Loading...
CCPC Minutes 02/07/2018February 7,2018 "Special LDC/CCPC" meeting TRANSCRIPT OF TTIE MEETING OF TTM COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, February 7,2018 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 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Govemment Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearbom Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager Jeftey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Page I of11 1 AGENDA “SPECIAL 5:05 PM MEETING” COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 5:05 P.M., WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2018 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter One – General Provisions, including Section 1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter Two – Zoning Districts and Uses, including Section 2.03.03 Commercial Zoning Districts, Section 2.03.04 Industrial Zoning Districts, Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts, Section 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Zoning Districts; Chapter Three – Resource Protection, including Section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards; Chapter Four – Site Design and Development Standards, including Section 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts, Section 4.02.03 Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings and Structures, Section 4.02.04 Standards for Cluster Residential Design, Section 4.02.06 Standards for Development in Airport Zones, Section 4.02.14 Design Standards for Development in the ST and ACSC-ST Districts, Section 4.03.04 Lot Line Adjustment and Lot Split; Chapter Six – Infrastructure Improvements and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, including Section 6.01.05 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; Chapter Nine – 2 Variations from Code Requirements, including Section 9.03.03 Types of Nonconformities, Section 9.04.04 Specific Requirements for Minor After-the-Fact Encroachment; Chapter Ten – Application, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures, including Section 10.01.02 Development Orders Required, Section 10.02.09 Requirements for Text Amendments to the LDC, Section 10.02.13 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Procedures, Section 10.03.06 Public Notice and Required Hearings for Land Use Petitions; Section Four, Adoption of Amendments to the Collier County Official Zoning Atlas, more specifically amending the following: Zoning Map Numbers 522930, 2033N, 2033S, 2034N, 2034S to remove the ACSC designation for consistency with the Growth Management Plan; Section Five, Conflict and Severability; Section Six, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Seven, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager] 6. PUBLIC COMMENT 7. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp February 7,2018 "Special LDC/CCPC" meeting PROCEEDINGS MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou, Mike. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to this well-attended,highly energetic meeting ofthe Collier County Planning Commission on February 7th. Everybody please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Mr. Eastman is absent. Mr. Chrzanowski is absent. Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ando Mrs. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmiu is absent, and Mr. Dearbom is absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thankyou. And we do have a quorum. There is no addenda to the agenda. I don't have anything, and I don't think anybody else does. There are no minutes to be approved at this particular meeting, so we'll move right into our first and only advertised public hearing, and it's 5,{. It's adoption of amendments to the Land Development Code. It's a couple remaining amendments that had to be heard officially at night, at one of the night meetings, and that's what this one is about. They're the same items that weVe gone over at the previous meeting. We're just going to have some corrections on them that Jeremy's going to present tonight, and that will be the whole meeting. So, Jeremy, it's all yours. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. Yeah, the first two items in your packet, those are the two amendments that are required to be heard twice. The second two amendments, the first is the amendment that was clariffing the standards for accessory uses, setbacks, and there was a change requested at the last meeting by the Planning Commission. You see that change in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ourpacket starts with the commercial zoning districts and industrial zoning districts. Are you going out of order? MR. FRANTZ: No. If you'd like me to present on those first two amendments -- there's no changes to those amendments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have Pages I through 38. I'm just trying to follow where you're at. MR. FRANTZ: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page do you want to start with? MR. FRANTZ: lwill skip to it. So this is starting on Page l7 of 38. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: If yotrecall, there was a sentence that we were requested to modiff. This would be on Page 21 in Section 4.02.01. That modification is highlighted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only change? MR. FRANTZ: That's the only change to this amendment. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we're going to revote on these tonight. Is that what you hope to get out of this? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. Page 2 of11 February 7, 2018 "Special LDC/CCPC" meeting CFIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: The last amendment is the amendment related to the PUDI procedures and the minor-change procedures. There was one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? MR. FRANTZ: This is on Page 29 of 38. There was a small change after the last meeting on Page 30. You can see the highhght, the strikethrough on the word "approval," and that's changed to "recommendation," and there were changes to the administrative code, and that starts on Page 35. Again, you see those hishlighted. And then on the last page, on 38. Since this packet went out, we have just a couple of other changes to this amendment. I'll put those on the visualizer now. So on the fust page of this amendment we've modified the narrative just to make it a little clearer the change to the decision-making process. I'll leave that up for a second. On the next page you can see the change that was included in your packet here. We've also modified this next sentence to relocate that "as applicable" statement there and added this sentence io the end ofthe provision that says, "Approval ofthe Board of County Commissioners requires an affirmative defense vote of four. " COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that doesnt change anfhing, does it, Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: It doesn't change anything. We're clarifoing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. MR. FRANTZ: And that same sentence is added to the minor-change section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have questions on this one or the previous one? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I want to say that IVe had several email exchanges with Jeremy and found that to be a very prcductive piocess. I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on some things, and it resulted in a few language changes and also some explanations that helped clariff some things for me. I remain, though, possessed of two issucs, and neither is what I would call a serious or substanlive one, but it has to do with draftsmanship. And let me present it. And Jeremy has responded on behalf of staff and he, perhaps, can put that point ofview forth after I've presented. This has to do with 10.02.13, which deals with the three mafters that come before the BCC; two fiom the Planning Commission and one from HEX. And it's my understanding that in each case, since wete going for -- to the recommendatory approach now, that when it gets to the BCC, the BCC will - if it desires to approve the action, it will do so. It will express its approval by means ofan ordinance, I assume. I dont think that there's any other way that it would act in this capacity. I'm looking at the County Attomey, maybe, if I'm wrong. And so the question that I had and the concem that I had is is that there are three different expressions ofthis process in the language, 10.02.13. In one case it says "approval." In another case it says "approval" and "ordinance." And I had proposed that in all three cases the language be the same, that it says, "and approval by the Board ofCounty Commissioners by means of an ordhance amendment." Because I didn't see a reason why the language would be different in any ofthose cases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it witl be different depending on the particular land-use action that goes before the Board as a result of this. For example, in the SRAS they allow the PDI process to apply out there. That's done by resolution, not by ordinance. So I'm not sure if all of them will be resolved by ordinances, ifthey all have to go to the Board or not. And that's something that we hadn't discussed before, because I didn't think anybody questioned it. But now that you have, we'll just bring it up. I dont know how Jeff sees that one comrng tkough. MR. KIATZKOW: I had the same conversation this afternoon with Scott Stone, and he said everybody knows it's by an ordinance, so, okay. I would have crafted it your way. I didn't feel strong enough to change it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I dont feel shong enough to vote against it, but I just - I think ir raises Page 3 of 11 February 7,2018 "Special LDC/CCPC" meeting an ambiguity. One would scratch one's head and say, well, why are you expressing it in three different ways when it's the very same procedure? It is by means of ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if anything, if it could be by just affirmative vote of the approval and not referenced that it's going to be done by ordinance, I would rather - you know, I would rather not increase anything, make it more intense. So just drop the word "ordinance" and keep it all just by affirmative vote. Leave it like that. Let the outcome be dictated by the action. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm fine with that. The only problem I had would be the inconsistency. I didn't have a preference. Our point - obviously, the substance of the point is that we're acknowledging that it's recommendatory going to the Board, and the Board has the final say. So I guess my preference would be, from a draftsmanship standpoint, that since it's the same process, that it be expressed the same way. I don't feel the need to mention the ordinance amendment part of it. Approval's fine. MR. FRANTZ: So then in yourpackets, that would be on Page - COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thirty, I think. MR. FRANTZ: Yes. On Page 30, just at the end of that strikethrough or -- sorry. At the end of that underlined language on Line 23 we would remove an ordinance amendment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Just -- in each of the three cases, just say "approval." That works for me. MR. FRANTZ: We candothat. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Anything else, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. Then I go to Page -- oh, boy. I don't have the number here, but it has to do with the outdoor uses being added to Cl and C2 and C3, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we were still on the PDI process, so where's -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, Ill bring this up, then, later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You're on the other different LDC amendment. Let's stick with the PDI process and the one on the generators that we just heard. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have nothing frrther, then, on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Generators, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generators was the first one that he announced a change there. Do you have any questions on that one? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do. Yes, I do, only because it - because we have these cluster-type dimensions, and the homes are, like, 10 feet apart, and this can go 36 inches. So on your properly, if you have a five-foot, Jeremy -- and I'm looking at generators and at pool things that go into that more than that. So this - this one bothers me at the 36 inches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you said, "things that go into that more than this." What do you mean? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, if you put a generator and you only have a five-foot setback - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: - your generators are -- a lot of them are four-foot wide. So you will be going more -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoa, whoa. The generator can't go more than, what -- how many inches? Thirty-six? MR. FRANTZ: Thirty-six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It doesn't matter. If it's four-foot wide, it can't go in the side lot. What's the matter? COMMISSIONER EBERT: It can't -- where are you going to put it? CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up to the property owner. He either doesn't buy it, or he puts it in the backyard somewhere, but he can't put it on the side lot if it's more than 36 inches. That was the purpose of the amendment. MR. FRANTZ: Aswe reviewed this amendment, I had also been told that in some instances you'll Page 4 of 11 February 7, 2018 "Special LDCICCPC" meeting see the generator actually built into the home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's how some of the air-conditioning units are being done. Now, too. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it is a problem. I'm just going to tell you it's a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Okay. Anybody else? Q{o response.) CI{AIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question for Mike, I guess. Mike, when a PUD comes in and it's got lakes, water facilities, sometimcs footpnnts ofbuildings, sometimes roadways, how much latitude do you think your department has after this PDI language gets approved? Because it wipes out minor changes, one of which is relocation and reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, or other water facilities. Now, you know, nobody expects those to be locked in because they don't even know iftheyte the nght size. So is a foot now considered too much? Is five feet considered too much? Is 15 feet considered too much? Likewise, for a relocation of building envelopes when there's no encroachrnent upon required conservation or preservation areas. These are the simplest innocuous things that are done throughout the state ofFlorida and have been done in Collier County for 25 years by staff, and some by the new office, and now all ofa sudden because the question was raised it's no longer going to be done. I don't understand how we canjustifr the cost for those kind ofchanges or even the staffcan figure out when they're changing something that they're no longer allowed to do and then tum around and charge the public thousands of dollars to process it then at the same time have the staffwaste their time having to sit in a board mecting waiting for it. So just out ofcuriosity, how are you going to decide - ifa water management area on a conceptual plan that's submitted to this panel, or the Board, is approved as a master plan, and they move it, how far is the move going to be allowed? Do you have a number for that? I'm just curious. MR. BOSI: I couldn't quantifr. I would say it would have to be within reason. Imean, if itwas located to the opposite side ofthe PUD and it was - and they were a full-scale rearrangement ofwhere the land uses were, I thinl. that would - CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you said "within reason." This entire action we're being askcd to votc on is not within reason. I mean, it's absolutely ludicrous that the people in this county are going to be put through the additional cost and intensity over insignificant changes that are utilized throughout the state of Florida. It doesnt make any sense. But be that as it may, if you're no longer allowed to change an ordinance by the county commissioner and that ordinance refers to a relocation or reconfiguration ofa lake, I'm just curious by what standard you're going to go by, because halfthe time your department doesnt see the outcome of a submittal after PLrD. It goes to Chns Scott and Matt Mclean. Is someone going to come over and tell me to match up and overlay the PUD master plan on the actual SDP submittal? And ifthe lake is more than X number of feet out, it's considered something that's got to go to the Board now? I mean, how are we going to handle this? ['m just curious. MR. BOSI: I think when the development review team is reviewing the plat or the SDP and the facilities seem to be misaligned with the master plan, they would come and have a discussion with Ray and I, and we would make an evaluation as to whether therc was a substantial deviation fiom what was proposed in that conc?tual master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about a minor change? Because it's minor changes that you're dealing with, not substantial deviations. You're looking at minor changes. That's all it says. That's under the category for what we're talking about tonight. So if it's a minor change, what level does that rise to; do we know? I dont. I dont know how you would decide that a minor change in your eyes is not the same or different than a minor change, say, in the clerk of court's eyes, and all ofa sudden we have an ordinaoce change that he's now contesting. So I don't like this. You know, everybody knew that from the last meeting. But I think as I've read it, it's gotten even more ridiculous and imposing more standards by govemment on our citizens that we don't need, and it's just a completc waste ofmoney. Be that as it may, I understand you can't answer the question, but I certainly witl probably be looking Pagc5ofll February 7,2018 "Special LDCICCPC" meeting at what the SDP people approve from now on myself and see if they're going outside of any boundaries and suggest changes to that. And that's the only point I had in this one, for what it's worth. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything on those last two? If not, do we want to have a vote on the last two just to get those out of the way? The one on the - Jeremy, do you want to call those out by section? MR. FRANTZ: Sure. The tust amendment is LDC Sections 2.03.07,4.02.01,4.02.03,4.02.M,and 4.02.06. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the one for the -- MR. FRANTZ: The dimensional standards for accessory uses and buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned and seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signr&by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-0. Thank you. The second one is the - you want to read it out? MR. FRANTZ: Sure. That's LDC Sections 10.02.13 and 10.03.06, and that's related to the PDI process and also includes the administrative code changes as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion on that one? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? There's no second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I believe this is the one I want to have some discussion on, which I can do after it has been -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- seconded. And I'll second it for that purpose. CTIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Karen, seconded by Ned. Discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. I excerpted something for my use this evening. I didn't pick up the page ntunber, but is this -- Jeremy, is this the outdoor - is that before us now, this outdoor question? MR. FRANTZ: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: NO? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is just the one on the PDI that I just discussed that says everything is now a change that's got to go to the Board instead of an insubstantial minor change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. I should have put page numbers on here. I apologize. I don't have any comments or questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. So will we get to vote on it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we're going to take a vote on it. First we're still in discussion. I'm going to vote no on the motion as I previous - for the reasons I previously stated. This is not consistent with our enabling act, and it just should not be passed. But that's my position. All those in favor of the motion, siguff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: AYe. COMMISSIONER EBERT: AYe. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: AYe' Page 6 of 11 February 7, 2018 "Special LDC/CCPC" meeting CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Aye. Motion succeeds 3-1. Jeremy, let's go back to the - we have two more, right? MR. FRANTZ: Yes. So the first amendment is to LDC Sections 2.03.03 and 2.03.04. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page? MR. FRANTZ: This begins on Page 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: And, Commissioner Fryer, this is the amendment that we've had discussions about. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. FRANTZ: So this amendment you saw last time. There have not been any changes by staff since then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: The concem I have is an apparent contradiction between - and. again, I apologize; I dont have the page number. But in Line 8 of the relevant page, it refers to outdoor storage of equipment and merchandise as being not permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? MR. FRANTZ: This is Page 3 of 38. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Line 8, Page 3 of38? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. There's a reference to - it says - this language was already in there. It says, the District is not intended to permit blah, blah, blah, or uses that have associated with them the need for outdoor storage of equipment and merchandise. Then when I looked down at the - in line, look like, 37, we're adding the word "outdoor" with some qualifiers, including boat rental, miniahte golfcourse, bicycle and moped rental, rentals ofbeach chairs and accessory uses. I guess my question here, is it - is the new language intended to permit outdoor storage ofrental inventory like boats, beach chairs, and mopeds, or must all of that be brought indoors at the end ofthe sales day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think when you're dealing with a product, it's not - and the product that's utilized, such as a rental products would be, it's not considered dead storage or storage that I think that section ofthe code is referring to. And the only reason I jumped in is because this issue came up recently in a difficult case involving Bayshore, and we had to address that section ofthe C3 code specifically to that, and that's basically the outcome of the way it was looked at. And, Mike, you were involved in that. f)o you see it any differently? MR. BOSI: I believe that your recollection is the way I think we agreed upon. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, not having been a party to or present at that, I don't know how the thought process went. But j ust, as I look at this language, it's prohibiting outdoor storage of merchandise. And so ifyour merchandise is for rental - and merchandise would include that which is for sale as well as for rent, I believe - it seems to me that what we're saying is they have to bring it in every night; otherwise, it would amount to being stored outside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll leave that - Mike, I mean, I didnt see it that way, but maybe - do you have a way ofresponding to that? MR. BOSI: (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be like saying, then, that a car dealership - well, you can't have car dealerships in C3 , but the rental would be a similar operation. If youve got something that you're trying to rent and it's a large - like, a boat, you'd be storing it outside. Very rarely would you have a room big enough to put them in. The way we had previously discussed it for the C4 district in regards to some storage areas there, it was in the premises that they were for sale. It wasnt dead storage, but maybe that isn't clear enough. Page 7 of 1l February 7,2018 "Special LDC/CCPC" meeting COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, the language that I had proposed as a fix would have said somewhere in Line 7, "except as otherwise provided below," something to that effect, so that the language would be in harmony. I guess the premise of my concem -- and this is, obviously -- well, it's a little more substantive than the first question I raised, but it's not earthshaking, I grant you. But to me merchandise is that which is either for sale or for rent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, that's -- whatever you -- whatever -- if you want to clean it up, go ahead. I'm not -- I don't have a concern over it. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. My previous response to Commissioner Fryer was, you know, that there might be some ambiguity here in the introductory language. I'd rather tackle that type of amendment on its own because it would address uses in all C3 -- all types of uses in the C3 district rather than the, kind of, limited changes we're making in this amendment. I understand the conflrsion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, what about putting some language, like, down in Line 37, "notwithstanding the foregoing," approaching it that way. It just seems to me that, you know, ever since I have been on this commission I have raised questions about language and drafting, and in some cases I'm probably wrong and in others I think I may be right. For instance, the use of the word "comparable" is something that really bothers me, and I know that our LDC is replete with that, when really what is meant is similar in all material respects. So going forward, when we are proposing enactment of new language, why would we want to do it when we acknowledge at this early point that there is an ambiguity? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to Ned's point, if we're going to clean it up, there might be some other reasons why just adding the phrases at the end of the sentence, like he suggested, would work. For example, we have automobile parking is allowed. We have educational plants which are basically bus depots. They store the buses outside. I'm just looking through them now. There's all kinds of little things that could pop up if someone wanted to push that issue. So it doesn't hurt to clean it up, Jeremy. I mean -- MR. FRANTZ: I dorlt think it hurts to clean it up. As a part of this amendment, I haven't reviewed each of those uses to, you know, kind of know exactly how that might impact each use. It seems, on its face, to make sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the other hand, if the intent of that sentence was to not allow people who have got, like, an apparel store to have coatracks hanging outside in their parking lot trying to sell something, I don't -- I mean, then they would be allowed to do it with that kind of language added because, basically, every one of the hundred -- well, actually, there's 96 uses allowed in the C3. Every one of those uses, if they wanted to put something outside that they couldn't have put there because of that sentence, would now be able to. MR. FRANTZ: And I did get a chance to talk to Ray Bellows, our zoning manager, about that phrase, and his recollection was that the intent of that language in the introductory provision was targeting, kind of, like lumber store type of uses. So I think that there was, like, a specific meaning at the time that it was -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. You know, the problem with the drafter's intent is that if it's not clear, it's not going to hold much water down the line, particularly when there's -- somebody challenges this and they refuse to move their moped inventory indoors at the end of the sales day, which I think you could make a case that "storage" would require them to do that. But if you don't want them having merchandise out of doors at all, I think you've opened the door here. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I mean, just to clariff, I don't necessarily disagree. I think my recommendation would be to bring this back in another cycle, though, to address that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you're sayrng do not add it to the bottom? MR. KLATZKOW: No. Get it right or don't do it at all. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you said. MR. KIATZKOW: You don't bring it back. You don't enact and say I'11 fix it later. Just - if the Page 8 of 11 February 7, 2018 "Special LDC/CCPC" meeting Planning Commission's not comfortable with it, all right, it either gets voted down or stafffixes it. We don't enact legislation knowrng we're going to fix it later. Only Tallahassee does that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: JuSt add it to the bottom. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be my preference. And I acknowledge that this is not an earthshaking highly substantive issue, but itjust - I find it bothersome because, frank-ly, there are a lot of ambiguities in the LDC, and I don't want to be a part of putting another one in there knowing full well that it is an ambiguity. And this is one where there could be litigation resulting. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So where we're at now, I think - are we talking about adding to the end of the inhoductory provision or down in the conditional uses? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, maybe to address your concem, Jeremy, that we don't want to open this so wide that wc haven't thought tkough the whole universe ofthings that might be changed by adding the exception in Line ?. What about saying, "except as provided in," and then add the citation to where the word "outdoors" appears; except as provided in blumf (phonetic) below, what is it, C, 1C below? MR. FRANTZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then that way -- that way wele not at our peril not knowing what .- you know, what other things may have been affected. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. So except as provided in the LDC section - citation would come after - at the end ofthis sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then you are affecting every other of the 93 uses because you're saying that's the only use that could have outdoor storage and equipment to the ability that it's shown on that particular line. Now, that means everybody else cant. And to the extent they could because it was similar to how that line was going to operate without that language, we've now become more restrictive in the C3. And if we're going to do that, I would suggest it go back to the whole - we need to have other -- I mean, the stakeholders involved in this are the C3 landowners. The - if we get that finite with describing what we're trying to prohibit by allowing something else, which the intent seems to haye wanted to allow more and, in essence, we'll be reducrng it ifthose other business -- some ofthose other 93 uses relied on some outdoor activity that they now can't do because they're not specifically allowed to by the end of that sentence's new language. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I dont agree with you. I'm just looking for resolution of the ambiguity one way or the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you won't - I wasnt - I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just telling you the out - I was just suggesting the outcome to this may be harsher than wete thinking. If you're going to redefine it, why don't you redefine it on that Line 7 where it's at and not go up to that general paragraph? I mean, if that's what's determined to be needed. Where is that line you were - what line? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It says in 7, permit wholesaling types of uses, which is not what we're talking about, or land uses that have associated with them the need for outdoor storage of equipment and merchandise. CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, but - see, this is being asked for as a conditional use. It's got to go through a separate public hearing anyway, so it's not a use - it's not going to be a buy-nght situation to begin with. Isn't that the one you're working on? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want outdoor storage subject to 7999, youve got to do it through public process for a conditional use. That takes care of it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, it's not only a conditional use. It's going to be contrary to the current language if it is to be interpreted the way I interpret it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's what conditional uses are for. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, are they? If it's specified as a conditional use that's not in direct conflict with the permitted uses -- CHAIRMAN STRAN: Well, conditional uses are ones not normally allowcd without some additional review and attention to - Page 9 of 11 February 7,2078 "Special LDC/CCPC" meeting COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, this language says the district is not intended to permit outdoor storage of equipment and merchandise. So it's almost reaching further than just a permitted use. It is saying what is not to be permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's saying what's not intended. It doesn't say it's not allowed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I grant you that nuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm comfortable leaving it like it is. You've got a conditional use required for the new use that we're adding. That sure makes it real clear it's going to have to go through additional public vetting, compatibility references, and other kinds of issues involving its site planning. I'm not sure we need the change if it's under a conditional use, and that's the only place it's occurring. If we make a general statement change up there, it's going to change all 93 uses to some extent. I'm not sure we need to go there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, if you said in Cl, outdoor, something, parentheses, the foregoing notwithstanding, closed parentheses, so that it's clear that it's just - that the outdoor miniature golf course rentals and the like are not to be interpreted as storage of merchandise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do we want to have any more discussion on this? Does anybody want to make a motion and something to do with it? We need to get offthe dime and get it done, so - I don't -- I think by it being a conditional use, it's covered. No one's going to come in and get a conditional use without now showing what they have to do. That's the whole purpose of the conditional use. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Conditional use; that's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm comfortable that we've not opened up any new doors for that issue. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm going to agree with you and make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signfu by saying aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 3-1. Your next one, Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: This is to LDC Section 4.04.14 and several zoning atlas maps. And, again, there's been no changes to the amendment since the January meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any discussion on this one? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motionto approve. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Secondby Karen. A1l in favor, signift saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-0. Does that wrap it up, Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: That is all of our amendments for today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dam. We had scheduled to 10 o'clock. Any - of the huge audience, is Page 10 ofll February 7,2018 "Special LDC/CCPC" meeting there any member of the public that would like to speak on these matters tonight? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none and seeing none, we have no public comment. Is there a motion to adjoum? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane, second by Karen. All in favor, siguff by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AyC. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out ofhere. Thankyou. MR. FRANTZ: Thankyou. ******+ There being no firther business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjournedby order of the Chair at 5:39 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST DWIG}IT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented / oras conected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT,INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 11 ofll