the possible footprints might be. Some of those aspects of very fundamental conceptual site planning would be in evidence. But it is, I think, fair to say that the capital investment in a project at that point would not be such that all of the details of site planning would be worked out, and there may be some other sections of the LDC beyond those of just either the Bayshore or Gateway design standards that might need to be sought for these types of administrative deviations. Page 28 August 17, 2006 Turning to the last page at the bottom under what I believe is 5F, 5 being the heading under I for administrative deviations, added a new section F, and I entitled it, just preliminarily for today's discussion purposes, annual assessment. This morning's conversation from the chair's perspective and this commission's awareness now of the existence of staff clarifications and your interest in tracking emerging and existing official interpretations is one that I believe dovetails very seamlessly with what we're proposing in this regulation. In a nutshell, what it's intended to do is make the administrative deviations that are granted something that becomes the topic of an evaluation of the rules themselves, so that in a systematic manner, you're effectively feeding back whatever changes you are asking for in terms of deviations into the actual rule, review and writing process. And I believe that that arguably is the goal of what you were looking to do, and Mr. Schiffer and Commissioner Strain were talking about the idea of having these staff clarifications and official interpretations themselves essentially reviewed first to make sure that they're applicable to current code, but more so, I think, to ensure that what they're doing is recognizing that if there's a need to adjust the fabric of the regulatory process, that that takes place so that what you have is a more responsive and vibrant set of rules that are adapting over time to what not only the community desires in terms of programs like the redevelopments in Bayshore and Gateway CRA, but also throughout other areas in the county and the other scope of regulations to which these official interpretations and staff clarifications may apply. So what we're doing, I believe, is consistent with what you may have begun this morning. I'm wanting to point that out to you because I think that they are, perhaps, a more precise example of where I sense this commission is looking to go in fulfilling its broad scope of responsibilities as kind of the guardians and watchdogs of the Land Page 29 August 17, 2006 Development Code. Turning to the specifics of the text, I thought it important to make sure that we followed the prior pattern of mentioning the county manager or designees rather than making it specific to the zoning director. Elsewhere in these provisions the zoning director's referenced. I leave to your discretion which way you want to go on either or both of those designations. But it seems to me that more broadly the code has tried to stay focused on county manager or designee, recognizing that in many instances, the county manager will designate the zoning director to perform those functions. The intent of this regulation is to look at how often deviations are sought in specific provisions of either 4.02 or elsewhere in the LDC, and to look at the scope or scale of those requests, how much of a, quote, deviation is sought quantitatively under a particular rule, and to see if based on either of those parameters, those circumstances, there's a need to adjust the regulations themselves so that they best fit overall with the intent of the Bayshore mixed-use and Gateway Triangle development standards. And although I initially proposed that this would be something that would be reported to the commission on an annual basis, certainly that time frequency is one that could be expanded or contracted as you may think appropriate. A year may seem long at the beginning. Three years from now it may seem too frequent. So I leave to your determination how you may want to adjust that timing. And ultimately, I would envision that what would happen is that the scheduling of when those would occur would be early enough in the LDC amendment cycle process so that you'd be able to take advantage of whatever those assessments and reports had to say. With that stated, I believe there -- those are the most recent changes. The other things that you'd had the opportunity to be presented but not comment on, again, referring back to the yellow or goldenrod version of the document, those are appearing here, I Page 30 August 17, 2006 believe, in double strike-throughs and in double underlines. So if it helps in our discussion today to talk about specific provisions and their history as they've come forward -- because you'll remember, this is something we've been working on since probably January. It had been sought as part of the last amount -- last amendment cycle but, perhaps, was a little too late in getting on that train. And so we've brought to you now, recognizing that, in fact, there are real proj ects with real needs to which these can and will be applied, hopefully, and that we will be able to adjust them based upon these most recent set of provisions. And if there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer them if I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to do is follow the format that we've previously established and go just page by page, and those commissioners that have questions on each page, we work our way through it. And we'll start with the very first page, page 53. Does anybody have any questions on page 53? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second page is 54. Anybody have any questions on page 54? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I did. Why was the March 3rd date chosen? MR. WHITE: I believe that is, in fact, the actual date that that -- MS. F ABACHER: Effective date. MR. WHITE: -- event took place and the effective date. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WHITE: It was -- not knowing when it was originally written, what that date would be, because it depends upon when it's actually filed with the secretary of state for most of the regulations as to when they become effective. And you can predict that there will be a date, but not just know what it is until later. Page 3 1 August 17, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on page 55? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have. The map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just curious. We have MH on there, and I'm not sure -- since the legend has a number of items addressed, I just wondered what MH represents. Shouldn't it be on there? Mobile home is what I suspect. Should that be -- since it's listed here in parenthetical in a number of cases. MS. F ABACHER: Excuse me. Catherine Fabacher, for the record. I think the legend applies to the subdistricts that we've created. It does not give you a legend for the underlying zoning districts. So MH is an underlying zoning, as you would a real zoning district, as opposed to these subdistricts. I think the legend indicates what the subdistricts mean. So if you're to deal with the underlying zoning, then you would need to go to that section of the code that provides the district nomenclature and identifies what each one means. MR. WHITE: Not the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that similar to the -- I mean, it isn't in there either, C-1 or C-2 or C-3. Same thing would apply? MS. FABACHER: Same thing would apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay, I just thought for purposes -- I don't know who's going to review these documents. I assumed it was the developer or somebody who needs information, and the more clarity we have, the more effective we are in initial stages. That's all I thought, so -- MR. WHITE: May I follow up on that, Mr. Chairman? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: Kind of foreshadowing your discussion about acronyms and abbreviations, I'd simply point out that I'm not aware Page 32 August 17, 2006 that all of the designations that are set forth on the official zoning atlas are, in fact, included in that list. I don't know if that's something that is desired to do. The initial consideration about it when the LDC was restructured -- and I was on watch with the county then -- was that they were very familiar to many of the practitioners and, in fact, much of the public. So I would leave to your discretion and discussion later about acronyms, some possible consideration of all of those within the scope of that part of the LDC for abbreviation and acronyms. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White-- MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- MH was in the list of acronyms. In the new list it's crossed out, so have no fear. MR. WHITE: You will discuss it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will be discussing it, yes. MR. WHITE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. What has changed on this map from the prior map? Are any boundaries changing or __ MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. Catherine Fabacher, for the record. You have a smaller version, and I don't know if we can get the bigger versions up there, of the maps I've put on the easel. But there are two parcel changes, per se. One is what used to be called Fisherman's Village or Fisherman's Wharf, the one that -- the parcel that abuts Windstar that is currently in the process of coming in as another project. That was a map change just to correct a parcel. The parcel looks like this, and the zoning map -- this is a zoning map change that -- it's now -- they've bought the other parcels. And based on the project they've brought before us in the land use petition, this appears to be the shape of their parcel. The other one was, I think, a PUD that was missed, and it's on the Bayshore section, and it's small, and there was the -- that was put into Page 33 August 17,2006 the correct parcel shape. Everything else results from the fact that -- there we go, on the monitor. Everything results from the fact that when we received the map from the consultant, he apparently had worked on an old -- an older version since, as you heard earlier, this process has gone on for several years. And so we found, when we finally really scrutinized the thing and started to put it into the zoning atlas, that a lot of the underlying zoning was incorrect or lines were left out to separate or sometimes things were included, so there was a lot of errors. So all the yellow that you see on the maps that are on the display, the visualizer now, all the yellow sections are simply a scrivener's error for incorrect underlying zoning from the original map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. FABACHER: That's what they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, does that respond to your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I guess so. One thing was said, is that some developer bought more property and you included that. Would that be changing his zoning without going through the proper process? MS. FABACHER: No. It's a PUD and he brought-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the boundary was correct in the PUD application, but the map didn't reflect it properly. MS. FABACHER: Exactly, exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move to page 56. Anybody have any questions on page 56? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute. Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. I knew you would, that's why I wasn't moving. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're back to the zoning Page 34 August 17, 2006 director. And isn't our official way, the county manager or his designees? For some reason we went through and purged all references. Is this a case where we keep it or-- MR. WHITE: Certainly, as I'd indicated before, Commissioner Schiffer, that's at your discretion. I believe the intent was many of those county manager or designee statements were ones that it was recognized, the titles of the job functions of the individuals had been previously specified, change over time. And what was intended was that there would be the evolution of an administrative code that would identify specifically who all of those designees were using their then current titles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think where Mr. Schiffer's going, to probably shorten this a little bit, is that we've always held to the county manager and designees. Is there a reason why we couldn't do that here, Ms. Fabacher? MS. F ABACHER: Well, in this specific case, I think that the zoning director would be the one to make the decision. It couldn't be all of a sudden given to the building director. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But isn't she or he a designee of the county manager? MS. F ABACHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then couldn't we say, Mr. Klatzkow, that it would be county manager or designee like we've held consistently in the rest of the code? MR. KLATZKOW: I think that's a good approach. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, staff -- maybe staff could make that correction in any references to zoning director, and that would solve Mr. Schiffer's issue, which I think is a good one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, is there a, quote, zoning director right now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Page 35 August 17,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on that page, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have two. Under B(i) and B double i. Under B(i) you say the alternative proposed, based upon the deviation requested from the site design standards required under 4.02.00, would aid in furthering the intent of the mixed-use district. I'm not against the issue. I'm just trying to figure out how someone determines if you're going to aid it or not. MR. WHITE: I believe it starts, Mr. Chairman, with a statement by the proponent of the deviation request of how that would be the case, and certainly it would be dependent upon the facts of each of those types of requests. The thrust of the regulation and the requirement is to demonstrate in a rational manner how you are furthering that intent so that it isn't a process whereby you're avoiding the code, rather you're applying the code in a more consistent way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They wouldn't put a deviation request forward without thinking they were going to aid something, right, otherwise -- MR. WHITE: Well, I'm not going to presume for other applicants, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think you'd put one forward and say, I'm not going to aid anything by doing this. MR. WHITE: Well, it's more intended, I think, as a shield for use by the zoning staff and whoever, you know, ultimately makes these determinations, as we suspect it will be the zoning director, a shield that can be used to ensure that you're going to demonstrate furtherance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the goal of this commission has been to take as much ambiguity out of the language that staff has to deal with as possible. So I think I would strongly recommend that between now and the final hearing that somebody define the word aid or clarify this paragraph so there's no ambiguity in regards to that Page 36 August 17,2006 word aid. MR. WHITE: In your opinion, would it assist if it were to say -- and strike the words aiding, and remove the 1- N -G from the word further so that the text would read, required under section 4.02 would further the intent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd have to really defer to staff if they know what furthering the intent of that district would encompass. I mean, what furthers the intent in the minds of a developer and landowner may not be what furthers the intent in the minds of the public. And I'm wondering how staff would weigh that out, so -- MR. SCHMITT: I would -- I would offer the same question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not asking to resolve this here today. I'm saying that's an issue. Why don't you just resolve it and come back to us so that staffs satisfied, you're satisfied, and we've got something going forward. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Michael Fernandez. The -- I believe the intent was to go back and reference the CRA master plan and master plan document that sets forth by -- if you're going to grant a deviation, it's furthering the goals of the district by having mixed use or providing the mixture of uses in such a way that it's pedestrian friendly and so forth, and itemize those. And I think in talking to some of the staff members, they would feel more comfortable if they had a list saying, well, this is kind of consistent. Kind of like what we did with the Growth Management Plan, this is consistent with the plan and so forth. Maybe the wording needs to be clarified. It's certainly -- it's something for staff for their staff utilization as opposed to -- you know, certainly a consultant doesn't want to have to go and do additional work. And if it were stricken, that would be wonderful from our standpoint. But I think from staffs standpoint, in our discussions with them, I think that's what they were looking for. Page 37 August 17, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Fernandez, all I'm suggesting is that you and staff work something out -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so that staff -- and the last thing I want to see is ambiguous language to a point where staff goes before the BCC and gets criticized for doing something that hasn't got strict criteria that they can abide by and can rely on. We don't -- we don't need that to happen. MR. FERNANDEZ: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my second question on that page is of a similar nature, and it's little double i, the strict application of the requirements of these provisions sought for deviation would hinder development. Well, I can tell you, you probably think everything that is not -- is going to hinder development. So we probably -- that's what our codes are for, is to hinder it in a way that needs to be consistent with our policies. So I don't like that word and I think that's a mistake. And maybe -- unless the other commissioners think I'm wrong, we need to have that word redefined too. MR. FERNANDEZ: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm with you, Mark. And keep going, because every one of these next sentences really has wording like that to the point where I can't even figure out what it is you have to do to get approved. I mean, these are all nice things to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going on to page 57, we continue with number 4, but I haven't gotten to that page yet, so I'm going to stop on page 56 at this point. We'll get -- I agree with you. I have notes on those other pages as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, these are all subjective statements to make nice, but, of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah. Mr. White, in your Page 38 August 17, 2006 presentation, you said that these deviations would be considered minor, but nowhere is minor defined either. MR. WHITE: I think the forming concern, if I can try to characterize it as simply as possible, is about the exercise of discretion and assuring that that exercise is not subjective or too qualitative. What that requires is writing regulations that themselves are intended to somehow be very objective and quantitative. Part of any evaluation for these types of deviations, I believe, has to have some of that qualitative and subjective nature to it as a threshold to demonstrate that you're meeting, essentially, the goals and objectives of the regulations, and then to kind of hone in on the specifics of a particular request. So I just want to make sure that we're understanding that it's essentially a two-level type of an analysis from a planning perspective and that there will always be the opportunity, I think, in every regulation that's written, to question it in terms of its qualitative and subjective nature. And I would ask you to look at them in their totality to read them all together and to recognize that that's how they're to be applied in anyone analysis for an administrative deviation request so that it isn't just one of these thresholds you have to pass, but all of them, and you have to make sure that you're doing the qualitative and subjective as well as the quantitive and objective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you get your-- MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm not sure minor's the right word to be utilized because -- in that regard in that, for instance, the code specifically says that all buildings will have to be measured from the -- from the property line, and they have to be within so many feet of the property line. If you have a parcel -- and I'm working on the number of parcels, and I'll give you two examples. One that's 1,200 feet deep. We're going to have buildings to the interior, and those buildings cannot Page 39 August 17, 2006 really relate to being within -- all those buildings can't relate to being within 10 or five feet of the property line. So it really doesn't work, and that's a fairly significant change. But, again, it's -- the basis is going to be staffs review relative to a master plan that the Board of County Commissioners have seen. I have another project where it's a very small parcel. It's about a third of an acre. It's 106 feet by 120 feet deep. And in this particular case, there are no less than six utilities that run, and part of their easements, run along the roadway, but within -- also within the property, and physically we can't place the building as close as necessary, and we would require a deviation of a number of feet to get there. So that's where staff can come and look and make a value judgment. I don't know if minor is the right word to characterize some of these, and I don't think that's really an applicable consideration relative to this mixed-use development or mixed-use overlay. We're only talking, for instance, in the Bayshore district of less than 100 acres that this would be applicable to. Most of those projects will be able to come forward and meet the regulations, although they were generally designed for small projects. Larger parcels, for instance, will generally have a problem with that issue of building placement adjacent to property lines. They'll also have a problem relative to the standards for refuge collection and trash dumpsters and so forth, and that's where there are some specifics in the code that we would need deviations from that -- for instance, if you go to 5th Avenue or into a community that has mixed use, you'll see that they have unique ways of handling that refuge collection that would be inconsistent with the standards that are adopted here, that may work for some projects, but certainly not all. So, you know, I understand your concern about the presentation and use of the word minor. COMMISSIONER CARON: But Mr. Fernandez, in all the Page 40 August 17, 2006 examples that you cited, these are all things that you know about up front. So you don't really need deviations by staff. Why wouldn't those deviations come out in front of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners and a neighborhood information meeting so that everybody is well aware of them up front and not after the fact essentially? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I think that what you're talking about now is a different type of process. You know, you're talking about either going through a PUD -- although the requirements in the code here say that a PUD has to meet all these same standards, so therefore they don't have an opportunity through that mechanism. So then the only opportunity would be a variance one. This is a small area. It's an overlay. It's a redevelopment district. It affects just a few -- it's going to affect just a small number of projects. The code hasn't been written to address those. In fact, some parcels, like the one I'm speaking of -- and this applies to both mixed use and non-mix use. If they have to apply these standards, they cannot redevelopment their property. They would not be able to. So you need that flexibility. If you're suggesting that there needs to be a more formal and extensive process that takes a year, you're basically going to preclude people from going through or wanting to go through that mixed use. You're taking away what the overlay is intended, which is to foster or encourage redevelopment or mixed-use development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, I know a judge that would just put you in jail for that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll be down there in about five minutes. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It's a new phone and I don't know how to work it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good response. Page 41 August 17, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Throw it against the wall. Did you -- are you finished on that page at least? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me make a statement that might help. I read all 21 or -2 pages of this. I think conceptually it's a good thing to do because it would help that area get redeveloped, and that's what the goal is. I didn't find a lot of questions about it, but I found a lot of ambiguity in the way staff would have to read it to apply it. My concern was not that it's not warranted. My concern was, you've got to find some way of taking away the bulk of the ambiguity, maybe so it should be only limited to the minor issues as it is, but the bigger words that provide language that isn't clear to staff so that they've got to make a judgment call that they could be criticized for later on by somebody in opposition to it, let's say, those things need to be -- have criteria applied to them so that we don't put staff in that position. That's where I think I'm trying to go with this at least. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. I was just talking to Ray, and we agree that there's a lot of ambiguity, and there should be measurable standards here that can be considered. I agree, and I think we have time to get those worked out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the theme you're going to see from my line of comments today is -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- simply that -- what you just said, some criteria that works on ambiguity, and the only ambiguity that's left is for the very, very minor issues, like it is in the code now so that staffs not put on the carpet for a judgment call beyond what is expected. MR. FERNANDEZ: Although, again, for clarity, you know, when you talk about a minor issue, you know, how do you -- that's not one that's readily qualified or quantified in that, for instance, if I need Page 42 August 17, 2006 a -- my setback is not going to be from the property line. My building is back 500 feet. That's a 500-foot. Now, relative to the master plan that was reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners, for instance, they may look at it and say, you know, well, the building placement is very minor from what they were talking about, then that would be under -- that would be a minor consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to go from a setback that says on the property line to 500-foot back, that's a major concern. And if you've got criteria that requires that to happen and it's logical, then you need to figure out what that criteria is, but I mean, just to leave that arbitrary to staff is dangerous, not because of staffs judgment, but because of the criticism that could come from that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well-- but the standards were written specifically tailored to small parcels of limited depth and dimension. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We know that. MR. FERNANDEZ: So if you're basically saying then that all those buildings have to be that on a parcel that is much larger, you're creating a huge void in the interior of the -- of the land. It just doesn't make sense. And I think staffs intent was that, you know, there are so -- depending on the size of the parcel and the circumstances, there are so many variables that they cannot write a code for each one of these circumstances, so this mechanism is a vehicle to grant those deviations. But I do think that we can actually create measurable standards that then they can come back and say, you met this, met this, met this, whether or not you may consider them minor or not, but they're measurable standards that then somebody can hold staff accountable and the developer accountable to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's where we're headed. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Page 43 August 17,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Klatzkow, did you have a comment? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. Based on the recent changes that were made -- and I'm referring to 5A, the administrative deviations, just for clarity I'd like to know the intent of this board. Are these administrative deviations limited to Bayshore, or are they limited to all mixed-use projects, or are we opening this up for everything? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a subset of Bayshore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's just Bayshore. In fact, 5A(i) is the only applicable area. 5A(2)(i) was struck, I would assume, because it was too broad, and that leaves us with just Bayshore. MR. KLA TZKOW: We just want Bayshore. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Gateway. MR. WHITE: Right. It's got the GTMUD, mixed-use district, MXD subdistrict. So the geographic scope of applicability is tightly defined and constrained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, are you using the green sheets? MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm using-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The white sheets that are -- oh. MR. WHITE: He has the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the white sheets had a -- well, the white sheets show 5A, and it's strictly the Bayshore/Gateway area, so -- MR. KLATZKOW: Just wanted to make sure of the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what the intent is, yeah. MR. WHITE: Right. And if I could just try to, perhaps, incapsulate and address more specifically Commissioner Caron's comment, that two-stage process that I was talking about was intended to act, effectively, as a double check on the staff and on the applicants in the sense that there would be a rereview of the entirety of the planning impact that the deviation request would have. You would look, in a sense, at a consistency analysis with the Page 44 August 17, 2006 existing regulations, and you'll see that there are other provisions in there that talk in those terms. Small letter i is similar to small letter 3i, and small letter ix, 9, all of them are looking at consistency of the deviation request with varying levels of other existing regulations. In other words, is it consistent with the compo plan? Is it consistent with the rest of the LDC? Is it consistent with the design standards for the overlay district? And ultimately, is it internally consistent with the rest of the site planning? And it's in that sense that, you know, I think the architecture of the regulation is intended to operate. Now, there's the second level of analysis, more of a traditional compatibility type of analysis arising from the specific physical impacts that are being changed based upon the deviations request, and then there's a way to more quantitatively measure those. So I think what we've tried to do is make sure that, in giving the staff the maximum degree of opportunity to review the requests, we've given them a full blown opportunity to look at consistency and to do so in terms of the details of compatibility. And if you want to carve out some of that consistency, that's fine, because I think you can presume, to some degree, that from the actual conceptual mixed-use approval process going before the Board of County Commissioners, some of that consistency at a broader scale has been evaluated and effectively approved by them such that the exercise of discretion by the staff is, again, very tightly constrained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to kind of move this forward a little bit faster here. Let's get on to page 57. Does anybody have any questions on page 57? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. And again, it's -- I mean, these words are just nice things to say, but number 5, you're saying you've got to do something that has sound. I'm not sure exactly what sound means, but sound architectural landscape, I mean, goes without saying, doesn't it? I mean, why would -- I mean, why is that there? Page 45 August 17, 2006 Just out of curiosity. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, again, this document's been crafted jointly working with staff. I think there's existing language right now when staff analyzes deviations for development standards or for the subdivisions that get reviewed, that a professional has to document or at least make the statement that they're certifying that it's consistent with the standards. F or instance, if we're saying that there would be no curb located between a parking area and a sidewalk in that distance, that particular designer or professional, let's sayan engineer in this case, would say that, you know, he based it on sound judgment, you know, FDOT uses this where you have traffic moving at less than 10 miles an hour, et cetera. So there's just another basis. We're trying to find those measurable criteria that an applicant or a developer can respond to staff with and say, okay, we believe this deviation meets this criteria because. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WHITE: I think that's consistent with Commissioner Murray's theme on other regulations that have been commented on in terms of exercising judgment and exercising that judgment in a professionally responsible manner. And that's, I believe, where this is intended to go, is to, again, set, effectively, a shield and a threshold that the staff can look at it. And if their professional opinion is at odds with that of the applicant, there's an opportunity to comment on it, and that is a grounds for effectively not granting the administrative deviation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then further, the next one is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, before we leave that one, could I ask one follow-up question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. Page 46 August 17, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What staff member utilized the word sound in number 5? You said you ran all this by staff and you wrote it with them. What staff member -- MR. FERNANDEZ: We didn't actually craft that. In fact, those words aren't there that are ones that we created, but I believe that that term is used elsewhere in the review of deviation requests that county staff now utilizes in evaluating substation criteria and so forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do you know of any reference where that word is used? MR. BELLOWS: I can't think of any offhand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. I mean, when you make a statement like that and staffs involved and staff was the one that got it this point with you today, that's important to us because if staff feels they've got an understanding of the word sound, then maybe we are not helping matters by pushing it that hard. But I certainly thought that was -- and I had that circled just like Brad. That certainly was a very ambiguous reference. I don't see how it could stand up, and I would want to know from staff then how they thought it could. And if they haven't utilized it, then that does change the dynamics of it. MR. SCHMITT: Frankly, I have problems with I through V. It's all subjective, no definitive standards. It's -- I don't know how we would evaluate it, and I don't know how we would -- in an argument, it would be arguable from either point of view -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- and I would suspect that almost every one of these coming in would be going to the board on an appeal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would hope that after we finish reviewing it that we can provide enough constructive comments that something could be better worked out so that in the second hearing you all can come to an agreement on this. Because if you can't, it doesn't bode well for seeing this move forward in the process, so -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I agree. Page 47 August 17,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's -- Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. The next one is where -- some standards in which you can get building setbacks. And I think the key to this district is we're trying to get buildings up on the road. You cited a situation with a large lot. I don't think that would ever deny building in the rear of the lot as long as you had some buildings up close to the front of the road. MR. FERNANDEZ: There's no provision right now that says you can have one building along the roadway -- or five along the roadway and that entitles you to do one beyond it. It says that all buildings will be at property line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It says all buildings bordering Bayshore. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if you put a building in the back of the lot, that's not a building bordering Bayshore. MR. FERNANDEZ: The interpretation we've heard from staff is that if you have a building -- if you have a parcel and it abuts Bayshore, then those buildings need to abut Bayshore, and that's the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, okay. I mean, I thought it was worded, buildings abutting Bayshore, but anyway. MS. FABACHER: It is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number A, one of the reasons they could approve it is that if you change the setbacks, there'll be privacy within the unit. That makes no sense. I mean, putting a bathroom door on because you change the setbacks, I mean -- do you mean between units or what is that? MR. FERNANDEZ: I didn't craft that language. That came from staff, so -- but those are comments that we can take back and talk to them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, this is confusing. Every Page 48 August 17, 2006 time we ask a question, somebody ducks, so -- I mean, is there -- is somebody ashamed of writing this or something? MR. WHITE: Certainly that's not the case. And if it will help to understand where some of the provisions that were in the original proposal came from, they were called from all of the regulations that were available on line through municipal code in the State of Florida. And so all similar jurisdictions that had these types of concerns attempted to promulgate reasonable rules for the staff and applicants to follow and for commissions and boards to be able to evaluate if they had to make some judgment. And I understand what your concern is, and we will make our best efforts to try to create words that remove ambiguity, provide as much objectivity and quantitative decision making as we can provide. But I encourage you to look at them as a whole and to not suggest that simply because we don't know what the word sound means or who provided it that there's an intent here to escape from providing meaningful regulations to achieve a desired end on the part of the community as evidenced by Mr. Jackson's statements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, I'd like to get through 6A, B, and C, and then there's a couple other members that may have questions on those before we move on, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can go on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I don't think that makes sense that -- provide privacy within units. I mean, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you, and I think that's the purpose of the discussion is to make it clear to the applicant that they need to clean -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, when I asked the question, they all ran away. So, I mean, whoever's the person you talked to, maybe the word between would be better? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go farther-- Page 49 August 17, 2006 MR. WHITE: I made a note of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go farther, I notice that the applicant and Mr. Schmitt have got a sidebar and that Ray and the county attorney and Catherine have a sidebar going on. When you two all get done and would be willing to listen to us since you're here at our meeting, we will resume. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Catherine Fabacher, for the record. We just got these. So for staff to be able to provide answers to something that they're just seeing, it requires -- MR. WHITE: I beg to differ, Mr. Chairman. These are regulations that we've talked with the staff about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We don't need even to go there. MR. WHITE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are providing you with input on what -- MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we've got in front of us today. It's your job to come back on the second hearing with a resolution -- MR. WHITE: We will do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and if you can't, then you won't get very far, so -- MR. WHITE: Understood, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just move forward. Mr. Schiffer finished with number 6, A, B, and C. Is there any -- Mr. Adelstein, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I do. Basically most of the lots are of a specific size. Why can't we use a statement that any lot over, let's say, six acres or 10 acres, has its own rules and regulations, instead of having three feet or five feet? There won't be that many of them, but those that are big can be put together with the same type of ruling system, only theirs, what they need to have. And your large building problem there, if the zoning was said that because Page 50 August 17, 2006 it's 10 acres or 20 acres, it can be 15 feet, 50 feet, that could be done uniformly in every single large project, not making deviations. Basically if you could avoid the deviation problem, this thing goes through. If you've got a particular situation where this is unique and it should have a unique answer and a specific one, no variation needed. MR. FERNANDEZ: I would suggest to you that I gave you an example. And when you're doing mixed use, there are unique circumstances because of the abutting uses, the buffering, the noise requirements, refuge collection, fire protection, all these things -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand, but that's not every one of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gentlemen, you have to talk one at a time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. FERNANDEZ: You would be building a great number of different subdistricts to each one of these in order to accomplish what you're suggesting. And staff hasn't done that. They've created one district, and that's what's governing these as opposed to creating multiple ones. And even then I would suggest to you that there would be the need for those -- for deviations, although of much smaller -- of a much smaller scale. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If it was worked out with staff, and I've seen how they've done this, I don't think you'd have that much of a problem. You have a size problem, and a size problem is not a specific problem. So basically anybody with a size over X number of acres would be handled Y; that's all there'd be to it. MR. FERNANDEZ: I mentioned to you the one-third of an acre site that we have that we're working on, it's a very specific site. We would not be able to meet those requirements. So we would need a Page 51 August 17, 2006 deviation in order to make that project a mixed-use project. So it's not one that's just relegated to size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what Mr. Adelstein's trying to make sure everybody understands is we need criteria. And even -- and size is just another form of criteria. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you look at methods of criteria to apply to this, I think we'd all understand it better. MR. WHITE: Just to comment on Mr. Adelstein's statement about uniformity of lot or tract sizes. I commend your review that page 55, district map, that you can readily see that there are a variety of sizes of tracts, and maybe there are some classes that will fall out of that based upon, you know, dimensions and acreages, but there's a wide range of sizes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you had a question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Into the fray. I just want to qualify something. When CRA was first getting going, I remember a statement being made by the then director who said that this was going to be a growing program, and I just wondered, are these boundary lines final now; do we know? MR. WHITE: As to the subdistricts or the overlay district? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, the overlay itself. Is the boundary -- the boundary has been expanding quite some time. In fact, I understand from that director who told me that anybody who wanted to opt in could opt into the CRA. Does that remain the truth? MR. WHITE: That's not the case at all. In fact, having previously represented that advisory -- the CRA, I can tell you that statutorily only the Board of County Commissioners can effectively do that. And that is not something that has taken place to my knowledge essentially since the conception and formation of the actual CRA area. Page 52 August 17, 2006 Now, as far as the overlay districts go, that's certainly something that's subject to the Planning Commission's review and the board's, but CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what's happening is, I think Mr. Murray's referring to, when people opt into this program, they're opting into a program that already has the overlay on it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The overlay isn't changing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That makes it easy for me. Thank you for qualifying that. MR. JACKSON: I think I'll clarify that, because -- if I may, Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead, sir. You might identify yourself. MR. JACKSON: David Jackson. The overlay district is limited by the growth plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. JACKSON: Okay. It cannot expand unless you amend the Growth Management Plan. The boundaries of the CRA-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Affected. MR. JACKSON: -- which are greater than the overlay can be expanded and amended by the Board of County Commissioners, but the finding of necessity and blight and slum has to be founded, has to go through that process to do that. The boundaries of the CRA, if it grows, will not affect the overlay because it is metes and bounds by the growth management act, or plan, I guess you would call it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to thank you for that, because the basis for my questions or my qualification of information, the matters of deviation become, perhaps, more significant as we expand into the areas that may -- MR. JACKSON: No, sir. That won't, and the fact, within the Page 53 August 17, 2006 overlay district it's limited to three zoning categories, and that is neighborhood, commercial, waterfront, and the mixed-use district, and that which is even a subset of the overlay. It's an even smaller area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is Mr. Fernandez referring to any of the three that you just cited? MR. JACKSON: This whole discussion is about those three, neighborhood, commercial second -- if you look at your overlay -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm thinking more -- MR. JACKSON: -- it's the second thing there. It's under 5, administrative deviations. In my opening remarks, I related to BMUD-NC, which is neighborhood commercial, BMUD-W, which is waterfront, which has a commercial component, which can be mixed use, and the GTMUD, which is the Gateway section, MXD, which is the mixed use section -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. JACKSON: -- which is mostly the commercial area, C-3, 4, 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to slow your discussion a little bit. I'm watching her, and her hands are just flying as fast as she can. So I'm usually the worst one at that, but you've beat me today. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, would it be helpful, and Mr. Murray, would it be helpful if we provided you with a graphic that demonstrated where these rules would apply so you can see both parcel sizes, distribution and location of its limited effect? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White, I think by next meeting you better provide everything you can to help your case because the way I see it now, there's a lot of questions and we need to get them resolved. And Mr. Schiffer, we had left off on number 6A, B, and C, and it was -- you were going to go to -- and they skipped 7, but -- we're going to go to 8. But at this point we're going to take a break till 10: 15 to give the fast-typing court reporter a break. We'll be back here at 10: 15. Page 54 August 17, 2006 (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody please resume your seats so we can get gnarly and contentious. MR. WHITE: The house of pain, Mr. Chairman? MR. JACKSON: And you're pushing the length. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off on page 57, and I notice that it goes from vi to v triple i, so we'll just assume that the numerics will get fixed. And Mr. Schiffer, did you have any further questions on that page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Number -- Roman numeral viii -- and I wish we could ban Roman numerals. But when you say further incompatibility, are you talking about existing compatibility, future compatibility? Because the essence of this district is that it's not what it's going to be. So I think that if there's any compatibility issues, if should be with the master plan, not with an existing use. MR. WHITE: You're raising a question that I kind of go back to the comments about a consistency analysis, and there are, to the best of my understanding, essentially three levels to that. One of them is kind of the broad scope across maybe your community. The second one is between the adjacent uses in terms of compatibilities, and then -- kind of on the site itself. And I think what this one is intending to look at is the actual land uses not only within the parcel itself, but allow for that analysis when between the adjacent parcels. You'd have to presume that by the designation ofNC subdistricts, et cetera, that the uses that are permitted there are already ones that are recognized as being compatible. The point is that by modifying one of these rules through the deviation process, you aren't going to go backward on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- so in other words, how would somebody check to make sure this doesn't further in the Page 55 August 17, 2006 compatibility between land uses? You're not referring to an existing land use then. Shouldn't we -- I mean, what you described is mini-macro land uses. I'm talking about present and future. MR. WHITE: Would it help to say existing and proposed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, do we want that? I mean, we have a sod farm, I think, in one, or a grass or a landscaping business on one corner I know of. You certainly don't want to maintain consistency with that. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think -- I think it bears further consideration because I think that's a good point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then there's something up above where you're preventing impact on the neighbors. I'm not sure how -- well, let's let that go. That's just one of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. That's a good one. It says, preventing negative impacts to health, safety, and welfare. I mean, that's a proactive statement in regards to, you're going to do something and you're going to prevent negative impacts that mayor may not already exist. How ambiguous will that be? And I think you certainly need to reconsider using it in that term. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Help avoid? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something with criteria. Anything else on that page, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just because we're ending the -- these are the criteria that the -- whoever's reviewing this has to meet to approve it, right? MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they're all like kind of nice things. They're not really geometric things. They're not really -- so I mean, the confusing thing is, is this -- I mean, is this just a smoke screen or is this, you know, real stuff? I mean -- and I don't know if I'm having a hard time making that clear, because this is having a hard time making it clear. Page 56 August 17, 2006 In other words, you could go through all of these things, but what does it look like? How does it -- you know, I know you have phrases -- it says that it can't, you know, go against the master plan or it can't be inconsistent, but it just seems that this is pretty ambiguous, and it's difficult to see where something could be denied. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, to me it -- I think it's just the opposite. It has so much discretion that staff could deny which would require you to go through, you know, an appeal process. But I agree, we need to find some better language there to measure against. And I think that's what almost -- you know, at least 90 percent of the comments have been. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're getting the theme of where we're going, so -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 57. Anybody else? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Dare I go in further? On -- under Roman ix, I understand that phrase, but I was troubled by it a little bit because the LDC is reflective of the GMP. So granting a deviation would, I thought by definition, essentially become inconsistent with the -- with the -- now I know that's not true, but I'm wondering if there's a more effective way of saying what it is you intend, or maybe I'm off base on that one and I'd leave that to my fellows to make a determination. But it just tickled me to think, gee, we're going to create a deviation that is to the LDC, but the LDC is supposed to be reflective of the GMP and, therefore, doesn't that in itself -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I think in this particular case, there's some unique language in the Growth Management Plan, for instance, that says it can only be two stories or three stories and so forth. There just wants to -- there's some additional protection here that says that staff isn't going to grant a deviation that is inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan, which they have no latitude to do. So for instance Page 57 August 17, 2006 on -- that's basically, I think, the intent here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I understood the intent, but I've made my point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to page 58. Anybody have any questions on page 58? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. In D, these are the reasons for which deviations may be denied, right? So the first one is, you can request a deviation, it could be approved, or it could be denied by this section, correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. And this section to me really is -- you know, it's -- you know, you don't have a good application, your application's deemed insufficient; in other words, is vague as the stuff was before, this is pretty specific on determining how you did your physical submission. In other words, a guy can spit it out because it's not submitted right. But -- so what status would we be in -- ifhe doesn't get approval, is that a denial? I mean, if I want a deviation and I go through what someone -- I think Mr. Murray -- called the haze, and I kind of agree with him, and it -- you know, but the guy says, you know, I really don't want to approve any of these based on something in there, so is that a denial, or what is that? Or do you only get denied under these __ you know, maybe denied because of these things? MR. WHITE: I'd say that failure to meet any of the criteria that we just went through under the small Roman numerals is one way that you could be denied. Additionally, if there's a determination made by the staff that they've asked and it's not been answered in a way as far as the actual submittals for either the deviation request or the SDP that it is, you know, part of, that either of those are, in and of themselves, not in a manner consistent with what the regulations are, that that's grounds to deny it. There are instances where applicants can forward with requests Page 58 August 17, 2006 and they're provided with review comments and they are essentially ignored and sought to have them approved regardless. This gives the county a mechanism by which to ensure that if you fail to address those review comments, that your deviation request will not be granted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you simply ask a D, Roman numeral iv, that fails to meet the criteria as it's discussed in 5B, something to that effect so that everybody knows that not only do you have these three reasons to turn this down, but any of the reasons -- any of the systems you don't meet in 5B can be reason to turn it down. MR. WHITE: That makes perfect sense, and I think it's inherent, but we can state it expressly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it wasn't inherent to me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think that's good, Mark, because the problem was, the first two are essentially administrative. You didn't -- you know, it said you needed an eight by 10 glossy of the building. If you didn't have it, you're out. The third one is getting close, but it really is discussing the scope, so that means that, you know, the administrative process isn't able to determine that. There is really nothing except what you just added that actually deals with the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Only some minor ones. You have department staff and zoning director referenced in that same area. Shouldn't that be changed to county manager? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The staffwill go through before the second hearing and change all the references to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. On E, on 58, the word only, that sort of limits the BZA considerably, I think, and I wonder if we really want to constrain that to that degree. Page 59 August 17, 2006 MR. WHITE: We have no objection to removing the word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think that's fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It should be removed, that's great. Any other questions on page 58? Ms. Fabacher? MS. F ABACHER: For the record, Catherine Fabacher. Mr. Chair, I'd just like to correct a misstatement that Mr. Fernandez said that I might have accidentally spoken when I said that staff only reviewed -- got this and hasn't had a chance to look at it. I did not mean the whole section. What I meant was the current revision that was handed out today was what I meant to say. If I spoke incorrectly, I apologize. The second question I had kind of goes back to page 56 in applicability. I just was curious, when it says -- I'm looking at the third sentence there, mixed-use projects as required under -- site design standards for mixed-use projects as required under section 4.02.00. As you know, those are the standards for all the different special standards for different business parks or overlays and so forth. The next term it says, and other applicable sections of the LDC. So my question is, does that mean then that under a mixed-use process in the Bayshore and the Gateway, you can ask for a deviation from any regulation contained within this book? Because that would appear to be -- I'm asking if that's what that means. Thank you. MR. WHITE: That is, indeed, what it means, and it's reflective of the notion that there is the possibility that there will be other regulatory requirements out there that need to be deviated from in an administrative sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Within the Bayshore-- MR. WHITE: Part of the problem is that the genesis in the way that these rules themselves were brought forward -- not the administrative deviation rules, but those for the overlay district Page 60 August 17,2006 themselves -- was not done in, certainly my opinion, with the level of detail that was looking at site planning issues. And as a result, there has to be some experience afforded both the staff and applicants to try to adjust these rules. We'll do our best effort between now and the next meeting to give you as much assurances as we can, but I think it's fair to say that what we're trying to do is anticipate essentially some of the things that are unknown and won't arise until you actually do the site planning and essentially building permitting for a project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White, maybe a solution to this is, if staff has a specific concern about a specific way this could apply, either come up with better language or make some suggestions so that we can get this resolved by the second hearing. If you can't -- MR. WHITE: That being the 23rd-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're going to get to this on the 23rd. MR. WHITE: I was going to suggest that if there was a way before we conclude it today to try to give us some idea of what our time line is and how we can help meet your expectations, that that would be very, very helpful for us. Your comments have been very constructive, and we will take them to heart and do our best with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not quite done yet. So hopefully they'll be constructive as we continue on. One thing, we are meeting on the 23rd. Usually we meet for about three hours on that first night. Weare continuing, most likely on the 28th, I believe, and the 29th. MS. F ABACHER: No, sir. I think it's the 29th and the 30th, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, those two days of the following week. So what you need to do is probably figure in one of those two days, and before we leave here today we'll at least give you heads up Page 61 August 17, 2006 that I don't think you're going to be here on the 23rd. We have enough to discuss on the 23rd, we could put you off to one of those dates. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 59, is there any -- assuming we finished 58. Is there any questions on 59? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is to Catherine. Is this the first time we used the E as an exception? Because, for example, if you look at 59 and -- MS. FABACHER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you know, why don't we just do what we did on the next page where we permitted, and then we put on a footnote and then that footnote is the limitation? What's the difference between that and this E? MS. F ABACHER: Just to be sure that they know that it is except -- it's permitted with certain exceptions, and that has always been in the table from the genesis of this table method. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason you wouldn't use it on the next page is -- in other words, there's a permitted thing, but it has a -- in this case a -- MS. FABACHER: That would be a mistake. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Should it be -- okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you -- are you going to be able to make the correction? MS. FABACHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On pages 59 and 59A, both dealers have been struck, but marinas are still appropriate, not an Page 62 August 17, 2006 uncommon condition, I think, for marinas to also do some selling of boats, but I don't know how restrictive our -- I know there was a whole series of things. Just a question as to whether or not that's fully intended or maybe an oversight. MR. JACKSON: Fully intended, sir. David Jackson, excuse me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I have no question beyond that. MR. JACKSON: Correct. And it had to do with certain locations and neighborhood commercial. Because of the lineal structure of what we've got, we weren't looking for -- like, you know, some parts of suburbia become a bunch of automobile dealerships or this -- for us to become a lot of boat dealerships all the way up and down there, which would essentially, not negate, but it would kind of dampen the mixed-use project that we'd like to have there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Jackson, let me interrupt -- and I'm sorry for this. I see Mr. White is packing up. Are we done with the issues that Mr. White was going to be addressing? Because we haven't finished this Bayshore thing. So basically he was only involved in the first part of it? MS. F ABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. I needed that clarification. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a BMUD, not a waterfront, okay. So I thought it was logical that boat dealers, you might not want them in your BMUD. I guess I'm confused then, because marinas don't fit with what you just answered. MR. JACKSON: Well, correct, sir. And I went --looked up-- and forgive me for not being able to quote rotely the 5551 SIC code there. When I went and looked it up, it just didn't fit with what we wanted to have in the mixed-use development. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, all right. I just wanted to bring it to your attention in case it might have been a boo-boo. Page 63 August 17, 2006 MR. JACKSON: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to page 59B. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: I just had one question about, on page 58, item F, annual assessment. MR. JACKSON: That's Mr. White. MS. F ABACHER: Uh-oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good point. I had some questions on that too. I forgot. That was just recently provided to us, so I had my notes on the other page 58. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I think there's some problems associated with the county tracking these types of deviations. I think that's something more of a CRA function myself. And the county tracking this -- I'd see that this would create some problems to an extent that, I'm not sure of the purpose and intent of reporting back on the number of deviations when they may be so minor and vague dealing with certain small parcels. I just see it being a nightmare to track, and maybe that's something that a CRA function would be better at tracking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe between county staff and the CRA, they can get together and figure out what the best method is to tracking, and maybe there needs to be some criteria on the deviations that are tracked. MR. BELLOWS: Or even the necessity of the whole thing. I'm not even sure that's required. MR. JACKSON: Sir, if I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. MR. JACKSON: I think a lot of the deviations in the way the language is crafted would occur during this SDP process. And the CRA is no longer involved in anything after the SDP is submitted. Page 64 August 17, 2006 Our work mostly is with the mixed-use process in the beginning for designation in the up- front part of it. When they go to the SDP for site construction and site plans, I'm extracted from that. So I'm willing to sit down and discuss this with Mr. White and Mr. Bellows and see if we can work that language and make it -- for the intent of what was there, make it work -- say exactly what could occur. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. If you could come up with a useful alternative, let's do it. MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you do come up with some of this language, I would suggest you identify the Planning Commission as the Collier County Planning Commission with capital letters. MR. WHITE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that, may be warranted -- and after the word warranted, for recommendation to the BCC. We certainly don't want them to think that we're trying to do something on our own. So other than that, I mean, I had those two comments. I'm glad, Mr. Bellows, you brought that back to our attention. Okay. Thank you. Now we're back onto page 59B. Any comments? And these are only the underlines. If you notice, there are some new underline sections. And 59C? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty-nine D? Mr. Jackson, 59D, number 2D, all buildings immediately adjacent to Bayshore Drive. Are you sure you don't mean the word abutting? Abutting is one that's on the line with Bayshore. They share a common property line. Adjacent could be separated by a street or other feature. MR. JACKSON: I would leave that language to a professional planner, and I will discuss that with the planning staff after this, Page 65 August 17, 2006 because throughout, in the previous pages, you saw that abutting was changed to adjacent, adjacent was changed, so that is a code language for a planner. And I will discuss that with them to come up with the appropriate word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 60? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixty-one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sixty-two? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 63? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just out of curiosity -- and it's not something you're changing here, but wouldn't the neighborhood information meeting occur before it comes before the Planning Commission? MR. JACKSON: You're talking about paragraph-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number 2. MR. JACKSON: C2? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. JACKSON: And the question is, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It states that it happens before the Board of County Commissioners. Wouldn't it happen before the Planning Commission, just -- I know that's not what your strike-throughs -- MR. JACKSON: The neighborhood information meeting in application to the mixed-use process, the Planning Commission is not involved. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. JACKSON: So the neighborhood information meeting has to occur a certain numbers of days -- Page 66 August 17, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then that makes sense. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Up on top on that same page, number E, the words that were inserted, of the finished floor, and it's a measurement for the height, can the finished floor be elevated to any -- is it limited to how high the finished floor can be elevated? That's-- I guess that's the question. Somebody could artificially raise that first floor to get more height of their building then. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. In our -- in the previous code it was -- you've seen some houses that are built on what I call anthills, you know, where you've got a 45-degree driveway. Great for skateboarders, but the -- our application is that they can bring in no longer any more fill than two feet above the crown of the road, and if they wanted to get higher to meet FEMA standards, then they have to go with stem walls. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any limitation on the height of stem wall in order to get a higher building out of this language you added to E? Since they're measuring now from the finished floor, could they put a six-foot stem wall in, let's say? MR. JACKSON: I can't answer the question at this moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would staff -- and Ray, I notice you're distracted again. Would whoever's in charge of this particular issue take a look at that to make sure we don't have an unseen -- unforeseen consequence out of that language in regards to what I just said? MR. JACKSON: That's a good point, and we should go back and take a look at that, stem wall height. That may be a good point there. Maybe we can limit it by FEMA height or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On that, Mark, that's really only referring to guesthouses over a garage, so they still have the requirement of getting an automobile into that. Page 67 August 17, 2006 David, the problem really is the finished floor height. The garage finished floor would be lower than a residence. It doesn't have to actually hit some of the FEMA requirements, so -- MR. JACKSON: No, it doesn't. The garage floor can be at grade or it could be at the crown of the road, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't the intent of this is to measure off of that? MR. JACKSON: That's correct. Wherever it -- wherever it lies. So if it's at grade, it would be from that finished floor level. I think Mr. Strain's point of view is that you don't end up jacking the building up much higher than you know, for aesthetics and for neighborhood type of a setting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or difficulty getting your vehicle in the garage? MR. JACKSON: Correct. And I don't think that will limit that. This just has to do with measuring the actual heights of that structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing maybe, Ray, if staff could check, as far as first finished floor, is that considered by FEMA the habitable floor? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, not for a garage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's -- okay, that's fine. But I mean, do we need to clarify that or not? Maybe it's the first -- maybe it's the finished floor of the garage or something of that nature, and that would help. MS. F ABACHER: I think that's what the provision says. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. Garage floors are lower, but that's not technically a habitable floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I know. MS. F ABACHER: I don't think it says habitable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it doesn't. That's what -- that's what I was trying to clarify, to make sure we're not referring to that.t Page 68 August 17, 2006 MR. JACKSON: And Mr. Chairman, in that subsection 6E, in the sentence, it says, a guesthouse over garage and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. JACKSON: -- so this paragraph is talking about that kind of a unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 64? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now that finishes Bayshore, and we're into the Gateway area which is on -- starts on page 65, and I would assume that everybody understands the criteria that we talked about on the Bayshore where any changes similar to that would also apply to the Gateway where they are duplicative. Anybody got any questions on page 65? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 66. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 67? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is just again, scrivener error. There's no change in zoning? MS. FABACHER: That's correct. It's -- on the larger one you can see. It's that little -- this is the old one. We're looking at it in the book, and there's a small parcel on the map on the left, the farthest right patch of yellow was incorrectly identified, I believe, as C-3, and it's actually a C-4 and it's a scrivener's error. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKSON: Yeah. It all had to do with underlying zoning, what is really there before the overlay came in, and it was a matter of, I would say, garbage in, garbage out. We picked up a map that wasn't totally correct, and we're correcting those now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Jackson, pages 68,69, and the first Page 69 August 17, 2006 half of 70 seem to be the redundant administrative deviation language we just went through. So anything that comes out of the first round, I'm assuming, will apply to this and, therefore, we can assume we already discussed all that, and we'll go into the bottom of page 70 then. COMMISSIONER CARON: Five A(2) also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER CARON: Five A(2) should be struck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going -- all that's going to get changed with the changes we recommended to staff. On page 71? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 72? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These are a lot of minor changes. Page 73? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And finally page 74? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me deal with 73, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I reviewed this so long ago, I have to figure out what I was thinking here. In number E2, when you say abutting residential, do you mean -- for example, we're going to have mixed use, we're going to have a lot of things that are going to include residential. Are you really referring to single-family and duplex townhouses, or are you referring to all residential? MR. JACKSON: All residential. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So everything, essentially, will have residential? MR. JACKSON: Not necessarily. The reason for the change to words, abutting residential, and we took out the designation of Page 70 August 17, 2006 GTMUDR was because parts of the Gateway area abut the Bayshore area and we didn't want to designate a bunch more acronyms in there designating the Bayshore residential districts, which there are five. So we just said residential. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if you have a mixed-use project, two of them side by side, you're going to have a 10-foot buffer, so they're 20 feet apart, right? And then there's a six - foot fence, masonry wall, going down between them. I mean, is that an urban concept or -- in other words, I think the requirement here really would be good to, you know, be between mixed use and single- family duplex use, not between mixed use and mixed use. MR. JACKSON: May we look at that and bring that back at the next reading? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. JACKSON: Let me discuss that with the landscape portion of the county department. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on page 73 or 74? Ifnot COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question on 73. Why did you kill child care services in the mixed-use subdistrict? It's a permitted use on page 72 that you want to eliminate. MR. JACKSON: I'm thinking back, trying to go back, because it's a while since we changed that. Child day care services, I'll have to look at the SIC code again, 8351, and read what that criteria is and see what it was that triggered the striking of it, and I'll have you an answer at the next reading. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, anything else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm to the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we're done with Bayshore/Gateway completely till the next reading. Page 71 August 17, 2006 Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson, appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the next issue was going to be Mr. DeRuntz, but I notice two members of the public here, and I would like to ask if you could just tell us what subj ects you're here for so we'll go straight to your subject. MR. HALE: I'm here for the amendment to the Land Development Code dealing with color charts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Then that's the one we'll go to next because we're here to accommodate the public. And Mr. DeRuntz, if you don't mind. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair? For the record, Catherine Fabacher. This is Mr. Hale. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I didn't know. Okay. Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: He's a little more than the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've never met the gentleman. MS. FABACHER: Haven't met him, sorry. So did you want to go back to your old order and give him time to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We'll go to -- if it's okay, then, if -- Mr. Hale, we'd just as soon go into the color issues on the LDC amendments right now if that works for you. MR. HALE: It surely does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what -- the procedure we've been following is that we've all read our packages. In an instance where we don't understand something or if we seek additional guidance, we usually ask for information. So before we go into any detailed presentation, I need to find out from the commission if there is anyone that is unclear in what we're dealing with. Ms. Fabacher? MS. F ABACHER: Mr. Chair, Catherine Fabacher, for the record. I think it might be helpful, Mr. Hale has brought the whole -- you got a very bad reproduction. Mr. Hale has brought the whole Page 72 August 17, 2006 spectrum of what the charts would be, and I ask that we be able to put them up here for the Planning Commission to see what the product is instead of this poor reproduction I provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. That's no problem. That's great. MR. HALE: Do you have an easel? Oh, up over there. Hold it up like this. MS. F ABACHER: All right. Okay, I know. MR. HALE: I'll do a little talking while you're doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HALE: I'm Nick Hale. I'm a scientist in the field of color and appearance. I am on the visual side of this subject even though there's quite a body of science involved in it. The Land Development Code specifies limitations on the exterior facade of commercial buildings, and it says things that are really not very meaningful. The intent is to limit the facade to a small percentage when the colors are very vivid. And in this regard, the present code says that 10 percent of facade is the upper limit for primary colors and secondary colors. These are not meaningful words. This is what we teach kids in kindergarten, but it's not really meaningful. In the field of color, we can take the entire color universe and set it up in a three-dimensional array with the dimensions being hue, lightness, and saturation. I have sampled this three-dimensional array with a series of four charts that represent horizontal sections to the array from light to dark. The idea here is to provide the county and the users, the architects, builders, and commercial building owners with a way to specify what they want and know it's going to pass the county's requirements. It will require changes in the Land Development Code so that we can specify what the limits are. Now, I'm going to go over there where the color charts are so I can point to things. Page 73 August 17, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a mike over there too that we'll have to ask you to use so the court reporter can take your comments. MR. HALE: Thank you. The first chart represents the light part of the color universe and samples it with 20 different hues. You see red, orange, yellow, green-yellow, green, blue-green, blue, purple-blue, purple, red-purple, and you can see this comes right back to here. So it's really a circular array. Here we go from the neutral gray, and then progressively more saturation. We don't get much saturation in many of these hues because they've reached high saturation at lower levels of lightness. In the yellow and orange region, we get quite a bit. The same sort of thing is here at this level and this level and this level. So how do -- these are loose chips, but the final version will be printed for color process. The way we limit the area for the vivid colors is to take the saturation dimension from bottom to top, as the numbers over here, and put a limit on it. Tentatively I'd suggest that we say that anything higher than eight, the saturation level, that's this level here, anything higher than that be limited to the 10 percent. I'm going to run this past the local chapter of the AlA and get their judgment on it, but I've already spoken to a couple of architects, including Brad, who is on the commission here. Now, the eight level, which cut it off right here and right here and right here, you now have a prohibition against black which can be satisfied by saying anything darker than this level here, which is a two saturation level, would be in the no-more-than-l O-percent zone. So it would also include a number of dramatic colors. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. Catherine Fabacher, for the record. Nick, I think I'm -- the product is gorgeous. They love it. I think what they want to do is ask you some specific questions possibly Page 74 August 17, 2006 about it, if you don't mind. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I've given them plenty of literature on the process. MR. HALE. Okay. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Catherine. That would probably be a good idea. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. I must say, I'm completely ignorant of this. Although I love the color, I really find this challenging. But I just -- it occurred to me, do you know, sir, whether or not any of these things such as the lightness level or the saturation, which is chroma, whether that's anywhere on any paint can that anyone would acquire? MR. HALE: No, it's not anywhere on any paint can, but the -- by reference to this, the paint companies can, and they will, run all their colors through this, not that difficult, and they'll say, per the Collier County standard, that this color is in the 10 percent or less category or in the category where it can be used over the entire facade, if you wish. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So would a person who wishes to paint their home come to the county, get a colored chip that satisfies their color interest, and then go to the paint store and buy it based on that? MR. HALE: The user who owns a building or is building a building, would make reference to the code, as he would now, get a set of the color charts, which won't cost a lot of money, from the county, and with the use of these charts, select a color, not necessarily from the chart, but anything in between the colors on the chart. He can pick a color from an array in a paint store and say, this is what I want for the entire facade or most of it, and look at this and decide if it's above the eight level, if that's the one we go with, he'll know he can only use it for 10 percent, if that's the percentage we go with. If it's below that, he can use it as much as he wants. Page 75 August 17, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, my question is more mundane than that actually. My concern was, you're saying that-- and I read your letter -- that's a person, a citizen -- and I assume this is not just for new buildings. This would be anybody who wants to paint their home, right? MR. HALE: Yeah, uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, no, no, no. It's only under the architectural standards of the commercial code as I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Commercial code. MR. HALE: Commercial. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So even in that context though -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I just wanted to say, it's not residential. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I thank you for the correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have a lot of people upset ifit is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But they're now forced to come to the county and pay a fee to get a color chart chip. I just -- I was fascinated by that. And maybe that's appropriate. I don't know. MR. HALE: That's not necessary. That's the easy way to do it. They can go to the paint store. The paint stores will have all of these. You go to the paint store and say, I have a commercial building. I want to pick out some colors. They'll say, well, there's a limitation and this is what it is. If you pick -- so you pick the color that's permissible all over the building or is limited to 10 percent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. HALE: They don't have to buy anything. The paint stores will have these in a flash. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well-- okay. That -- as I said, my question was mundane and it had to do with that, and that's fine. MR. HALE: Yeah. For individuals, it wouldn't be useful really Page 76 August 17, 2006 to buy -- I don't know what they're going to cost, 10 or $15. I told Mr. Schmitt not to -- he was willing to give them away. I said, well, what are you going to do for the second week? So you charge enough so that the industry won't take them all away the first day. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And as I follow up, if I will, I'll question the chair because you're more knowledgeable than I. Do we not have standards again for residential? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You might have private deed restrictions like in your community or others, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But a person can paint purple if they want? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless you're in a -- I bet you couldn't do that in Lely, but yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I bet you're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Let me just clarify so you understand. First of all, under contract, the county hired Mr. Hale to develop this as a recommendation working with the representatives of AlA, primarily Brad Schiffer and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dallas. MR. SCHMITT: Dallas Disney. Thank you. Gosh, I just lost his name for a minute. And the result here is -- let me just throw this conceptually. All we're doing is creating a go, no-go chart. I'm not saying to someone, you have to use this color. What Nick was trying to do is help define scientifically a go, no-go chart, because -- I'll use an example. Yellow. Somebody comes in and wanted -- and this is the color, one building, they wanted to paint a color similar to this, and staff said, too bright. And the applicant says, well, no, I want this color. Page 77 August 17, 2006 And we get into this discussion, is this a primary color. And as Nick says, there's no such thing as a primary color. And we went back and forth for months. So I asked Nick, being that he is certainly a world-renowned expert in color, to help identify or create a chart in working with the AlA, or at least its representatives, to develop simply nothing more than a go, no-go chart. We haven't established the parameters yet, or at least the lines on this chart where you can -- if you exceed it, it is too bright, and I'm not -- I'm using laymen's words, I guess, brightness and hue and -- MR. HALE: You're doing okay. MR. SCHMITT: I'm doing okay. So all this is is a chart that we asked to have developed that takes, again, the subjectivity out of the staffs review, and it says, you're either -- you're in the zone or you're out of the zone, and that's what Nick has created. And it's a -- the Munsell Chart basic, that is a color pinwheel, and it's going to be simply put onto a handout. And then based on our discussions, we will have those handouts made, but if they're made and they're simply in the community development, we'll be making them every week because people will say, these are nice. I'm going down to the local big box and use this to help pick the colors out. So all we're doing is putting on a nominal fee because there will be a fee associated with reproducing these, and there will be a fee, and it will be basically those who tend to use the community development review services, can pick up this color chart and basically use it as nothing more than a go, no-go chart, and that's what it will be. And there will be no argument, again, on the brightness or the other aspects of the color. It will simply -- it will be, you are in the range or you're not in the range. And the range will be established, again, certainly somewhat by committee and in working with the AlA as what is deemed to be an acceptable level of brightness or color or whatever else. Page 78 August 17, 2006 And how's that for laymen's explanation? And you can take it from there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. MR. HALE: You've done very well, Joe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're looking for questions. MR. HALE: Joe's example is florescent, and that won't be permitted, and it's also too vivid. And let me show you how easy it is. You go around here, you say, well, it's lighter than this. Oops, it's up in here. And it's very clearly up around this color, a chroma. So it's very easy to say this, if it weren't fluorescent, would be limited to 10 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Your microphone was kind of dimming out there, sir. You need to hold it closer to your mouth so -- MR. HALE: Oh, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I have just two questions. One is, where's white? I went down to get some white paint to touch something up, and I found 24 shades of white, which I was surprised. So how many shades of white can we have in this county? MR. SCHMITT: Oh, you asked the wrong question. MR. HALE: As many as you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. That's all I -- as long as white's not restricted. MR. HALE: The average human can differentiate about 100,000 different colors, give or take a few thousand. So white, where is white? White is way up here. Anything lighter than this will be acceptable, the whole chart, because anything lighter than this will also be down below eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was -- thank you. And then the other question I have is, and it's more of a staff question, everybody uses the MUNI code. How are you going to show this on MUNI code? They can't even put your tables on MUNI code, well enough colored charts. Have we figured that out yet? Ms. Fabacher? Page 79 August 17, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair? Yeah, Catherine Fabacher, for the record. We were thinking we would probably put it on our own website. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you go to MUNI code and you tried to look up the principal and accessory uses and conditional uses right now, they don't say there, go to the county website, here's the link to get that information. They just don't have it. They said, it can't be shown on this site. So I'm wondering -- MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. It's a problem. We're working on all of that. MR. SCHMITT: The only thing I could recommend, it would have to identify that there's a separate chart and the chart is available to be picked up or -- at community development. And this is -- this would be available as part of the review process. We're the only county -- there's no other county that has even done this and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That doesn't really help me, Joe. MR. SCHMITT: We're the first really to develop this type of chart because it's always been -- you know, the wording now is the primary colors and brightness and then it becomes an argument of brightness. And it's not that we're trying to tell people what color to paint. All we're doing is establishing limits, and that is what we're doing and nothing more. It is -- if somebody wants to come in and we get into a discussion -- and certainly Mr. Schiffer is well aware from the architectural, it gets into -- you get into a subjective discussion again as to how bright is bright, and why can't I make my building this color? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only -- Joe, I think this is a great thing to have some criteria staff could go by. We just got done with an hour-long discussion on Bayshore saying you need criteria, so you've got criteria. That's a good thing. My only point was, since you can't put this on MUNI code -- and I figured you wouldn't be able to -- I simply wanted to make the point Page 80 August 17, 2006 that someone needs to include some way of addressing it so that people looking at MUNI code who -- a lot of us rely on constantly -- know where to go to get -- Catherine's saying it's -- MR. SCHMITT: Well, we would -- I think it would be acceptable to have language in there that a separate chart is -- would be referred to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We say that. MR. SCHMITT: -- in some manner or form. We'd have to put that language in, so I think that would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And somehow telling people where to go to find it. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other questions, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, if you look at this, we invented the Collier County architectural color charts, which we reference. I think if -- we don't want to use that, I don't think, the word Munsell in here, do we Nick or -- because these systems are -- you know, it's a standard system, the Munsell system. These members and all that would pertain to that. Would that be appropriate or -- MR. HALE: We can make reference to it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So that means -- MR. HALE: And I'll be glad to write or edit whatever goes into the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that means everybody in the world would know what a color means by the Munsell Chart number system, which is what we wanted to come up with here, is an objective system, it's a numerical system, and there's no question as to what the colors are. There's no arguing over what a word means. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Joe, if these are posted on the website, the people could get these at no charge and they wouldn't Page 81 August 17,2006 have to come down and pay, correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The color would be bad. MR. SCHMITT: The color would probably not -- again, on the website, as Nick will explain, you have red, blue, green, and it's a -- kind of a representation. It's not going to be true color. The color -- part of the contract with Nick was in helping me get this reproduced by a company that produces color charts. And in actuality, this it part -- when -- you come in with your plan or you come in with a proposal, so if you don't want to have the chart and purchase the chart, the chart will be in the building and available for you to compare so when -- as part -- when you bring in your paint chips. Because as part of the process for review, you'd bring in paint chips or other color representations of what you want to paint the building, and that's part of the architectural review process. And it will be -- you can -- part of the review process, stand right there and compare, and it will either be within the range or out of the range. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So then putting the colors on the website will only confuse people. MR. SCHMITT: It probably would because it would not be a good representation of the actual color chart, because again, it's the three colors on your, you know, your cabaret tube or your -- Nick? MR. HALE: That's -- it's not how you produce the colors. We're talking here about two different modes of appearance. A display of any kind is, in effect, in the illumination mode. You're looking at colored lights. And color charts, you're looking at reflectance colors, that are reflecting light. You simply can't compare them. You can compare them for the hue, but when you get beyond that, when you get into the saturation, the chroma, it really doesn't work. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Where I'm going with this, I want to avoid confusion. If putting it on the website's going to confuse people, maybe we shouldn't. Page 82 August 17, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: I probably would not. I would only say you would -- one would have to come down to community development and either have the chart or -- compare it at community development or purchase the chart because it is -- it would be like you going down to your local hardware store and seeing that whole wall of color samples. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. I'm just trying to avoid confusion, whether it should or shouldn't be on the website. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Shouldn't be on the website. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can't do it on the website. MR. SCHMITT: I don't see how it could be on the website. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Just wouldn't. It wouldn't work. MR. HALE: The paint companies will have these the first couple of days and -- as an accommodation to their customer, so you won't even have to go down to community development to get them. It's a tool that will hopefully allow the architect to pick his colors with reference to the charts, and the architects will all have them, and know, when he comes down to planned review, that he has a 99 percent chance of getting them approved by the guy in planned reVIew. That hasn't been the case before, and a lot of time has been wasted for its builders and architects, building owners, and so on. The idea here is to have a tool everyone can understand, they can use, and the approval shouldn't take more than five minutes once the planned review guy looks at it. MR. SCHMITT: And if I could explain. Normally it's not the architect that's -- the architect is working for the client. That's normally -- a color is a form of advertising. That's why we -- you know, different big boxes out there have different colors which are recognizable. You'll have a firm come in and want a certain color because that's Page 83 August 17, 2006 a nationally used color, and then they'll come in, the architect or the AE firm comes in and says, well, this is the color we've got to have, and then -- and we get into this discussion, well, you can't have that in Collier County. It's prohibited. Well, we want it. You can't. And all this is going to do is provide a tool for the architect to turn to the client and say, here's the acceptable range and -- but also understand -- and I'm going to turn to Brad because I don't have the book in front of me, there are -- this -- there are a couple different bands. There's the entire building, then there are trims. The trim is -- certainly, you can have trims go into a different range and you can use some of the colors that are prohibited for the massing of the building. But the trim colors can be in another range, and that's -- they usually try and use the corporate colors and -- usually in the trim. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ten percent. MR. SCHMITT: Ten percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just offhand, two things, by any chance the Munsell color system a copyrighted item, or is that open -- is that available to the public? MR. HALE: No, it's copyrighted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So then reference to it might have some issue. I don't know whether that can be incorporated in something -- MR. HALE: The name Munsell is copyright. I used to be president of the Munsell company, so I'm quite familiar with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sure. What I'm driving at though is a reference into -- MR. HALE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I don't know whether that violates anything. MR. HALE: Munsell, and put the little copyright symbol after it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And the other question is, Page 84 August 17, 2006 could you show me by pointing to where on the chart, say, Home Depot's color would be? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who knows? MR. HALE: If you'll give me Home Depot's color, I'll be glad to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That proves a point. I'm not sure what. But -- and I was looking at that trying to figure out -- because I have a vague recollection, just like you would, of what the Home Depot color would look like, and I can't seem to find a match over there, but -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. If you cannot, that's find. I would just -- that would be something for another time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions involving the -- MR. SCHMITT: Again, it's not a match though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: If Munsell goes broke and they're nonexistence, are we all out of luck again? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Or is that a standard -- MR. HALE: Let me answer that. Munsell is a represent-- three-dimensional representation. What we're doing is taking Munsell color chips. We don't need any permission for that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. HALE: I have two books that have 1,600 color clips. Here we have 400 which I've selected. No matter what happens to the Munsell company, we have this tool here and it belongs to us. It belongs to me, and I have copyrighted this. So we'll have that no matter what happens to anybody else, and you will have a license to use it forever. Page 85 August 17, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, that's a nice idea. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one comment while we're here, and that's to Catherine. Catherine, when you print out the next versions of this, based on the Munsell system, you can't use a color less than number two in lightness, okay? That green was really dark we got the last time. This isn't a serious comment, Nick, so don't -- MS. FABACHER: Catherine Fabacher, for the record. I'll advise that. And I wanted to kind of direct the commission to page 162, which is kind of the -- that Nick referred to as the meat of the thing, exterior building colors, under I. It says the use of -- and I might recommend we change it to color materials, or finish paint above level eight saturation or below level three is limited to no more than 10 percent, okay? So what Brad's asking to do is to change level -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. I'm asking you, when you submit us things -- when you send us these green things that are really dark paper -- this is a wisecrack -- you submitted these dark paper green things, and just make sure that stays below -- MS. FABACHER: Sorry. I didn't realize you were making a joke. Sorry. I was taking it all serious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other serious questions? If not, we certainly thank you for your time, Mr. Hale, and for the ability to use these colors. It will be helpful. MR. HALE: My pleasure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, sir. MR. SCHMITT: Thanks, Nick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we will move on to the Copeland overlay, which is page 75 in our booklet today. Michael, I think we've all got this overlay, and we've all read it. It's got a chart and map with it. So with that, I'd like to ask that the Planning Commission just ask you questions -- MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. Page 86 August 17, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and we'll work the program that way. MR. DeRUNTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless the commissioners have an obj ection to that. And the first page we're starting with is page 75, which is basically your staff request, and then the actual language is on page 76. Are there any questions from 75 or 76? Michael, I have one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I couldn't think of any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicability. It talks about the overlay is applicable to areas which are in private ownership and located within the urban designated lands on the Collier County Future Land Use Map. If you look at the Copeland urban area that you've provided us, it's far greater than the overlay that's shown on page 77. And so really you're only utilizing a portion of the urban area; is that true? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just wondering if you want to make it applicable to that area as described or if you need to -- I guess it is, it says boundary delineated in the map below, so -- okay. I was wondering on that map, you have a C-3-ACSC/ST area to the north side of the entry road to the Copeland area. Why isn't that piece in -- since it is C-3, why isn't that piece in the overlay? I checked on the web, and the guy that owns that is the same guy that owns the property immediately to the south of that same piece. Why did that one piece get excluded? MR. DeRUNTZ: Because we were looking specifically at the residential component of this urban area, where this was commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's a good reason. I just wanted to know. Any questions on page -- on the map on page 77? Page 87 August 17, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 78? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have under C, bottom of that paragraph, where code is to submit an EIS for review by Collier County. If these are all subdivisions, these family dwelling lots, why would we be asking EIS to get involved? MR. DeRUNTZ: Because it is this area of critical state concern. This is a mandated requirement that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. That does -- yeah. MR. DeRUNTZ: That applies to this area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That puts it back in perspective for me. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any subdivisions existing down there that you know of, Mike? MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if someone were to come in and want to create a subdivision, they'd have to provide an EIS? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, that makes sense to me now. MR. DeRUNTZ: We have, as part of the -- excuse me. Mike DeRuntz, zoning and land development review. As part of the application, the county did contract and get an EIS prepared for this -- the overlay area, and this is -- will be a resource for all those people down there when they do come in and do apply for a building permit, that they can utilize this as a tool to determine, you know, if there are wetlands on their property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein, you had a question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Are there any multi-family Page 88 August 17, 2006 units in this area? MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Not at all? MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The EIS that was prepared is actually for an area greater than the overlay. Why would the county want to do that if the county paid for it? MR. DeRUNTZ: It was -- it was for the overlay area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it was, but it went beyond that, too. Was that the intention? MR. DeRUNTZ: I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we've actually benefited some other property owners that aren't part of the overlay, and I was just wondering if there was a need to do that. MR. DeRUNTZ: Maybe that could be addressed by Cormac Giblin on that, or Joe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that Cormac? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. He's been back there all day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cormac, I've seen you back there. You look different. You either cut your hair or you tried to grow a beard or something. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt, community development/environmental services division administrator. The area of the EIS was depicted based on the requirement -- and I'm trying to recall -- it was from the state because -- or was defined by the GMP as well. I can't remember why we had to go beyond the noted area, but it had to do with the conservation and the area of critical state concern.A Page 89 August 17, 2006 Actually what this issue is is nothing more than correcting what had been termed to be an error on the future land use map. When Copeland was identified, it was identified -- the areas were identified, and it -- my understanding, at least talking to David Weeks, that the area -- we're trying to basically correct a wrong here so we can identify Copeland as the village residential rather than the area of critical state concern. But it's now identified as the state, so we had to expand the EIS so we could clear this through the state. And in fact, there was CDBG dollars, community development block grant dollars that paid for this as part of this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand that. And I think the intent was that those people that were going to be falling under the overlay would benefit from the CIS, and that was -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- part of the reason why the overlay got applied to them in a manner that, I think, is compatible with what they've already got down there. And my original question today was, why did we not include that C-3 in the overlay? And you all told me it wasn't C-3 on its own; it didn't need to be. Yet the C-3 was included in the EIS, which now that property owner wouldn't have to pay for EIS when he comes in. I'm wondering why he -- he benefitted from the public funds used to supply the money for the EIS when he's not in the overlay. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. It was a certain distance off the boundary. And this -- the property -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it wasn't, Joe. I got it right here if you want to see it. MR. SCHMITT: I've got to look at my notes, Mark, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, could someone look into that and just come back with an answer on the second hearing? Because I've got the -- I've got the EIS in front of me. It clearly shows it was limited to the boundaries that specifically included that C-3, and Page 90 August 17, 2006 I'd just like to know why that fellow got the benefit of it. MR. DeRUNTZ: I'll get that information for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, I would like to return to that issue then, because I reread it and became more familiar again. If the area had already had an EIS, why would we want to require that another review be made by a particular -- in a particular development plan if it -- I'm not sure why that would work. Why would that be needed? Didn't I make myself clear in the question? MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, I understand what you're saying. And it would depend on the depth of the development, if it was, you know, a single- family lot and it met the criteria that is set up by the area of critical state concern. Our staff can review this and approve it, but it still needs to go forward with the state to get approved as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page -- well, we were on page 78. Let's move to 79. Anybody have any questions on page 79? Mike, I've got a few. A, little i, a, recreational vehicles and equipment may not be used for living, sleeping or housekeeping purposes when parked or store. Okay. So that means when they're driving down the road? I mean, there isn't anything left. So maybe a period after the word purposes would be sufficient? I mean, it doesn't leave much else. MR. DeRUNTZ: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Ifwe could do that. B, I'd like to know why you limited it -- I mean, I don't have an issue with it. I was just curious how 35 feet was chosen as a limitation as to whether or not, in the manner in which it's stored. MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, this language basically came from the Goodland overlay also. We were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the Goodland overlay, isn't it? MR. DeRUNTZ: No, this is Copeland. Page 91 August 17, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Copeland, I'm sorry, yeah. MR. DeRUNTZ: And they wanted a similar type language, so that's what -- we borrowed that language. So that was why they had the distance or length specified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just curious. I was just wondering why 35 was chosen. Basically in number c, if it's over 35 feet, then it falls under the LDC, which means it's got to be undercover in the rear yard. Is that what the intent was? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And under d, little double i, it talks about commercial vehicles greater than 35 feet shall be prohibited. Is that, again, because it was used in Goodland; is that the reasoning? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I live in Golden Gate Estates. I sure wish we had something like that. We're -- every time we try to do something like that, we're told it can't be done, but I think I can see differently now. Any questions on page 80? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did have one question on 79. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go right ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On b, the lowest one down there, keeping animals/fowl, what was the basis of the number? Was that based on animal husbandry or what, just arbitrary? MR. DeRUNTZ: The acreage? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, how many you can keep per acre. MR. DeRUNTZ: And the number? That comes out of the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just going to say. That one you took from the Estates, didn't you? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that would be the same thing, they would -- do these folks -- I mean, we don't want them to Page 92 August 17, 2006 start a poultry farm necessarily. MR. DeRUNTZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I was wondering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then as a follow-up to page 80, there was a sheet that was attached as page 1 of 2, and it was a Copeland area rezoning area issues meeting. Do you have that, Michael? MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. About the second bullet, last line, it says -- and it would seem to be the only one that wasn't answered. Number of existing nonconforming lots in the Copeland urban, and it says equal, and there's nothing there. Did anybody do a takeoff to see how that applies? MR. DeRUNTZ: There -- no, sir. That hasn't been done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifwe don't know that and we're implementing this overlay, do we know how it's going to negatively affect any existing parties there? MR. DeRUNTZ: Actually, the -- in the conservation area that would go to VR, it would not impact any of those. But I'm not -- I'm not sure within the VR area. I could look into that a little more and try to get an answer for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm concerned that if this goes through, we all of a sudden create a whole pile of people that are in violation of our codes, and that would not be a really good thing for a community that's existed as long as that. Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: When I was reading that, I thought that was the intent because I mean, you've wiped out most of that community if you -- if this gets in there, there's not anybody going to be there anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's why I was asking the question, because if we -- Page 93 August 17,2006 COMMISSIONER TUFF: That's everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe establish the impacts and the impacts are to make these people inconsistent, we have a more serious problem than they have now. MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, they -- in the VR district that's existing, if those lots are under that size, they would be nonconforming lots as it is. So we're not changing the area of a single-family residential lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So-- MR. DeRUNTZ: So any existing lots that are out there that are under that 10,000 square foot for a single-family -- or 6,000 square feet would be existing nonconforming as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what spurred my question is the line that I pointed out, because it doesn't have a number there, so it made me assume that you've not found any that were nonconforming yet based on my visit to the place -- and I know Mr. Tuffs comment now -- it does appear that the whole issue is, there's a lot of people down there that are nonconforming. MR. DeRUNTZ: Well, I'll try to clear that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you could just clear that up, it would help. MR. DeRUNTZ: I'll be glad to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to put anybody in a position where we've created a code to fix something and it actually hurts them more than it fixes for them. MR. DeRUNTZ: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anybody else have any issues with the Copeland one? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DeRUNTZ: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last-but-not-Ieast item on Page 94 August 17, 2006 today's agenda -- and I'm going to let Mr. Kolflat have this one -- is our acronyms and abbreviations, and it starts on page 1 and it goes to page 2B. It started out as only one page, and Mr. Kolflat has expanded it many times so far. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Let me pass on a paper to you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And also to Catherine. I don't have enough for all the members, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Put one on the visualizer? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Maybe Ray can put one on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, could you put this on the visualizer for us to be able to discuss? Thank you. MS. F ABACHER: Is this the one you have, Ray? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I just gave it to him. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Let's skip the first two, the community development environmental services and DSAC. All of the others underneath there I've listed the acronym and then the name of the acronym and then the pages in the amendment under which the acronym is referenced or appears. And my suggestion is that they all be included in the index so that when you come across that acronym you will have an opportunity to identify what it reflects. Is there any problem with that, of just giving that to Catherine and having her do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think that's what we're here to do. MS. FABACHER: For the record, Catherine Fabacher. Mr. Kolflat, you ran this in MUNI code to see how many pages it appeared on? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I went through it. MS. F ABACHER: My goodness. You need to come work for Page 95 August 17, 2006 me. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: When you read it and you hit that acronym and you're not familiar with it -- MS. FABACHER: Excellent. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- which I was not familiar with, I ran immediately to the list to identify it and it stopped me. MS. FABACHER: That's excellent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, did you have anything? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. It seems that they have two versions of this. And my question is, why? If they have two versions, it's tough enough. But if we have only one, we might be able to get it straight and it would not be as confusing as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two versions of what? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, it says that there are-- well, there's two different versions on FLUCCS, FLUCCFSES. They're the same thing, but there are two different versions of what that is. There's no reason for us to have two, I don't think. It seems to me that two makes it a very difficult situation. One, at least we now know what it is, and we should be dealing with just the one item. MS. F ABACHER: Catherine Fabacher, for the record. That's a very good point, Mr. Adelstein. I've talked to environmental about that, and that's how this whole process began because they did put it -- leave it without the F. And they said, oh, well, that's the way they pronounce it in the department, such and such. I said, we need to be consistent in the code. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Please. MS. FABACHER: So every amendment that comes to me, we have now determined -- this is how this whole amendment began on the abbreviations, that it will be FLUCFC, whatever it is, and that's the way it's to be stated. So I've tried to go through the code and take out the ones that weren't the same. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. Page 96 August 17, 2006 MS. FABACHER: The other comment I'd like to say on the sheet that I've provided that was green that was crossed out -- and Mr. Kolflat's done an excellent job. But the suggestion of some of the staff members was that we not put in terms from the -- of the zoning districts because they felt -- staff felt -- if it's your preference to do it, we will, but staff felt it was redundant because as far as the acronyms for all of the zoning districts, that appears in chapter 2, more specifically 2.03.00. It shows the name, rural agricultural district, the acronym A, and then it begins to explain the whole district. And so staff thought it was redundant to put it in the abbreviation table. But if it's your wish to keep it in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, that statement applies to every one of these abbreviations. Somewhere in the code in the first time it's used, the abbreviation is identified. So if you apply your theory there, then we don't need an abbreviation chart. So I think, just as Mr. Murray pointed out in the Bayshore thing, MH is shown. Someone's not going to know necessarily to go back and look at zoning category. They would go back to this abbreviation table. And I think it needs to be as complete as possible with everything included that's abbreviated. MS. F ABACHER: That's fine. If that's your direction, that is not a problem. The only other thing that we had there was some things like -- that have been in here like -- what were they? PPL, plans and plats. That's an abbreviation used in internal house documents and not in the code. So staff felt like, if they're things that we just use internally to refer to in CD plus to what we got, what the product was, that we're just going to use, that we didn't -- we thought it would be confusing to put it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, this is attached to the -- part of the Land Development Code; is it not? MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then only the abbreviations Page 97 August 17, 2006 relative to Land Development Code should be in here. MS. FABACHER: That's why some of them are crossed out, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. And if you look at the -- on page 1 where you see BD is crossed out, which stands for boat dock petition, typically when we see one it's called BD, blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. So what -- are you not going to call it BD anymore? You're going to call it boat dock? MS. FABACHER: Well, sir -- but that's not referred to in the Land Development Code that way. That's just the way that we -- the nomenclature we use to identify which land use petition it is and what it deals with. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. MS. FABACHER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But should they not -- should you not have that available to -- all right. Look, I saw a lot of these that I thought -- I thought that they probably should remain in, but I guess staff believed that agriculture doesn't need to be in there or -- MS. F ABACHER: Well, no, excuse me. Excuse me, sir, Catherine Fabacher. The Chair just directed that we leave those zoning classifications -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, he directed? I didn't hear that. MS. FABACHER: We're leaving those in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was preoccupied by trying to come up with my question, I think. Okay. Thank you very much. MS. FABACHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah. The last 11 of this list I just gave you did appear somewhere in the amendments we've been reviewing, so they are referenced in the amendments and, therefore, I Page 98 August 17, 2006 think they definitely should be included in the index listing of them. Now, the first two I'm not quite sure of because of -- whether they should or should not be in. You'll note that there's nothing in the Land Development Code that references CDES, but it's such an integral part of the whole process, I didn't know if that would be helpful or disruptive. And the same applies to DSAC. So those two are not in the land amendments at the moment, but whether they should be in the index is a question I put to the committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, it would be simpler -- if we started making the preface to the Land Development Code for acronyms containing anyone and all of them that we could come up with, we could find duplications in other documents that don't fit the use in the Land Development Code. I think if we're going to use it for the Land Development Code, it ought to stay with the LDC, and then if we want to have staff at some point provide us with a separate short list for boat docks or other abbreviations, then that might be something for the Planning Commission to have in their notes. But I would think we want to keep the Land Development Code as pure as we can. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So the only ones that would have the index would be those that are in the Land Development Code? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good. Then any other comments? I have one. I notice that NAICS has been added as an acronym, N-A-I-C-S for the -- I forgot what it stands for, but it's a compare -- MS. FABACHER: NAICS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: NAICS, whatever you want to call it. And I guess it's of Mr. Schmitt. He looks up. Oh, no. The county tax assessor's office uses NAICS, NICKS (sic), whatever you want to -- Page 99 August 17, 2006 MS. F ABACHER: NAICS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: NAICS. It's going to take a while for me to catch on with that. And I notice some of the other departments in the county are using it because it's a much better-defined, well-deserved modernized code. In fact, if we'd be using it, it would solve a lot of discussion maybe on refinements to uses that are going in particular zoning districts because it breaks everything down to such a finite level. Why can't we convert this county CDES department over to the NAICS -- MS. FABACHER: NAICS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- NAICS version instead of the antiquated SIC? Because the rest of the departments are starting to use it. And I'm wondering why we can't do the same thing. MR. SCHMITT: I'll defer to Catherine. MS. FABACHER: Catherine Fabacher, for the record. MR. SCHMITT: I've not looked into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to defer to Catherine, or Ray. MS. FABACHER: Just -- I've been using them for years, but they came up with the NAICS many, many, many years ago at the census bureau, and they haven't really put it into effect because we are no longer an industrial economy; we're a service economy here. So they spent years trying to define all of these different little, you know, subsections of manufacturing, and now sadly we're not a manufacturing country really; we're a service sector country. But we could do that if you want. But generally speaking, it's not been adopted by most people because it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: City of Naples, City of Marco. I mean MS. FABACHER: Are they using it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought they were the last time I checked. I'll check again. Tax assessor. Page 100 August 17, 2006 MS. FABACHER: Well, we can do that if you want. I'mjust trying to explain exactly in the profession how it's -- that we still rely on SIC. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The county had, a couple years ago, looked at adopting that, and there were some issues that arose then. The zoning director's familiar with that. And I can get you an update on the reason why we still are using the SIC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to know what that is. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. I think -- any other questions on acronyms, abbreviations? No. Boy, I think we've wrapped it all up. And this would-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Adios. LGH, let's go home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- end the first reading of the Land Development Code cycle one. Yes, Ms. Fabacher. MS. FABACHER: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Catherine Fabacher, for the record. Should we make -- we need to continue to one of these dates for our next -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the second hearing be continued, or do you readvertise for the second hearing? MS. FABACHER: Well, we can readvertise, but I think we need to essentially decide on a date. We've readvertised a second hearing for the 23rd already. That's run in the paper, so it's within legal limits to the 29th or the 30th, or we can run another ad if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Catherine, stop for a minute. Mr. Klatzkow, the second hearing, is it to be a continuation of our first hearing or is it to be advertised as a separate new hearing? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second hearing. MR. KLATZKOW: It's advertised as a separate new hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And are we advertised for the 23rd at this point? Okay. So the 23rd's the next meeting. I don't know if we Page 101 August 17, 2006 can continue the meeting that we are not at to the 28th until we get to that meeting. MS. FABACHER: Okay. I'm sorry. I mean, I thought maybe we could poll and see who can make the 29th and who could make the 30th. If you want to do that at a later point -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought we already agreed the 28th, 29th, and the 5th of September are all potential dates. All of us had already weighed in. Well, we'll do it again. MS. FABACHER: The 29th and 30th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the 28th-- MS. FABACHER: No. Excuse me, sir. It's only the 29th and 30th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm sorry. The 29th. Who cannot make it on the 29th? COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We're talking November the 29th, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think I'll make it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're talking about next week, August. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: August 29th and August 30th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Let's start with, back to the 29th. Who cannot make it on the 29th of August? COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, okay. Who cannot make it on the 30th of August? Everybody. Okay. We're all set. MS. FABACHER: All right. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there a way we could organize what we're going to be reviewing those days, schedule people? I mean, it's convenient for us. It's probably convenient for Page 102 August 17, 2006 staff, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I think if -- Catherine, if I'm not mistaken, the boat canopies will start, and then we'll probably go into the same pattern we've already followed with the -- I think it was the environmental issues that came up first. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll follow the same issue we had because that seemed to be the most relevant to the public. MS. FABACHER: And if you would like, I could put together a schedule. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Could you, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, and email it out to us. MS. FABACHER: And I -- and parenthetically, I think the boat canopies -- I've had a lot of response. I think that might consume that whole meeting on the 23rd. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There will be a lot of people here. MS. F ABACHER: I know you got a huge packet with past history to review, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Interesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So the 23rd -- just to recap. The 23rd's going to be boat canopies? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will start the meeting, yes. MS. FABACHER: 5:05. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if there's no other business, we'll adjourn this meeting. Thank you. * * * * Page 103 August 17, 2006 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :40 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 104 -----------T"-