Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/21/1997 S (LDC Amendments) SPECIAL MEETING OF HAY 21, 1997 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 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. HAc'kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Hike HcNees, Assistant County HAnager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #3A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON JUNE 4, 1997 CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to ask for your attention if you could have a seat. We're going to call to order the May 21st, 1997 Meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for review of the Land Development Code Proceedings. This morning (sic) we have an invocation. I see Mr. McNees coming in, Mr. Cautero. Mr. McNees, would you be so kind as to lead us in an invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance? MR. McNEES: Our heavenly Father, we ask your blessings this evening on each of us as we gather once again to conduct the business of this county government and make decisions that will affect its future. We thank you for the privilege of living and working here in Collier County and we ask your guidance on these proceedings. We ask these things in Jesus name. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. We don't have, I assume, any changes to the agenda Mr. -- Mr. McNees? MR. McNEES: We do not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, I will go ahead and go to my left here. Mr. Mulhere, I understand you're the point man for this evening's proceedings. MR. MULHERE: Yes, I am. I'm not certain if that's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Congratulations and condolences. MR. MULHERE: -- good or bad but thank you. Bob Mulhere, Current Planning Manager. A couple of minor things I need to put on the record relative to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: -- relative to -- relative to the title. We referenced some of the zoning maps that need to be amended; specifically, the Marco Island zoning maps and several zoning maps in Immokalee. A couple of those maps have changed because they've been combined with other maps, so some of the numbers have changed. I've spoken with Marjorie. We're going to correct that on the ordinance. It -- it doesn't represent a problem because we indicated that we would be amending all of the maps that contain that overlay, so -- and we will go ahead and do that. It's just that some of the numbers have changed. Additionally, in the title by the direction of the County Attorney, we will be changing the title. Instead of reading as to the last paragraph of the title or the last sentence of the title, Section Five, Inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances, that will be changed to say Inclusion in the Land Development Codes. It's just some minor changes in the title. There are several amendments and with the chairman's permission, Tom Kuck is here on behalf of the Engineering Review Staff and four or five of these amendments are his and he has a fairly long ride after this meeting, so if -- if it pleases the board, he could make -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't we all. MR. MULHERE: -- his presentation first. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Only if Mr. Kuck is coming back after that fairly long ride. Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: God bless him. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: Yeah, and I'll get you to where we're starting with that then. Actually the very first -- the second amendment, which is on Page 8 of your agenda package, and actually I -- I probably can do this one myself. If the board may recall, there was a -- I think it was a catfish farm that came in through an excavation permit sometime ago and the size -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've never been so sorry I used the bathroom at the wrong time in my life. I was waiting for that thing and I -- I was not here when it happened so -- MR. HULHERE: Well, the size of the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- gees. MR. HULHERE: -- the excavation caused the board to have some concern as to potentially what the intent or purpose of the excavation was, whether it was in fact for a catfish farm or was it because the cost of fill is very high now and even generates a certain amount of income. In any case, the board directed the staff to -- to make, draw up -- draft an amendment to require a conditional use at some -- at some certain level. And what we're proposing is that if the amount of excavated material removed from the site exceeds 4,000 cubic yards, then they have to go through that process, that conditional use process. That will still allow some accessory excavation for agricultural types of activities within the district. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me give you a scenario on that one, Mr. Hulhere, and maybe Mr. Kuck is most appropriate in this, but there have been other requests and there is an avenue in which the board can authorize for excavation in -- in certain zoning districts. A situation where somebody wants to excavate, haul off-site and then convert the balance of the property into a residential use, it seems like a reasonable request. It seems like something we should be able to do. It's very straightforward. They're not throwing catfish farming at you or anything silly like that. Does this change alter -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you mocking the agricultural industry? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm mocking the catfish industry. Does this change adversely affect in any way someone's ability to come in and make that request or does it even make it a little bit easier for them or is that a wholly separate issue? MR. HULHERE: I think that's a wholly separate issue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: It doesn't -- it doesn't affect that. This would only be in the agricultural district. But any residential development that goes through the approval process, as part of that approval process they can identify and request excavation, so that's -- that's not a problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions on that item? MR. HULHERE: The next agenda that I'm going to ask Mr. Kuck to come up here -- the next amendment is on 3.2.8.3.22. You got it? MR. KUCK: Page 119 and 120. MR. MULHERE: Page 119 of your agenda packet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: For the sake of both, Mr. McNees, I assume you have slips that have been submitted for speakers or are we not doing that this evening? MR. HcNEES: Slips are available in the hall. I have none at this point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. For those members of the public that are here to speak on an item or several items, we ask that you fill out a speaker slip in the hall and try and be as specific as to the item as possible so that we can categorize them and not miss anyone. We'll try as we do each -- each change to identify what it is generally and specifically so you can follow along with us. Mr. Kuck, on Page 119, we have a recommended change to the language on Subdivision Required Improvements. MR. KUCK: Yes. We're requesting an amendment to the LDC -- THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, could you identify yourself? MR. KUCK: Oh, for the record, Tom Kuck, Engineering Planning Review Manager. Yes. This proposed LDC amendment would provide consistent language for the sight distance triangles in Section 2.44 and it reads 13. It should be corrected to be 2.44 16. It says one thing and back in -- in the Section 3.2.8.3.22, it conflicts that and we're making the language so it is consistent in setting up the same sight distances that access ways and the -- at road intersections. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My only question here is DOT is not exactly the most flexible or -- and most of their rules are for high speed but kind of just a larger scale of roadway. Would this cause a problem for local intersections that -- I mean is that a 30 foot -- I assume it -- was it 30 feet that I read? MR. KUCK: 30 feet for a -- on a local road intersection, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. KUCK: The 30-foot triangle. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: From a -- just a realistic standpoint, is that -- is that substantial because there are a lot of people that have corner landscaping in residential neighborhoods and I'd hate to see them have to pull that stuff up when it's a four-way stop and -- you know, I'm -- I'm just wondering if there needs to be a little more flexibility there to avoid a problem. MR. KUCK: I think that there would be the flexibility depending on what type of landscaping they might want to put in that 30-foot triangle. But the main thing is to maintain a proper sight distance so if you're coming out of a driveway or something that you can see the oncoming traffic. And -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree. MR. KUCK: -- that's our main -- main -- main concern. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I agree. I just wondered if you are given that discretion in review to make recommendations; in other words, is this hard and fast, no exceptions? MR. KUCK: The LDC does provide where we can give waivers in special cases. There's one section that I can't recite the exact number but there is a -- a reference in there that, based on sound engineering judgment, that waivers can be given on some of the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. KUCK: -- requirements that are in here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Do we have any further questions on that section? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Just one question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COHHISSIONER BERRY: If there is something that you don't foresee and someone, say an accident or something, it's brought to somebody's attention, because I don't imagine you're going to go out and inspect every intersection, would there be some point at that time that you could make a recommendation to make some changes? MR. KUCK: Yes. We could -- we would more than likely come back at the next LDC cycle to make a revision to it if we see that something needs to be corrected. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And as a reading document, we can change it every six months if we need to -- MR. KUCK: Every six -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- make it further, so -- MR. KUCK: And I think if it was a serious enough problem, we would probably come back and ask the board's permission, that we have a problem and seek your guidance. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The next item? MR. HULHERE: Is on Page 123. MR. KUCK: Okay. On Page 123, again, we're requesting a change of the LDC on -- it seems to make more sense the way the LDC is written currently; farm animal watering ponds or excavations located on single family lots/tracts where the net property's size is five acres or less to make it -- to eliminate the five acres or less and make it for two acres or more. It was -- we found out there seems to be a problem with that and we're recommending that change. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions, problems on that? Seeing none, next. MR. KUCK: On Page 124, again, we're recommending to change to be consistent with South Florida Water Management where we have lake systems and they want to put vertical bulkheads in to adopt the same language that South Florida Water Management has, which is that bulkheads may be allowed for no more than 40 percent of the shoreline length but compensating littoral zone must be provided. And, again, trying to be consistent with South Florida Water Management requirements and most of the project, all projects that are 40 acres or more, come under their jurisdiction so we thought there would be an advantage to have consistency between the -- the two government agencies. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was going to say, we don't review too many that involve bulkheads. MR. KUCK: No. It's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions? Okay. Mr. Kuck. MR. KUCK: The next one is on Page 125 and this is a -- was a recommendation really from Gail Gibson, senior hydrologist, having to do with well permits. And the one -- the first recommendation we're doing or requesting is that on domestic and potable and irrigation wells, that they shall be left and maintained at the same elevations as what the finished floor elevation is. And the reason for that is out -- in some of the outlying areas, in the estates, et cetera, when we have high periods of flooding, that you have a real good chance for contamination with your septic tanks if they're too low so we thought by making the requirement that it be the same as the finished floor elevation, that would give added protection to the residents. Then the other part of it is currently -- and we've had some problems -- that they come in and get a well permit and they're not required to provide a sketch or a drawing showing the location of adjacent wells or septic tanks on the lots that are contiguous to it. And this would require, when they're applying for a well permit, to provide a sketch showing the location of the septic tanks and wells on the surrounding properties so we'd be assured we've maintained the 75-foot radius setback distance. And, again, it's for the safety and welfare of the public. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is sketch defined as an official survey term that a surveyor must prepare it or what -- what -- MR. KUCK: No. We would -- the way it is now, it would not have to be a surveyor, but I -- again, it's one of those items. If we go this route and we foresee a problem with the sketches being submitted, then we would be looking at making a change. We thought that maybe by requiring a surveyor to do it, you know, the cost to the homeowner, you know, you may be talking two, three or $400. And the well drillers are licensed and if we have a problem with them, then we would look at their license for violations. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, the well drillers are subject to this so... MR. KUCK: We have had no objections. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. Any questions on that? Seeing none. Mr. Kuck -- MR. KUCK: That finishes the items I had. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- safe driving this evening. MR. KUCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. HULHERE: And then back on Page 7, if it pleases the board, I guess we can pretty much go through these in order now. Except on Page 7, we have a proposal to incorporate the Collier County Streetscape Master Plan. We don't have the ordinance number yet, and my suggestion would be that we hold off on this until the fourth because the board will be hearing on the 27th the proposed ordinance to -- to incorporate the Streetscape Master Plan and there may -- and probably will be some discussion on the master plan at that point in time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and I just need to tell you -- I think everybody has already said this but until the HSTU's quit writing us letters saying they've been left out of the process -- I've written a letter to the -- whoever they are -- Botner and his group, saying until the HSTU's quit writing us letters saying nobody's talking to them -- MR. HULHERE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- I'm not interested in codifying it and I'm anxious to but not until they -- MR. HULHERE: And I think -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- include everybody. MR. HULHERE: And I -- and I think some of that information will come out Tuesday, that they've met with several of them but I -- rather than discuss it here, I thought -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Let's have our discussion on that at the -- MR. HULHERE: There is one thing I need to get on the record because the Development Services Advisory Committee, your packet is incorrect in which it -- the little spreadsheet that I provided that talks about DSAC and -- and CC -- and CCPC recommendation -- thank you -- that -- that's incorrect on that one item because the Development Services Advisory Committee did not recommend -- the subcommittee did not recommend approval of the Streetscape Master Plan. They recommend that the staff work with the document and bring it back in a -- they -- they objected to the format of it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This little road map is wonderful for what -- for future reference. MR. MULHERE: So -- and -- and on the next page, on Page 8, we went through that. Page -- Page 9 -- I have Mr. Nino here. He is the author of this amendment, and just to give you a little background again, the board had directed staff to take a look at ALF's and other group care housing type components and look at our -- our ordinances and to update them to current state statutes and to address some other issues that the board has -- has struggled with -- with the few petitions that came through in terms of -- of requiring that appropriate documentation as to the intent and the architecture, the design and the floor plan of those types of units be presented so that the board would have that information and the staff would have that information. And, basically, this document does that but it's fairly comprehensive so I'd like to ask Ron to come up and -- and give you an overview of that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino, Planning Services. What staff were about in attempting to revisit the congregate living types of developments was a recognition that, one, we needed -- we needed some redefinition. We needed to improve current definitions and add new definitions so that we become consistent with the references that are used in state statutes that regulate and license the operation of various kinds of continuing care, continuum care housing environments. It also -- it also became clear to staff at least that it really didn't make any sense to talk about dwelling units per acre in the context of -- of care housing because you have a continuum of -- you -- you have housing structure types that span the range from totally independent housing, maybe two or three-bedroom units, to nursing facilities in which you may have two beds in one small room. And you have a whole lot of common facilities in the way of -- of therapeutic rooms and dining rooms and -- and -- and various -- various amenities, in some cases even a golf course. And we concluded that a more appropriate way of addressing that was to develop a measure of the intensity that -- of the development of the site; in other words, the total amount of building area that one could build on an acre of land. And to determine what that factor or that ratio ought to be, we reviewed all of the current and planned adult continuing care environments that are both in existence and coming on board and we found that the largest was, in the case of The Carlisle, under construction on Airport Road, that their ratio or their factor was zero point four five six, slightly higher than the ratio that we're recommending. And let me explain what -- what the factor is -- how the factor works and produces a gross building area. The point four five means that we multiply that factor times the area of the lot to determine the total building area, the total gross floor area that could be constructed on that site. And that may occur in a one-story building or a three-story building. It doesn't change the total gross building area. So, for example, the -- the factor, four five, in the context of a one-story building, means 45 percent coverage of the land. In the context of a two-story building, it means 22 and a half percent coverage of the land. And in the context again of a three-story building, it's significantly less. