Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/05/1995 S (LDC Amendments) SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:10 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members ALSO PRESENT: present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Mac'Kie ABSENT: Bettye J. Hatthews W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager David Weigel, Assistant County Attorney Harjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Bob Hulhere, Planning and Technical Services Manager Wayne Arnold, Planning Services Department Director Item #3A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ODINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE ONE THEREOF, GENERAL PROVISIONS; ARTICLE TWO THEREOF, ZONING; ARTICLE SIX THEREOF, DEFINITIONS; MORE PARTICULARLY PROVIDING FOR SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; SECTION FOUR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON APRIL 19, 1995 CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll go ahead and call this public meeting to order on April 5th, 1995. Mr. Dorrill, could you lead us in a pledge and invocation, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you and give praise to you in your name for all the grace and wonder that you've bestowed on this county this evening. As we deal with issues of particular importance to this county concerning our lands, we would ask that you guide the deliberations of this county commission and that you, as always, would bless our time here together this evening. We pray these things in your Son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. This public hearing is to determine if we're going to amend an ordinance -- if we're going to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code. Mr. Mulhere, would you like to start please? MR. MULHERE: Good evening. Bob Mulhere with Current Planning and Technical Services for the record. This is the first of two required evening hearings -- the second hearing is on the 19th of April -- to review some proposed amendments to the Land Development Code. In addition to myself, Mr. Arnold is here this evening to answer any questions, as well as Marjorie Student and Mr. Weigel representing the attorney's office. The way we handled these the last time -- you can let me know if we can do it that way this time as well as -- is we went basically page by page, I explained the proposed amendment, and members of the public who wish to comment -- we would ask if members of the public wish to comment on that, if not we would move on, if they did they would come up and make any comments, if you'd like to handle it that way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds acceptable to me, Mr. Chairman. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great idea, Bob. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Great idea. MR. HULHERE: Thank you. The first proposed change -- and I just want to comment on the structure. Again we followed a standard structure for these amendments in which we identify the origin, the author, and the originating department, the LDC section, a brief description of what the change is and the reason for that change, and then a statement on the fiscal and operational impact, if there is any fiscal or operational impact, any related codes, and then at -- following that, the amended sections. The first one is section 1.8.3, which is nonconforming uses of lands or waters or structures. And over the years the Land Development Code prior to that, the zoning ordinance has always used a time frame of 90 days in which any existing nonconforming use of land, water, or structure, if that use ceased for a period of time greater than 90 days other than by government intervention, then any future use of the land, water, or structure would have to conform to our current code or the overlying zoning in the district. And the county Attorney's Office had identified a concern relative to that time frame. Ninety days is a fairly short period of time and, in fact, people could be attempting to lease the property or attempting to continue to use the property, and 90 days is fairly short really. So it was suggested that 180 would be -- I'm gonna use the term more legally defensible if there was a challenge to that. So we've made that change. In addition, on page 4, agenda packet page 4, your planning staff reviews every new request for a use through the zoning certificate process. Often times existing uses do not comply with today's code in terms of either landscaping, parking, or access to the building for the disabled or even parking for the disabled. And we have held that certain improvements should be made prior to us authorizing a use -- a new use. And we want to keep that 90-day time frame for that, so that while the -- the nonconforming use may not be required to cease in 90 days. If someone would come forward and ask for a nonconforming use -- a new nonconforming use in a building or structure, then we would be able to require that, for example, if they didn't have handicapped parking that meet the code that they go ahead and provide that as a stipulation to the zoning certificate. And the wording that we've used is "to the greatest extent possible given the physical constraints of the property." We do not require someone to remove parking spaces to take a 5-foot landscape buffer to a 10-foot landscaping buffer, because to us the greater requirement is the parking for the benefit of the public. So that's why we want to include that language. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Questions from the board? Any members of the public want to speak on this item? We'll go to the next. MR. MULHERE: The next item, pages 5 through 8, are changes that provide for a 10-foot minimum requirement for side yards or rear yards where the Land Development Code requires a setback of less than 10 feet for properties adjacent to the water. And on page -- I believe it's 36 of your agenda packets, we've proposed a definition of waterfront yards. It's not page 36, though. It's page 31. We've proposed a definition of waterfront yards which basically says that in no case shall any structure be located in 10 feet where property is, you know, is waterfront. This really occurs most often or is of greatest concern only on corner waterfront lots because on a corner lot you have two front yards and two side yards. And, for example, in the RSF-3 zoning district, the side yard requirement is 7 1/2 feet. I can give you some examples. For example, on Marco Island and I believe Vanderbilt Beach Estates and some other areas there, there are some properties where the property actually extends out into the water. And it was never very clear or clear enough in our opinion where you should measure that setback from. We obviously do not want people building out over the water. There is a structural concern where people might have a desire to build right on the bulkhead or too close to the bulkhead. It was probably explained a little better in 82-2, the predecessor of this ordinance. So we've met with representatives of CBIA and various engineers, and everyone has agreed that really for structural and for visibility and view concerns, no structure should be closer than 10 feet, and that's what we're proposing here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And those are the only changes from page 5 through 87 MR. HULHERE: 5 through 8, correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. MR. HULHERE: Page 9 is a petition that was brought forward by Bruce Anderson. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Hulhere. Is there any member of the public here to speak on side yard setback change? If not, we'll go forward then. MR. HULHERE: Okay. On page 9, this amendment was brought forward by Bruce Anderson. This is an amendment that would place back into the industrial district fitness centers as a permitted principal use. Fitness centers were previously allowed under Ordinance 82-2, the predecessor of this ordinance. And a number of -- as is indicated, a number of uses were taken out of the industrial district when this -- when this ordinance was adopted based on the fact that they were considered not to be industrial uses. A number of uses were also left in which were not industrial uses. And I would cite for an example restaurants and child care centers. Those types of uses that were left in were deemed to be a use that the employment center, which is constituted by the industrial district, could support. And staff has reviewed this. And in order for it to be in compliance -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Bob. Real quick, we have gyms and industrial centers, any problems or complaints with them? MR. HULHERE: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good enough. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's the only change on page 9 and 10 then? MR. HULHERE: That is correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No problem on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Bruce, do you want to speak or have you heard enough? MR. ANDERSON: I feel no reason to speak unless you have any questions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll move forward then. MR. HULHERE: Page 11 is the start of the change. We -- based on some direction from the board and with the assistance of the County Attorney's office, the real property office, the planning department, we looked at a language that would clarify to a greater extent the timing for both when amenity development would occur within a PUD or maybe as possibly attached to a conditional use, as sometimes is the case, as well as the timing for dedication of public facilities. There have been some examples where a developer has committed to dedicate a strip of right-of-way, for example, and when it came time for the county to -- the timing was there for the county to construct that road, the developer was not on the same time frame for the dedication of that strip of right-of-way. And in fact the county has been forced to go to condemnation or other methodologies, which is very costly and time consuming. What we would propose through this language is that the developer come forward, and asking for the zoning action would be very clear and precise, and we would be -- and we would require that and they would be in terms of a timing for development of amenities. There may be some public comment on this one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As an example, the original plan in Pelican Bay showed several parks that were never built. If this were in place, would those parks then be required to be built or the PUD amended at a later date? MR. HULHERE: That's correct, and at a time-specific. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hulhere, as I understand this change, this does -- this change itself doesn't set down specific time lines but just says that it must be contained within the PUD. MR. HULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that correct? MR. HULHERE: We felt compelled to leave it up to the developer or the development team that is proposing the project to be able to design some time frame that would suit their needs, and we could bring it forward to you, the board, to review at that time to determine if that was appropriate. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's the point, I think, is that, rather than have the county start interfering in their private business, that what we're really asking is for some commitment from them which we intend to hold them to at some point in time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This seems remarkably logical. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It certainly does. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have one question, possibly a concern. Requiring the developer to disclose a timetable for amenity development, I don't have a problem with that except that where are the teeth if they don't? If they put forth a timetable and don't meet it, are they then -- is it code enforcement problem or are they in violation of their zoning? What's the fall back there? MR. HULHERE: The obvious -- the most obvious remedy would be that, yeah, it would be a code enforcement violation and we could take some action, specifically not limited to bringing them forward to the board for -- you know, I think maybe Harjorie could comment on this, but other than revocation of the zoning or no further building permits or something along these lines. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. I would think as a practical matter that if for some reason the developer couldn't meet those time frames, he would probably be coming in to amend the PUD in some fashion to set some new time frames. But there are provisions in the Land Development Code because, after all, any of these provisions are an ordinance because they are an amendment to each -- each PUD is an amendment to the Land Code, so there could be a code violation there as well. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Could that timetable be linked to unit constructions as opposed to time specific? MS. STUDENT: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That helps put it together for me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hulhere, would this have precluded some of the problems we've had in the past such as Embassy Woods for example? MR. HULHERE: That's one very good example of the genesis of this change. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have anyone that wishes to speak on this item? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, you're here for this? Are you registered? MR. WEIGEL: Not registered and no pedigree. I just wanted to stated that it's a bit of chicken and egg after the approval has occurred and amenities are not provided within a time frame has been discussed by staff and Harjorie Student. But this for the first time puts into the ordinance form a -- rather than a policy decision to have amenities or not with a time frame in the ordinance, but it will be technically not subject to legal sufficiency approval if it is not in the PUD ordinance itself; whereas up to this point it may have been legally sufficient, but, oh my, we didn't have a time frame in there. So that time frame will be part of the many elements that are reviewed for legal sufficiency prior to a recommendation to the board in the first place. MS. STUDENT: I might add, Mr. Chairman, that on a case by case basis over the last year or so, we've been endeavoring to make sure that there's some clarity in the PUD on that point. But now it does carry, you know, legal teeth, if you will, since it is a provision of the LDC. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We'll move to the next item. MR. HULHERE: Page 14 of your agenda packet. This language -- we were directed to place this into the Land Development Code by the County Attorney's office. It mirrors and exactly reflects the state statutes relative to development of schools. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No differences? Keeping downed airplanes out of school yards? MR. HULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I assume nobody wants to speak against that one? We'll move forward to the next one then. MR. HULHERE: Page 16 of your agenda packet, this language as directed by the board is the recommendations of the Golden Gate Architectural Committee review committee. That language was in the land -- was in the growth management plan. And we haven't taken it out of the growth management plan, we put it into the Land Development Code. Presumably the next step would be to take some of this language out of the Land Development Code because it's very specific, for example, permitted uses which aren't necessary to be in the growth management plan. So this reflects the recommendations of the Golden Gate Architecture Review Committee. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. MR. HULHERE: And you probably are familiar we've had a couple PUDs come forward recently. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Last week I think we looked at another portion of this. This is the Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office commercial overlay district, affectionately known as GGPPOCO, it says right here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess affectionately is the appropriate term there. MR. HULHERE: On agenda page 22 -- anybody want to speak on that? Page 22, this language you've seen I think two or three different times. This is the language to create the Marco Lake Drive business district. I do want to report that we have deposited checks for $7,000 for costs -- to cover the cost of improving that public parking district with signage, paving, striping, bumper stops. Those checks are in hand and have been deposited. Mr. Archibald hasn't given me a time certain yet, but I would like to come back to you by the next meeting on the 19th with time certain when those improvements -- that has been requested by the property owners. So I'll check with him, and before the 19th we should be able to give you some kind of time certain when those improvements will occur on Marco Lake Drive. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is similar to the item we just heard, which is ratifying something we've done before -- MR. MULHERE: Right, exactly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- in the LDC. All right. We'll move forward then to 24. MR. MULHERE: Page 24. This is an amendment to change the sign section of the Land Development Code relative to political signs to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, wait a second -- no, just kidding. MR. MULHERE: Staff had some complaints relative to proclivity of public signs on parcels. Mainly they had to do with national politicians and state -- Mr. Bush, for example, had a whole bunch of signs out on one corner. And we thought by making rules fair for everybody and limiting them on small parcels, we'd be doing a service to the community. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No separate for Democrats? It's a thought. MR. MULHERE: There may be some comment from the public on this one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess there is. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There may be some comment from the public. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe some comment from the board on this one. I agree that there were some abuses of liberties, and I have kind of some technical problems with the way this is written. I guess maybe if you -- unless you've ever been out there digging the holes and putting them up yourself, procedurally some of this may not occur to you. But unless you are the first person on a corner on a small lot, you don't get a "V" sign. You have to put up two separate signs to get equal coverage. So on the small parcel piece, if you're relegated to one sign only, either a "V" sign or just one, your coverage is shot. You'll cover one direction -- or one or two directions and miss another two. So technically, you know, granted every day there are fewer and fewer places to erect political signs in this county, but unless you're the first person out there, that can be a problem on a smaller lot. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fewer and fewer places erected legally. They seem to go up anyway. I share the same concern. I mean just logistically -- MR. MULHERE: Limiting either to a "V" or two -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or two singular on smaller parcels, would that be acceptable? I mean I had some that it got so cluttered, by the time I got out there I had to put three up to get the same coverage somebody had with a "V" sign. It was just amazing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think I had more than seven in any one location. MR. MULHERE: Just the messenger here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I also had a situation where I did get the corner and I used three signs together to get complete coverage and that's not even allowed here, but I'm just -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that a confession? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Pardon? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Confession? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, it's a reality. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's here from Mr. Davis. He may have some insight on this. MR. DAVIS: Mike Davis, vise president of Sign Craft. I guess I'm the political sign guru or whatever. As far as producing, I do about 90e of them every two years. And I feel -- I feel a little bit stupid for being here because we're -- we make a significant amount of money every two years on just what we're talking about here as a company being that we do the lion's share of the political sign business in the area. On the other hand, though, living here for 22 years as I have, I have to drive by them every day too during political season. So I think some way to control them a bit more is certainly well worth doing. The permit number being required to be on the signs, I think, is a great idea, because then it -- it makes code enforcement's job so much easier to identify who the culprit is, if you will, and deal with it. And I tend to agree with the two commissioners that spoke about the idea that if you are first to the corner, you do have a big advantage. But I think maybe if it was two signs, and just say two signs allowing it to be either single-faced, double-faced which, of course, could be a 90 degree "V" would probably solve that problem. The dilemma with the first one on the corner is I don't know how you get around that one. It's the first one there. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's gonna happen. I was just using that as -- once that spot is taken, a single "V" sign is no longer gonna cut it. So changing it to two signs to me would solve that. MR. MULHERE: That's why we need the variable heights. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think the way I understand this discussion, two signs -- a "V" sign constitutes two signs. We're talking about two sign faces. MR. DAVIS: If you say in the code two signs, then it can be either single-faced or double-faced. And a double-faced sign can be parallel, back to back, or installed in no more than a 90 degree angle. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Could we just say two sign faces per parcel? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That means a "V" would then constitute two signs. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As we delve into this discussion, I felt like Naples City Council. MR. DAVIS: I had a note about let's not go as far as the city, because don't forget that -- in preaching to the choir here as a political candidate, I think this is probably some of the most cost effective advertising that a candidate can do to put their name out before the public. So I would think that it's certainly necessary. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a serious comment here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, just a comment. One of the first memos I wrote to the attorney's office after being elected was in reference to political signs. Much like you said, you profited from it, yet it has turned into a clutter. I think it benefitted me during my campaign, but nonetheless there is a clutter out there. It's a mess. And my question at the time had been is there a way to limit the number of signs not only for one candidate but total that could appear on one property so you didn't end up like the corner of Airport and Golden Gate with a zillion? I think the indication at the time was no, because you start ending up infringing on free speech and so on and so forth. But it would seem to me that it is a problem. And I think I agree with Tim. We could -- one is too few, but we need to address it. And maybe the simple way you've outlined is the appropriate way to do that starting in 1997. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Allow me to clarify. Commissioner Norris said a "V" constitutes two. The language as proposed by staff says "'V' signs as defined by this code shall constitute a single sign." MR. MULHERE: It does. A "V" sign is by our code considered only one sign. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if we then change it to "the number of such sign shall be limited to one sign per bulk permit for each interior lot less than five acres," you could then put up two "V" signs. So I'm not -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question for you on that. If the "V" sign has 40 square feet on one side and 40 square feet on this side, that still only constitutes one? MR. MULHERE: That's right. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: We know too much about this subject I think. MR. MULHERE: I think Commissioner Norris mentioned two faces. That might be one way to -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Good enough. MR. DAVIS: The reason I said about just calling it a sign was to keep it consistent with the code, because when one talks about a sign, it can be either single-faced or double-faced. MR. MULHERE: One "V" sign or two singular-faced signs. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion we revise the proposed language to read, paragraph number 3, starting with the underline, "The number of such signs shall be limited to two sign faces per bulk permit for each inferior lot," and then remove the last sentence which states, "'V' signs as defined by this code shall constitute a single sign." COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm gonna make a suggestion before there's a second. Can we just say two signs? If you have one sign that has two faces on, there's no harm done because it's still only 40 square feet. If you can see that from both ways, great. I hate to discourage somebody from doing that and count that as two signs, but just two signs, period. Like it says one sign per bulk, just make two signs per bulk, and then leave the last line there. So the only change would be two signs per bulk. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My guess is that would read more confusion than the two signs. MR. DAVIS: That's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Isn't that what you -- MR. DAVIS: Yeah, because it's elsewhere in the code. When it talks about a sign, it just says sign and we all understand it can be single or double. MR. MULHERE: Just take out the last sentence. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Take out the last sentence and revise the portion that reads "limited to one," make that read "limited to two signs." Is that what you're proposing, Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And "V" signs are already defined elsewhere in the code, so that's just repetitive to have that last sentence in there, correct? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I like the city's plan. MR. WEIGEL: For clarity, check the punctuation. That may be one long sentence we have there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You guys can work that out before the second meeting. MR. HULHERE: If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting regardless -- regardless, a maximum of two signs. Am I -- do I understand that correctly? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Whether it's a "V" or two single-faced signs. That's what we're saying, right? We have a motion on the floor. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And we have a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed? That carries. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, if I could very briefly, in reviewing this and some other items with Mr. Hulhere and some of the other staff members, we've identified three or four minor points in the sign code that, I think, need a little polishing, one example being we currently have a 15-foot setback for permanent signs. City of Naples has five feet. We discovered that a significant number of our current nonconforming signs are nonconforming merely for that reason. And when we look at a road project like US 41 East, the current bid to just move the signs is well in excess of half a million dollars. That 10-feet difference, while I don't think perceivable visually, could make a big difference in the cost to us as a community. I merely bring that up to see if you have any input as I continue to work with staff on this and hopefully bring some changes along those lines before you in the future to take a look at. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That would be appreciated, Mr. Davis. MR. DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Page 26, I believe, Mr. Hulhere. MR. HULHERE: Yes, page 26 is exceptions to required yards. The Land Development Code currently allows for a three-foot encroachment into required yard for stairs and balconies and those types of things in a side yard and a rear yard. It also allows for a three-foot overhang in any yard. And the building community identified a little bit of a difficulty with this because today all of your structures basically have to be elevated to some extent, you know, to meet flood elevations. And once you go over 30 inches in height, you're then required to have a handrail. And they don't want to put a handrail half way down the stairs and stop it because aesthetically it isn't very appealing, and it's probably not very safe either. So once you put that handrail and you go over 30 inches, you now have a structure, you have to meet the setback. We met with CBIA, and we feel that allowing that three-foot encroachment for stairs into the front yard is acceptable, and we support that amendment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would agree with staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ditto. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public comment? Okay. We'll move forward. MR. MULHERE: Page 27 is parking and storage of certain vehicles. And this is intended simply as a clarification, adding clarifying language relative to major recreational vehicle parking. We've added, you know, to identify that those vehicles should be owned or leased by the owner or current occupant of the residence. There's been some confusion, I think, mainly in code enforcement or some argument by violators that, you know, it wasn't clear. And so we've clarified that and also added "so as not to be visible from the street." CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is just a clarification? MR. MULHERE: Just clarification. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. MULHERE: On agenda item page 29 is some further clarification for home occupations. Again, when violations occur, code enforcement has had some difficulty in the past. We felt as though the language was clear, but I think this makes it a little bit clearer. Ms. Student suggested a couple of changes to the language that I've written here where it starts out "trafficking," to change that to "traveling." I like trafficking, but -- and then to add so it would read "traveling to and from residence by employees of the business of the home occupation." And I think that does read clearer. MS. STUDENT: As a business operated as a home occupation, makes it a little clearer. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No offense, Ms. Student, but there's nothing clear about this language. It's five sentences saying no coming in and out. MS. STUDENT: Basically, yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Give a lawyer a job, for heaven's sake. MR. HULHERE: The example is you get the lawn service that has five or six employees, they all meet at the lawn service person's home, park their vehicles, conglomerate, drink coffee, make noise, go off and do their business, and then come back and do the same thing at 5:00 o'clock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I suggest that every time we add a sentence to the code we have to find one to take out? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We've done that before. Moving right along, was there any public comment on that item? Let's go forward. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let the record reflect the public comment is "good." MR. HULHERE: Page 30, definitions. Again just a clarification for setback line. This is the way we currently do measure of setback. We added "sea wall main high water mark" in the language, whichever is more restrictive. Again, we don't want people who may own out into the water building out over the water, so just a clarification. We've already discussed -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a public comment on this one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He does feel compelled to rise at this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: I just want to offer a comment. The current definition of setback line permits the setback to be measured from the shoreline to the beginning point of the buildable area, and it doesn't require that it be measured from the property line. This amendment, as Mr. Hulhere was explaining, would require it to be measured from the most restrictive point. Without getting into the merits at all, I would just like to confirm for the record that this change will not apply retroactively to situations such as the building permit that was originally approved for lot 14, block 1 at Hideaway Beach. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Otherwise known as the Gibson residence. MR. HULHERE: I'll tell you, I wrote this long before that came up. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just wanted to put that on the record Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have a question. What's the difference between the shoreline and the main high water mark? Shoreline talking about a lake body? Whereas a mean high water mark is the tidal area? MR. HULHERE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next. MR. HULHERE: Page 31 we've discussed. It's the addition of a definition of waterfront yard, which used to be in the code and somehow when we adopted the new Land Development Code came out. So we added that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. We have discussed that One. MR. MULHERE: And on page 32 is a definition of a shoulder lot. These shoulder lots most often occur currently within Collier County on Marco Island at the -- they're end of waterway lots, and so they're corner lots. And Deltona Corporation when they -- when they came in and platted those lots -- and if you look at the plat, you see a rectangular shaped lot, which I have on the board back here. I don't have a microphone. When they actually built them, they put in about a 12 by 50 foot boat dock slip and created really a shoulder lot. And we've defined -- that puts a little bit of a burden because there's a corner lot you're required to have two front yards and two side yards, but actually two waterfront yards. There's a bit of a -- the building industry identified a bit of a hardship there, and we met on three or four occasions with CBIA and Marco Island Civic Association and a various numbers of builders on Marco Island. I say it really only occurs for the most part on Marco Island. It could occur somewhere else, and there may be some other examples in the county. Again, I'm thinking possibly Vanderbilt Beach Estates. I haven't really seen it anywhere else. The bottom line is what we've proposed here is to define shoulder lot and then under front yard to allow for a five-foot reduction in the required front yard to 25 feet, to a minimum of 25 feet. So in the RSF-3 district you're required to have a 30-foot front yard if you are a shoulder lot and you are along the longest street. You are providing two front yards and two waterfront yards. This definition -- this amendment would allow you to go to 25 feet only along that longest street. And it's not dissimilar to what we've allowed for in the estates, for example, corner lots. I'm sure I didn't do a very good job explaining that, but do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did you get input from Marco Island Civic Association on this one? MR. MULHERE: They were supportive of this amendment, as was the CBIA. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Then is there public comment on this item? 35. MR. MULHERE: That's it. That's the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's the end of it? MR. MULHERE: -- Planning Commission report. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next hearing on this is scheduled for two weeks? MR. MULHERE: April 19th. MS. STUDENT: You need to announce the time if you would, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Our second hearing on these items will be Wednesday, April 19, at 5:05 p.m. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Mulhere, the LDC amendments are how often? MR. MULHERE: Just wanted to talk about that. They occur twice a year, except the resolution setting those times also allows for an emergency amendment -- or I guess the LDC allows for an emergency amendment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason is there are some things you and I have discussed on different occasions about potential limits on LDC areas. I guess you need board action to begin starting those. I'll save it for communication on another date, but for the next cycle there's some things that I would like your department to take a look at, and I'll be bringing those back to you. MR. MULHERE: Good. MR. ARNOLD: If I might, Wayne Arnold for the record. One comment related to the timing of these LDC amendments, since we have gone through the Municipal Code Corporation to codify the LDC amendments, they're producing those within 30 days of their transmittal to them, which is quicker than we were able to do them. However, they only do them during a couple of times of the year which doesn't coincide with our amendment cycle. And what we would like to at least bring back to you once we've obtained their schedule is to possibly modify the resolution of our timing schedule so that it can coincide with theirs, rather than -- right now ours might be January, their's might not be till July. We'd like to make sure that the dates can match. But theirs is also twice a year, I understand. Ours is twice a year, but we'd likes to bring those together if we can. MR. MULHERE: January 1st and July 1st are the dates that you'll submit changes to -- MR. WEIGEL: I think that's negotiable with our ongoing relationship. As long as we plan ahead and let them know ahead, I believe we can work it out with a minimum of change or difficulty for either partner in the contract. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then that concludes that item. And we'll move on to our additional item number 4, Commissioner Constantine. Item #4A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ISSUES INVOLVING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR - STATE ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL CRIMINAL ISSUES AND ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY BRYANT TO INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL PERSONNEL ISSUES REGARDING THE COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR AND REPORT BACK TO THE BCC COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yesterday I issued a memo to the County Manager in regards to community development and all that's gone on there. There are a number of rumors and innuendo and so on. My suggestion is to best determine what's going on there we would probably want to direct the manager to have some sort of outside entity take an objective and in-depth look. Where we're at right now isn't very productive. With all the rumors and innuendos, I think we've created a poor work atmosphere for our employees, the vast majority of which are really being distracted from trying to do their job. I think what we need to do is either look at the State Attorney's office or the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and have one of them dive into this in some detail. If there's any substance to the rumors, then we need to know immediately and get that behind us, correct it, and get it behind us. If there's no substance to any of this, then let's put it to bed once and for all and move on. But I think very important we have an outside source, someone who's not connected from the county, look at that in depth and report as quickly as they can back to us. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree in full. I think this board needs to make a concerted effort on a single line as opposed to the three or four that have been ongoing in different directions. And there may be public comment on this, there may not. But I stand ready to state my preference as going with the State Attorney's investigation instead of the FDLE, and I'll make a motion to that effect. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would that take care of your comments? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I do have more comments. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You still have comments? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. Mine are that I agree that this needs to be a State Attorney's investigation to -- as you said, Commissioner Constantine, find out if there's truth to the rumors. The State Attorney, however, we have to be careful only has jurisdiction to investigate criminal matters, and that's our highest property -- my highest priority and I'm sure everybody else's. And while I think consolidation of the effort is a good idea, I don't think we should stop at investigation of criminal matters. I would like to suggest two things. One, with all deference to our County Manager, we cannot possibly have the fox guard the hen house in this case, so I think that the State Attorney -- we should as a board request the State Attorney to investigate and to report to us and not through the manager's office. And secondly, I think that we should through our County Attorney's office have -- have David Bryant, is my suggestion, since he's been working on this and since he has the experience as a prosecutor and has some very specific experience that would be useful from a risk management and liability protection of the county from the perspective of correcting not just the criminal problems if they exist, but the personnel problems if they exist, that we pursue both of those avenues at the same time, both of those reporting directly to the board. So my suggestion is I support the State Attorney for -- for the criminal -- potential criminal issues. But I want the personnel issues -- I want from the ground floor up examined what kind of work environment we create for our employees. And I think that -- that I would like to work with Mr. Bryant in that area. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My suggestion would be to have Mr. Bryant work in concert with the State Attorney's office. I think they should be the lead and he can work as a part of that investigation. And I think while they will not prosecute noncriminal matters, they're -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They won't investigate -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, during the course of their investigation, I think if they stumble across anything like that, then they can certainly pass that on to Mr. Bryant. But I want to be careful not to have two parallel -- separate investigations. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I concur with what you're saying, Commissioner, and also Commissioner Mac'Kie. There really are two separate issues. One is a labor risk analysis issue, and the other is the criminal investigation; which, one, we have no authority for and two, it's their responsibility. And I think that is the appropriate position for Mr. D'Alessandro to handle that. However, I commend you on wanting to look at the other issues too, because it really goes to the future exposure of the county for not only past supposed transgressions, but anything that we might prevent for the future. So by doing that, you're becoming really good stewards and protectors of the county's liability. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My suggestion is just that they do it hand in hand. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think the important thing here is that the county manager's responsible for the administrative review that he's conducting. MR. DORRILL: That's -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I want to know from him how he feels about what's being proposed. MR. DORRILL: We have been in cooperation with the Sheriff's Department and also have requested the assistance of the County Attorney thus far. And I would also agree that because there are some allegations and only that of other activity outside of our jurisdiction, we should encourage that those be explored fully. As it concerns management issues, though, the County Manager is your first source of obligation and accountability to provide this board with information and take whatever personnel or disciplinary actions are necessary because, frankly, the County Attorney can't do that. Now, we have cooperated with him. I don't fully understand what a risk management assessment means or what that entails, but your first course of responsibility is to ask for the information and the supporting disciplinary or personnel or management actions be taken. That is also ongoing. And I intend, as we have thus far, to report those to the board directly. And we will continue to do that with the cooperation of the County Attorney's office. The County Attorney, though, does not have any management ability when it comes to taking disciplinary action as it pertains to the board's adopted policies and procedures. So that is going to be our obligation to provide you with the information and rationale of any disciplinary action that comes subsequent as part of our on going investigation. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Again with all due respect, that is your job, and I trust that you will be doing that. However, the buck does stop with you. And it is necessary, as far as I'm concerned, to have separate from the criminal allegations these broader personnel or other risk management issues investigated by someone other than the fox guarding the hen house. And that's why I think since the County Attorney works for us and not for you that that's an appropriate avenue to pursue. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to agree with that. Mr. Dotrill, it is your responsibility to discipline if there are any improprieties going on. However, I think it would -- both for the public perception and for our comfort it would do better as we look into whether or not there are improprieties that would require discipline that someone independent of your office do that. It's not a reflection on you personally. MR. DORRILL: I don't have any problem with that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I can finish, depending on what is found from that, then obviously it's through your office that action will be -- whatever action necessary will be taken. But I think Commissioner Hac'Kie's on the button. MR. DORRILL: I just want to make a distinction between the ability to take action and investigate as the ability to gather information and report what our perceptions, which is what the County Attorney can do. The County Attorney does not have the ability to take any action here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to amend my motion. I'm in full agreement with what this board has stated here this evening. I think it's our responsibility to the citizens to bring this forward in the manner that has been proposed. I'll amend my motion to ask this board to request the State Attorney's involvement regarding criminal violations and other matters under their jurisdiction and the review of development services and past activities regarding Mr. Clark's position there. In addition, I would like to direct Mr. Bryant of the County Attorney's staff to work in concert with the State Attorney to look at potential liability questions that the county could be subjected to and all other matters he feels would be appropriate to protect the county in the future. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Amend my second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just a second. I'm not sure we have the authority to direct Mr. Bryant. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will amend to request the county -- the appropriate personnel within the County Attorney's office. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think we have the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't think we did. Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. If I may. As we know, the County Attorney office has not been involved, at least to recent recollection, with an investigation of the staffing departments with whom it works but obviously has endeavored to do so up to this point at the direction or request of the County Manager and from this point forward at the direction and request of the Board of County Commissioners. I would suggest, however, that the direction be to the County Attorney who himself works for the board, as the assistants obviously are extensions of the County Attorney, that the authorization be for the County Attorney to pursue the investigation and reporting back to you what you're looking for as opposed to an individual assistant that is employed under the County Attorney himself. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. I'll amend my motion to direct it to the County Attorney's office with the understanding that this board would like to see Mr. Bryant in that capacity. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we have the authority to do it, but I trust that Mr. Cuyler will do what we're asking. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would you clarify that, Mr. Weigel, for Commissioner Mac'Kie whether the board should direct anyone other than the County Attorney himself? MR. WEIGEL: Well -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just before you go, Mr. Weigel, I think the point is we can appoint -- we tell the County Attorney to do something. We can make it very clear what our intent is. I think our intent is that Mr. Bryant be that person. The County Attorney has hired and fired and maintained -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The question is can we directly direct Mr. Bryant, and I don't think we can do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I think we're getting into semantics here. The end result of what we're doing is that we can make that happen. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's not semantics. It's legal. It's what's legal and not legal. It's not semantics at all. We have a motion and a second on the floor. We'll call to question, all those in favor signify by saying eye. Opposed? MR. DORRILL: Just point of clarification. I don't want to mis-imply your direction. We have requested the assistance thus far of the County Attorney's office for any of the steps and the assistance to take statements from other employees thus far. I'm presuming, unless you tell me otherwise, that you want that to continue, because we've coordinated all of our efforts with the County Attorney thus far. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My memo to you yesterday was in no way to be critical of your handling of the matter or your office's handling of the matter so far. But I think as Commissioner Hancock indicated, right now the investigations seem to be coming from and going in three or four different directions. And by this action, I think we set one specific direction. Let's get the information. Let's get to the bottom of it. See if there's substance, great, let's correct it. If there's no substance, do it, let's put it to bed and move on. This is not intended to be critical, just let's set one single direction. MR. DORRILL: Therefore, you're intending for me to continue to coordinate any actions that I take with the County Attorney -- any subsequent action? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think I need the clarification myself. Is this board telling our county manager he's not to be involved in the investigation from now on? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That was not the intent of the motion. Mr. Dotrill, you have a responsibility under the human resources department and the practices that go on under the County Manager and to make sure those practices continue smoothly. If there's a problem, I expect you to find it and resolve it. So I'm not asking you to stop an investigation into something, but I am asking that the information you have or direction you take regarding criminal proceedings be handled by the State Attorney and that you accept the assistance of the County Attorney's office. MR. DORRILL: That would be automatic. And I'm divorcing any of the criminal activity from what I consider to be the management role and the obligation that I have to you under the County Manager's office. I have taken certain steps that are managerial. I have coordinated with the County Attorney, and I am intending to continue to do that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe we have agreement on the board that that's correct. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's your job. MR. DORRILL: That's why we had specifically not offered any comment on any matters that could be criminal, because that's not our job. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That being the case, if there's no further comment, Ms. Nielson said we could be excused. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 6:00 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMHISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Anjonette K. Baum, CSR