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 15 percent. MR. NINO: 15. Thank you, commissioner. So, that was the major -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Show off. MR. NINO: -- major change that we introduced into this amendment. In addition -- in addition, we've redefined -- we've added some new definitions to talk about continuing care community -- continuing retirement care communities where one would move into a totally independent unit and -- and would basically buy into a proposition that has them as their needs increase into potentially a nursing care type of facility. We also -- we also indicated that a site development plan would be required -- is -- is required and that site development plan had to prove that there was in fact an aging in place environment; in other words, you couldn't build all independent units. You indeed had to graphically iljustrate that there was the opportunity for aging in place all the way from independent living to nursing care facilities. And you have to show us all of the amenities. You have to prove in that application that have -- you have all of the amenities that provide for some type of assistance even if you're living in a -- in an independent unit. For example, in the case of Bentley Village, you know, there are many independent living units there but those people by contract are required to take their meals in -- in the common dining facilities. And I guess that kitchen in their -- in their independent unit becomes nothing more than a reminder of what they used to do at one time when they were much younger. The -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You seem to enjoy that for some reason, Mr. Nino. Is that looking forward to something or -- MR. NINO: Much closer than you think. We -- we also took the opportunity to revisit the parking requirements. The current requirement is two beds per five units irrespective of whether that's an independent unit or a nursing. Well, we have a lot of gaps in the current regulations. They're not comprehensive enough. We -- we hope that the revisions that -- that are represented here cover those gaps, expand the -- the range of care environment opportunities and provides adequate regulation for all of them. The main -- the main change here is that we're no longer going to talk about 26 units per acre. We're going to talk about here's the maximum amount of building space you can put on this property. Now, the -- the -- the survey that we did, however, will give you a feel for how the 4.5 factor might work out in terms of dwelling units, in terms of units per acre, if you feel more comfortable with that. And we're not completely eliminating it because in most instances care environments will be established through a conditional use which puts it before you and you are undoubtedly going to ask the question: How many units are there -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MR. NINO: -- here? We're not going to sweep it under the rug, in other words. But to give you an example, in The Carlisle, where even in the case of The Carlisle, they would be exceeding that factor by a small amount. Their units per acre, which I don't like to talk about because it doesn't really make any sense, is 21.9. So, the point -- the point four five would appear to structure a building envelope that if we go back to units, it seems to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 units per acre. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me ask this, Mr. Nino. This all started back when there was an application on Marco Island, basically, condominium something under the term Assisted Living Facility. And it was at that point that the board started really looking closely at these and trying to determine 26 units an acre means basically full assisted living; in other words, there's no independent living at all and -- and you fall -- you fell somewhere in the middle. What I'm concerned about is sometimes we regulate ourselves into a corner with these things. We get too numerical and too quantitative about it and it reduces our -- our discretion in some of these applications. As I read through this, I -- I don't think I'm seeing that other than the floor area ratio limit. But I -- I need some -- just some -- a statement from you. When the applications come before the board, because they will under conditional use, nothing in here guarantees nor restricts the board in assigning those units or really leads the petitioner down a certain path that this is what they can expect any more than it has in the past. Is that -- MR. NINO: Correct. As a matter of fact, the statement in the ordinance is a representative sample. And you'll -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The second thing is -- MR. NINO: -- you'll determine what that representative sample is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The second thing is a question of application that we may not have the ability to address here. Maybe it's already addressed. And that is there has been an entity purchasing single family units in Pine Ridge. And the rumor is that they're going to do Assisted Living Facilities in Pine Ridge. One, under the existing zoning of I think it's RSF-1 or three -- MR. NINO: One. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- in there. It's fairly low. MR. NINO: Pine Ridge, it would be one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. RSF-1. Can they do that? MR. MULHERE: I -- I can speak to that. I -- I have some experience. The same thing occurred on Marco Island and I had -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- to do some research on it. And Marjorie may want to speak to the issue also. We found that there are state and Federal statutes that protect under fair housing that protect a certain number of individuals within a single family dwelling unit. To the best of my recollection, that is six -- MR. NINO: That's right. MR. MULHERE: -- not including 24-hour supervision. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: And that those are restricted in that they can be no closer than 1,000 feet from another such establishment but that we cannot restrict them from a single family, from any housing zoning. MR. NINO: Sir, you'll notice that the -- the -- those provisions that have to do with family care, which is what Bob was talking about, remain un -- unchanged in this document. And state -- state law basic -- basically, as Bob said, base -- basically it's a single family residence. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, send them across the hall is what -- MR. NINO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- you're telling me. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: I just wanted to just add that -- because I know it was important to the board -- on the top of Page 7, we kind of just touched on it but we did -- there are additional submittal requirements and we specify certain information that has to be submitted with either the conditional use or the SDP so we will not be in the position that we maybe have previously been where we didn't have the information here for your review. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But you're talking about the agenda, Page 15. MR. HULHERE: I'm sorry. Excuse me. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. MR. HULHERE: The agenda, Page 15. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's not get into the numbers game. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. That's right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's stick to the same -- MR. HULHERE: We've done that before. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All right. Are there any other questions on what Mr. Nino has presented? I think you've captured some of the board's concerns fairly well in this amendment and any of them that -- that pop up as being onerous in the future we can take a look at, but I think it's a good attempt to quantify some things we didn't really have a handle on. MR. NINO: Let -- let me give you one other example because, you know, somebody's going to ask some day. What is the floor area ratio of the Forum, for example, the Glenview in Pelican Bay? That's 1.21. We don't think we want to see that in any other part of the Naples area and so, quite frankly, we didn't even use it as an example but I thought I should tell you about it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's wrong with it? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Glenview is nice but -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: The Glenview? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But that's what you're talking about as -- as far as looking at density was really the wrong thing to look at because it -- sometimes it can lead you away from the real question. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. I understand that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Nothing further on that? No changes? Okay. Mr. Hulhere, next up. MR. HULHERE: Page 18 of your agenda packet is a proposed amendment to the C-1 -- C-1/T district to allow for -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Medical Offices. See, I thought we'd -- MR. MULHERE: -- very -- various health services which are really offices, to take them out of the conditional use criteria and put them into permitted uses, what we're talking about there is medical offices and clinics and dental offices and clinics, which I mean the staff feels really function primarily no different than any other office except that they might generate a little additional parking demand, which is covered in our parking requirements. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: We talked about this a long time ago, didn't we? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. And they're limited in size because they're -- basically, C-1/T is almost a residential style lot -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- so you're not going to get a huge facility. MR. MULHERE: Well, in addition, they -- they would be subject to the architectural standards, so I -- I can't see them functioning or looking any different than any other office. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Makes sense to me. As a matter of fact, the -- Vince Lovetto has a building over in -- in a residential neighborhood that blends in real nice. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Wonderful. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. That's right. MR. MULHERE: On Page 20 is a proposed amendment. And during the last amendment cycle, by the direction of the board, we brought back some amendments to the C-2 district. Just as a little bit of history, there's very little C-2 zoning out there. I believe it's in very -- right in the neighborhood of 60 acres, most of which is developed. There was some -- there was a petition. There was actually a paid petition to amend the LDC on behalf of the C-2 property owner who wanted to expand some of the uses within the district to allow more neighborhood commercial type uses. We did that and -- however, there were a couple of uses that, in looking back and using the LDC code, the -- the amendment was inclusive and should have excluded a few uses in our opinion from that C-2 district. And one was secondhand stores which could allow pawn shops and, therefore, we -- we would take -- recommend that that be taken out. Also, we were recommending that under miscellaneous repair services, it be very specific to exclude certain types of uses, certain types of larger types of equipment and only allow small -- smaller repair, appliance repair. And that's pretty much it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And renumber -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions? MR. MULHERE: And renumber the section. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you take out -- that's what happens here on Number 18, Personal Services Group. If you take out that code, 7231, that's where we lose pawn shops and ammunition stores. MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure which number that is. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I just couldn't tell -- MR. MULHERE: No. That -- that actually is -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll take your word for it but -- MR. MULHERE: I'm glad you brought that up -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where is it? MR. HULHERE: -- because that actually is something I wanted to discuss with the board, which is -- 7231 is beauty shop and barber salon. And I -- I personally don't think there is a problem with that in the C-2 district. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, why is it recommended to go out? MR. HULHERE: I just realized today to be frank with you that that was excluded, that staff's recommendation was to exclude it but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not again. MR. HULHERE: -- beauty -- beauty parlor and barber shop -- and that was something I had a note to bring up to you but I didn't get to it yet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I think that's consistent with CT use is that out of -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It stays. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Leave it in. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Remain. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- but where in here are you striking out the pawn shops and that? I mean that's so important I want to be sure it's done. MR. MULHERE: That might take me a minute to get -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Retail firearm and -- MR. MULHERE: -- to that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- pawn shops. Because I don't see any other strike throughs. MR. MULHERE: It's under general retail, I think. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see another addition. MR. MULHERE: I don't know, Wayne. Give me a second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're saying an M-1 rifle and a diamond shouldn't be -- shouldn't be sold in the same store? MR. MULHERE: I'll have them look it up and we'll come back to it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you. I just want to be sure it's out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are we going to -- are we going to affect anything like a, what is it, Sports Authority, as a retail store that sells handguns and that kind of thing? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They're not on C-2. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That -- that's what I wanted to verify is make sure that kind of retail use -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's in a -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but, see, we're adding general merchandise stores and that's my question. Are we including in CT use like a Sports Authority or something -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are in -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- like that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- those groups? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We need to know that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- it's certain groups is all we're adding, not all of them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know. I just want to make sure -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- we're not creating a problem there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which of those 88 groups we're adding? 5311 to 5399? Does that mean there's 88 we're adding? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm always concerned about unintended results in these decisions. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my only other question on C-2 was that gas stations are permitted in C-2. Is that -- is that something that we added when we did the LDC -- MR. MULHERE: No. That -- that was included. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was always a C-2. MR. MULHERE: It was included. It is an opportunity to -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I think Section 2.6.28 deals with repair. In other words, in C-2, you can have gasoline service stations but you can't have repair and -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- all that business. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's fueling stations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That makes sense anyway. MR. MULHERE: The -- I believe it's under secondhand and I believe it comes under the miscellaneous or general merchandise stores, 5311 through 5399, I believe, but they're still looking. I can -- we can come back to that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come back to that. I just want to be sure it's out of there, but -- but we also need to know what's included in 5311 through 5399 if we're -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- saying it's okay to add that to C-2. I'd just like to see the list. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I'm the only one, just, you know, don't -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just ignore you? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just ignore me like everybody. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, all those -- we have to go back for a second here, so we '- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. So, between now and then -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- let us have -- let us know what we're adding to C-2. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you'll give us a specific response on the pawn -- pawn shop question and provide SIC Code 5311 to 5399 -- MR. MULHERE: Got it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- for each board member. That should answer our questions. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be perfect. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the other part of it was that Mr. Mulhere told us there was only 60 acres in the county -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- most of which are developed so it's almost a moot point anyway. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I'd like to know -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This states it again. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- between now and the next hearing. MR. MULHERE: Okay. No problem. We'll do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go to the next one. MR. MULHERE: On Page 23, this is an amendment to add certain health service uses. Again, we'll probably have to look at the SIC code. I do have these flagged in here so I -- C-4 district allows hospitals and -- and yet certain health services groups were excluded. And the staff's recommendation that we include those, they're listed as 8071 through 8072 and 8092 through 8099. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't have any problem with that because -- MR. MULHERE: I can tell you what they are. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- we can tell it's C-4. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Do you want to just -- just for everyone's edification, give us a rundown on that real quick. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I've got them right here. 8062 -- let's see. 8051 through 8059 is skilled nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, and those are already permitted. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those are already in there. MR. MULHERE: Nursing and personal care facilities, yes. And 806 goes to hospitals. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Looking at 8071 and 72? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There may be an extra zero there, too. MR. MULHERE: 8071 is medical laboratories, 8072 is dental laboratories, 8092 is kidney dialysis centers, and 809 -- 93 is specialty outpatient facilities and then there's health and allied services not elsewhere classified, which includes blood banks, blood donor or childbirth preparation classes, health screening, hearing testing, insurance, physical exams, medical photography and art, osteoporosis centers, oxygen tent service and -- and so on and so forth. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't go there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: None of them go there. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't go there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You might want to eliminate -- Commissioner Mac'Kie pointed out a zero on -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I saw that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- 8072. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My contribution for the day. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any -- any questions on that? Seeing none, let's go to the next one. Regarding the Marco Island zoning overlay, Mr. McNees, do we have anyone registered on this one? MR. McNEES: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aren't you skipping one; industrial? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. I'm on Page 24. Is that where we are, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Page 24. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm sorry. The one that's -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, following that -- I'm glad -- again, I'm glad you brought that up. That was -- there was a proposed amendment to the industrial district to require wholesale -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to eliminate -- MR. MULHERE: -- wholesale used automobile businesses to be a conditional use in the industrial district because we do not allow retail uses in the industrial district. We had a lot of people come in and ask for a wholesale license and then retail there anyway. So, we brought that to the Development Services Advisory Committee and to the Planning Commission. Both felt as though if there was a problem with the relationship of retail to wholesale, that the staff needed to look at the larger issue and not focus on one use and, therefore, we took the amendment out of the package. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, we know that we have retail car sales going on in industrial zoning. MR. MULHERE: Some of which have predated that -- that ordinance -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- change. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Some have probably not. They've come through a wholesale license here -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- but we've pulled that out to take a look at that and bring it back to you at another time as a broader issue. So, that leaves us at the Marco Island zoning overlay? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask an intro question to that? The Planning Commission made changes there. Why would the Planning Commission change -- I mean what -- what changes specifically do Planning Commission make to what Marco Island had been working on for a hundred years? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think -- I can tell you probably what the three or four issues -- I can sum it up, I think, and give you a couple of -- a couple of issues. One concern, there was a subcommittee created of the Vision Committee that worked on this overlay and they made certain recommendations. Those recommendations were then brought to the Development Service Advisory Committee and to the Planning Commission. Some of those recommendations were -- were not endorsed wholly by the people in attendance and the Planning Commission in hearing the comments from the people in attendance either supported or didn't support that position. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it went with the minority. MR. MULHERE: One -- one example -- one example is that the -- the committee had felt that there was a deficiency of C-5 zoning, vacant and available on Marco Island for service type uses. And in looking around, they determined that there were a few C-4 lots on Bald Eagle Drive that were surrounded predominantly by some C-5 uses and the suggestion or the direction of this subcommittee was to -- to provide for allowances of all C-5 uses on these particular lots to identify them via map and the overlay and say these lots will allow the full range of C-5 uses. But there was a -- a number of people spoke in opposition to that and the staff position -- the staff had taken a position that that was palatable but that we wanted to condition that to maybe some more specific uses and -- rather than the full range of C-5 uses. And this document has -- is complete in many ways but it's not complete in other ways. There's more work that needs to be done. We've created some commercial sub-districts and those commercial sub-districts we actually need to go back and part of what we'll ask the board for direction for is to be able to go back and meet with property owners and residents in and around those commercial sub-districts to begin to develop very specific design and/or development standards. These are fairly general at this point in time. The choice was to bring this forward with what is completed or to hold off for what could potentially be another year or two to work on those things. And, so, the staff position relative to the C-5 allowing those C-5 uses on those lots was let's wait until we get to that particular district and let's look at what makes sense there. And, so, the Planning Commission supported that concept. Maybe -- maybe it's not a bad idea to look at some additional uses but let's look at it when we specifically look at the Town Center Commercial District. And -- and the other change that they made was relative to nonconforming on-premise signs. And that was a -- there's been a lot of discussion on this issue. Signage was very important to the citizens of Marco Island during the vision process and the rec -- the -- the package that you have in front of you basically in every category reduces the number, the size of permitted signage almost across the board. On the other hand, you have commercial property owners who may have spent a significant amount of money on a particular sign and the question is how long could that sign remain on -- on the property before it needed to be removed. And the subcommittee's recommendation was one year. The staff felt that that was probably not going to be legally defensible. Certainly one year is a fairly short period of time. We know that the Collier County Ordinance 82 (2) used to require that on-premise nonconforming -- legal nonconforming signs be removed in three years. So, the staff recommendation was for three years. At the Planning Commission, at the first Planning Commission, the -- the -- there were several people or certainly was one individual present who spoke in favor of extending that time frame and the Planning Commission voted to -- to recommend sev -- to the board, seven years. That was a compromise. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, God. MR. HULHERE: At the second meeting, there was less people speaking in op -- to extend that time frame and more people speaking to support a shorter time frame and the Planning Commission recommended five years. That's what you have in your document today but the staff's position would remain three years on that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But the -- but the committee, the vision committee, wanted one year. MR. HULHERE: The vision committee did want one year, yes. So, those were the two areas of major conflict. But I -- I'd like to take just a minute to sort of bring you through a little bit of the document because it's about 40 or 50 pages and it's got a lot of, I think, of good aspects to it but I'm not sure how much you've had the opportunity to digest in the short period of time that you've had the document. But in going through it, we looked at the residential zoning districts, single family and multifamily, and we made -- and this -- this document provides for relatively few changes to those districts, a few setback corrections and some -- some minor -- some minor changes in terms of -- of yards on -- and requires a different front yard setback. The Collier County code allows for either a 25-foot front yard setback or a 35 -- or a 30-foot front yard setback, depending on whether you're zoned RSF-3 or RSF-4. The proposal from the committee was to make that simply a 25-foot front yard setback. So, those are fairly insignificant, the changes that are recommended in terms of the single family, the multifamily until you get into the commercial districts and then the master plan, as -- as you're aware, provides for, I believe, three basic commercial districts on Marco Island, which this document breaks down to several sub-districts and the master plan states that these -- these districts based -- based on their unique nature should have specific design and development standards. And -- and, so, we've created with this document several sub-districts. I'll get to that page for you. On Page 36 of your agenda, the first commercial district created by the master plan was Community Commercial District and that's been broken down into the Collier Boulevard Pedestrian Tourist Sub-district which is -- there's a map that follows on the next page. There are two of those, the north section and the south section. They're separated by a mile or a mile and a half on Collier Boulevard, maybe a couple of miles. And those are treated somewhat differently because of their proximity to the gulf, because of their proximity to thousands of sort of transient lodging units and part of -- as I said, what we would like to do is come -- is to develop more specific design and development standards and -- and come back to you in the future with those. This, like any other document, we suspect, would need to be amended from time to time and may change, so... The second district, the third district, Sub-district of Community Commercial is the Barfield Sub-district, and that's a little bit different because it's not located close to the beach and most people drive there, so obviously it's -- it's a different type -- functions a different type of commercial district. By the way, all of the commercial districts on Marco Island through their master plan allow for mixed residential and commercial development. They all allow for residential development or commercial or mixed. And, so, we did provide for development standards for mixed use and for residential uses within this document. While we could not require a property owner who wanted to develop, let's say, mixed use or residential within a commercial district to fezone the PUD, there really is no other alternative in fact because there is no district outside -- other zoning district in Collier County that allows for that. So, if -- if right now someone wants to develop a mixed use project or a purely residential project within one of these commercial districts, the only option for them is to come in for a PUD which would provide the board an opportunity to review that as well as the citizens. One of the other things we would like to do in the future is to look at developing potentially a district for the Marco Island overlay which would set forth some standards for the mixed use and/or residential development but I think we need a little practical experience and I think we need to work with the citizens a little bit more before we can bring that forward to you. In any case, the only option is to go through a public hearing at this point in time anyway so we have an opportunity to take a look at those. On Page 44, 43 and 44, is the Marco Lake Sub-district. It's a small commercial area. You -- you're probably familiar with it. We -- the board approved a central parking on-street parking district several years ago over there and, of course, that functions a little bit differently, too, based on the fact that there is some 100 or 120 parking spaces that are on the public right of way in support of those commercial uses. Fairly small. But that is an area that probably in the future could easily go towards residential development on the second or third floor of those buildings. And moving on to Page 46 of your agenda packet is the Community Center Sub-district. All four of these sub-districts are located within that Community Commercial designated area on the master plan. Community Commercial Sub-district currently contains the Urgent Care Center and the fire district and several medical offices and, obviously, that's significantly different in its nature than the commercial down by the beach, and so we've treated that somewhat differently and we've broken that out -- broken that out differently. On Page 48 -- I'm sorry -- Page 49 is the Village Commercial District and that is what's commonly referred to as Old Marco, Collier City, the old Collier City plat, and there is a combination of residential housing, retail and tourist type commercial, restaurants, marinas. And within that area, the master plan does call for some specific treatments in terms of preserving historical structures and maintaining view corridors of the water and we have addressed that in this document by providing flexibility in terms of setbacks and also the ability to request reductions in development standards in exchange for doing some historical preservation through the planning director. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me. Historical preservation? MR. MULHERE: There are a couple of historic structures in there. There's -- there's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Dating back to 19507 MR. MULHERE: Well, there's one that dates back a little bit longer and that's the -- the Old Marco Inn. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: It's 1899, I think. MS. BILES: There are some checks. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. There are two or three that go back about maybe a hundred years. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just curious. MR. MULHERE: And generally now the 1950, yeah. The last commercial area is the Town Center Mixed Use District and that's intended to be the primary entertainment and commercial center on Marco Island, if you will, an activity center. That's where the -- the -- predominantly the large amount of real true commercial is developed today. That also allows for mixed residential uses. Yes, commissioner. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mulhere, would this be a good opportunity to go ahead and decline to upzone those C-4 properties to C-57 MR. MULHERE: It -- it would be and that is the recommendation of staff at this point in time, yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. The -- the problem with these particular lots is they're right on Bald Eagle, right? They're not on the back street. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I -- I don't see the point in when you're trying to upgrade a community to take one of your main streets and put -- and start upgrading to C-5 some of the lots that are already zoned C-4. I really don't see the point in that, so I'm sure that some property owner thought that would be a reasonable request at the time but I -- I don't think it's really in the best interest of what we're trying to accomplish here to start upzoning commercial property on the main thoroughfare. MR. MULHERE: And we'll -- you know, we'll take a look at the issue of specific uses as we go through the overlay but, yes, I -- we -- we hear your direction. On Page 55, there's a section that is entitled Additions, Site Improvements and Redevelopment. That creates a process whereby existing property owners in some of these somewhat older, commercial areas can aggregate parcels. Along Collier Boulevard, for example, you have seven or eight or ten commercial lots, all of which have two, three or four entryways to their property, none of which are connected, none of which meet the current landscaping code, none of which provide pedestrian -- appropriate pedestrian access although they're located on Collier Boulevard. And what we've done here is basically provided a process for them to come in and aggregate those parcels and address access, address pedestrian considerations, address landscaping, address signage to meet the code and -- and to allow for conversion to residential. And in exchange for developing a comprehensive site plan there, we're -- we're promoting a reduction of the required parking up to 15 percent based on the fact that we think that those -- the -- the vehicular movements, the access, the pedestrian access will -- can be improved significantly once those parcels are aggregated so that it functions more as a district. It's a fairly small -- small commercial district, and less as a -- individual parcels. And -- and that -- that would be -- it basically is subject to the provisions of the site development plan process so they would have to make a formal submittal with the site plan and -- and address all of the issues not only that are found in the site development plan section but the additional ones that are referenced here. And there are a couple of additional requirements relative to -- in the Village Commercial relative to bicycle-pedestrian easements and state or historic designation. Signs. That brings us to signs and I'll -- I'll try to summarize. I apologize. It's a lot of information. As I said pretty much across the board, all of the sign sizes have been reduced. This -- this committee looked at several sign documents from other communities including the City of Naples, Sanibel, a couple out of Colorado, a couple out of California, and a couple on the east coast. And basically a lot of the provisions found within the City of Naples code were palatable to this -- to this committee in terms of what I'm talking about now is real estate signs, temporary signs. And, so, they're reflected in here. One thing I need to let the board know of and -- and -- and determine whether or not the board endorses, there is a time frame for these real estate signs, these temporary signs, in which this ordinance would take effect. There's a time frame to let them deplete some of the stock of these and that would be December 31st, 1997 that this ordinance would have to be adhered to. It gives them about six months to go through the stock. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a big controversy in the City of Naples when the -- what you're talking about is going to those little bitty signs -- MR. HULHERE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- for -- for sale signs? MR. HULHERE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think they'll look great. I think that's wonderful if Marco is willing to do that to themselves. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think there is a question about, you know, depletion by December of this year. I don't know if there are companies that do business just on Marco Island in real estate. I'm sure there are. Those are the ones that would be impacted by that. I'd be -- I'd be interested to hear like what kind of costs we're talking about. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did you talk to HIABOR or whatever they are? MR. HULHERE: Well, we -- we did and they -- they were amenable to this time frame, the Marco Island Association of Realtors. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That does it for me. MR. HULHERE: And also you're correct, commissioner, that in fact most of them have some of the smaller signs because they do business in more than one location, the larger companies, so... CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: One thing I did want to point out is that we got some assistance both from graphics and -- and Joey Harris in terms of putting some -- some graphics into this document that we hope to continue to do and make -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We like it. MR. HULHERE: -- it easier for the user. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We love that. MR. HULHERE: Harjorie has asked and also asked that the Planning Commission, that relative to the signage since we are talking about a document that would provide for different regulations for an area of Collier County, that we put on the record -- staff put on the record the Planning Commission's reason for endorsing that was -- was due to the unique nature of the island community, the fact that the roadways are fairly narrow and that the commercial properties are fairly close to the roadways which doesn't require as large of a sign as a -- as a larger or more setback lot might and for the safety and well-being and welfare of the -- of the citizens. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Those are exactly the reasons why I support that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: He, too. MR. HULHERE: And moving along, I -- I think we've pretty much already discussed the on-premise signs. The -- we had several meetings with a number of community organizations including the -- the Condominium Association, Woman's Island Network, the Chamber of Commerce, the -- the Board of Realtors and -- and through working through the process, I think we have a document that generally is well supported. The on-premise commercial signs across the board have been reduced in size, so, I -- if -- if you would rather I didn't get into specifics, I -- I don't need to. I just want to let you know that basically they will be different. What I have created is a spreadsheet that will be used to make it easier for code enforcement to make that comparison. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question, you know, and you never know the background to them but there was a complaint recently about someone who had their boat on Marco Island in their backyard and was red tagged. How much more restrictive is the boat and boat trailer section going to be versus what the county has countywide right now? MR. HULHERE: That's a very good question. Not at all more restrictive than what's currently in the code because -- and we'll get to that a little bit later in this document. There's a completely struck through existing overlay from Marco Island that deals with parking of recreational vehicles, boats. We've completely struck through it but we've also completely adopted it back into this overlay so we have one overlay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I'll wait until we get there to talk about it. MR. HULHERE: On -- on Page 71, Number 3, shopping centers and other multitenant buildings having 250 linear feet or greater of street frontage on a single street or 300 combined linear feet are entitled to one or two, not to exceed two, directory signs which can be a pole sign or a ground sign. The recommendation was that no single sign exceed one hundred square feet which is considerably smaller than what our code, current code, allows. But it also says where direct -- two directory signs are permitted, the maximum combined size shall not exceed one hundred square feet. Well, I would like to recommend that that be changed to 120 because we allow 60 square feet when we allow a single pole sign on the smaller -- on -- on parcels with less frontage. It's 60 square feet. So, if they put up two signs, they get 120. And that is consistent with our county code. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there another section that requires architectural integration of -- MR. HULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- these signs? Okay. MR. HULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I want to make sure that was covered. MR. HULHERE: And every one of the sections references back to 2.8, which is the architectural standards, which requires that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Good enough. Any other questions on that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have one more sign question but it has to do with grandfathering. It's on Page 72. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If -- if you have a temporary sign, paper cloth, that kind of stuff -- MR. HULHERE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- they have to go in 30 days. This says five years. I thought we had talked -- I thought we were going to three years. MR. HULHERE: Well, that's the staff recommendation, but I -- generally the staff will always bring forward to you the Planning Commission recommendation although we might also let you know ours. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I personally think three is enough. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Can I ask, Bob, on that? I mean how many are we actually affecting here? Do we know how many signs are out there? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Bob. MR. HULHERE: Well, I don't -- I don't have a specific count but I will say probably quite a few signs; however, that number will be reduced significantly over a three-year period because of the normal amortization. And there are -- there are several signs out there that are -- that are considered to be the most -- the least desirable that are not very expensive signs -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And my only -- MR. HULHERE: -- that could be replaced fairly easily. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I don't know how much a pole sign costs to have installed and so forth. My only concern is someone who plays by the rules -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and is not -- you know, it's a mom and pop type of thing that -- that they are -- are, you know, stuck within three years of a $20,000 item. I don't know what the cost is. MR. MULHERE: I can -- I can give you one example because it was brought up at the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And, by the way, Mike Davis, because he helped this -- this subcommittee, recused himself from voting on this portion of the overlay so -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: He indicated and the question was asked what the value of The Voyager, the sign at the Marriott, which is The Voyager Restaurant, which is a pole sign out front, a reader board sign. And I believe, and I hope I'm accurately recalling, his answer was nine to $10,000 for that sign. That sign is probably a couple years old now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- my questions is, if I'm reading this right, if -- I think we ought to change the five years to three years, but there's two ways you can lose your sign. One is let it sit there for three years and then it's no -- it's nonconforming. The other is ask for a permit to alter your sign, at which point it automatically has to conform with the new code. Did anybody talk about, you know, structural alterations if you make some change to the building or the use itself that that's also a good time to have to change the sign? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There was some discussion and it is addressed in that site improvement section where it -- one of the conditions to get approval of the site improvement to have your parking reduced is that all landscaping and signage be brought into conformance with the code. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: But it's not necessarily addressed in all cases and you're -- you know, if someone came in to do a minor addition or something like that, it's not currently a requirement of our code and it wasn't -- it was not anticipated. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's -- let's get some -- MR. MULHERE: Because -- I think because the three-year time frame if that's -- it's a fairly short time frame. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe it adds balance. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I may, let's get some consensus on the five changing to three. I know we still have public speakers and -- and we can come, you know, come back and revisit it if we need to but what's -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we have -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the desire of the board. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: We have one group telling five, one group saying three. Four might be a good compromise. Who knows? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I'm willing to go to three. I just think it takes so long to implement division. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Four sounds fair. If they can't agree, then let's go into the middle. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I tell you what, let's hold that item until after public speakers and see if that -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- that sways anyone. I -- I'm inclined to agree with you. My concern is that you get the one or two people that have abused it, you know, where you get the handful of people who have abused it but the handful that haven't, I -- you know -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a valid point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- I want to be fair to them. Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: When we adopted -- I'm -- one last just -- it's a staff question. When we -- it hasn't been too long ago when we adopted a whole new sign code for Collier County generally. How long did we give for grandfathering? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's a good question. CHAI~ HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: I thought you'd ask that one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You're not going to like the answer. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're not going to like the answer. MR. MULHERE: No. We do not have a time frame. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, Lord. Well, let's amend that. MR. MULHERE: Well -- CHAI~ HANCOCK: No, let's not. MR. MULHERE: -- part of the reason -- part of the reason that we did that, and I -- I just -- you know, was that the experience that we had was that there was not a -- a -- there was an extreme burden on code enforcement to record and -- and know when to go out and red tag all those signs that didn't conform. We're talking literally thousands and thousands and thousands of signs in Collier County. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, the only way you have to bring to code in Collier County is when you get a new sign. MR. MULHERE: Well, we took a different approach. When you get a new sign, yes, or as an approach to have people come in and voluntarily make some structural changes to an older sign, we -- our code reads that if you make -- if you structurally alter a sign, you can do so. You must bring at least one component of the nonconformity into compliance. So, if it's the height, you've got to bring the height down but you might still be nonconforming in terms of setback. That's the way the City of Naples does it and some other communities and it seems to work pretty well in terms of bringing people in. But I understand that -- that the Marco Island community is looking for a more restrictive and shorter time frame so... CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, the concern there was that -- Marco Island is a smaller community. You can look at it and -- and define a little better. Countywide, we're talking about a tremendous impact. I'm sure the sign companies would love to see us do it countywide. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just so aware of it from looking at the Davis triangle stuff that, you know, signage is just one of the big, big issues but maybe an overlay is the appropriate way to look at it in that redevelopment area. MR. MULHERE: We did previously have a three-year time. And that's where I came up with the three years is that 82.2 previously had a three-year time frame in which on-premise nonconforming signs should be removed. But it was a -- a -- we looked at some other opportunities to cause that to happen, let's say, in a more user friendly fashion countywide. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At least on that item I'm seeing a majority consensus at this point for four years but we'll wait until we hear from the speakers on this matter to determine one way or another. Let's continue, Mr. Hulhere. MR. HULHERE: Okay. The -- and -- and the last section there on the bottom of Page 72 gets into the readoption of the existing restricted parking overlay. There are no substantive changes in that readoption. There were some grammatical changes that were made based on the attorney's review and my review of that section. We think it reads better the way it's written but there were no substantive changes. It really is adopted exactly as it was before in terms of how it regulates. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who threw in to maintain the free flow of air currents? I thought that was interesting. So, basically, a Winnebago just cuts the air off. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where -- oh. MR. HULHERE: Maybe we should have -- maybe we should have taken a bit more critical eye on that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just -- I just thought that sounded awful silly. MR. HULHERE: On the very last -- on Page 75, there is one other change I need to let you know about and that is under mixed use under definitions and the reason we put a section here for definitions, we've done this before, is that we do expect there will be some more as we -- as we begin to, you know, work on this document in the future. And the last sentence, the last half of the last sentence, well, let me just read it. It -- it should read within the Marco Island zoning overlay the term mixed use means both commercial and residential multifamily uses, whether -- whether located within the same building or located in separate buildings within a single project, and that should be period. We don't need that last part on there because that is also allowed within the -- the residential tourist district, which is not designated commercial, and that would be conflicting. So, we need to just take that out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Hulhere, let me go back to the -- you're on Page 75; am I correct? MR. HULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let me go back to the -- the boat and trailer situation. MR. HULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Marco Island is very limited in its -- its open storage of -- of boats and trailers and parcels to do that. And I'm a little concerned that the restrictions for boat and trailer parking here are such that the average person who wants to put it on the side or rear of their house and wants to put up a vegetative screen and so forth may not be allowed to do that. Am I reading it correctly that it has to be enclosed entirely in a carport, garage or structure which would eliminate vegetative screening? And if I'm reading that correctly, that causes me some concern. I understand the effort and the reason for it -- MR. HULHERE: Well -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but I'm a little concerned that Marco is limited in storage. It's not like you can just drive down the street and pop your boat in a storage area and then have use of it. You've going to have to go up 951 to 41 and I'm -- I'm just -- I'm a little concerned that we -- that that might be overly restrictive. MR. HULHERE: Well, I -- I think you are correct except -- well, first, I just want to let you know this is exactly how it reads today in the code. So, this is not an addition or a change. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's underlined. MR. MULHERE: It's underlined because later on in the document, we struck through the existing overlay, which I can find for you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Am I incorrect in -- in that you can put a boat on the side of your house if you screen it with vegetation? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: General county? MR. MULHERE: Well, no. It makes an exception on the next page in the top of the -- well, on the bottom it says, except where the following conditions occur. And you go to the top of Page 74 and it says, a boat trailer may be parked on the owner's premises in the open or on a temporary basis not to exceed eight hours for the purposes of loading and/or cleaning. And then it says in B, boats may be stored on the premises owned for residential uses only in the following methods. And then, it says, the garage or fully enclosed opaque storage -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- or berthed at approved docks, piers or mooring whips, standoffs, or so on and so forth, davits, lifts, elevators, devices and on cradles. And I think you are correct that if you do not live on the water and you want to store a boat in your -- on your property it must be in an enclosed structure on Marco Island based on this overlay. If you live on the water, you can store it in the rear of your yard on a davit or on the -- up on top of the seawall on a platform. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if you get your boat on a trailer -- I'm sorry -- you have to put it -- you've got to -- you can't. You've got to put it in the garage if it's -- MR. MULHERE: You put it -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- on a trailer. MR. MULHERE: You put it in the garage or you store it in a dry storage facility. And I only just want to let you know that is the way that it -- the code reads today and has probably since sometime in the eighties. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But under fully enclosed opaque structure, I've always interpreted that to mean you could put it behind a six-foot wooden fence. MR. MULHERE: I think if it couldn't be -- I think that has been the interpretation. If -- if you can get it on the side of your property so that it's not seen from the street behind a fully enclosed wood or -- or masonry wall, can't be seen from the street, can't be seen by your neighbors, that would qualify. But it doesn't say here it is different than the county code because it doesn't say landscaping is one alternative -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: -- which I think the -- the normal code does allow you to -- to install landscaping if you can effectively do it to -- to achieve opacity. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's just that Marco Island is such a boating community and not everyone does -- lives on a canal. And we've got a public boat ramp down there and this -- the two seem a little counter to each other. Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just a concern over the eight hours for the purpose of loading and/or cleaning. You come home on 4:00 o'clock Sunday afternoon and you -- technically, you've got till midnight to get that boat off your property, right? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Or -- or parked in an appropriate place. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But what if you can't? What if you do have it in a storage place and you can't get in there on Sunday night but you could get in there on Monday morning to put that boat in storage? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Once again though, this -- these -- these are the exact same rules they've been living with for over ten years and it seems to have worked out very well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, except that they're deed restrictions currently. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No, no, no. This -- all of this language was in the code in a different place. MR. MULHERE: I can -- I could find that for you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Mulhere has already said there is one difference. They didn't mention vegetative screening. And I'm not -- I don't notice that -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's wrong with that? MR. MULHERE: On Page 1 -- 1 -- 1 -- 112, this is the existing restricted parking overlay for Marco Island that is being struck through. Obviously we didn't want to have two overlays, so we've taken that and incorporated it into the proposed overlay. And, like I said, it -- it reads maybe a little bit different but not -- not in terms of content. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And that exists in the code today, right now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's wrong with shielding the view of a boat on a trailer with a hedge instead of a fence? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, let me hear some comments from you that I think I'd like to discuss on that. You're saying it doesn't work either way? MR. ARNOLD: In the current -- Wayne Arnold for the record. In the current code for the restricted parking overlay for Marco Island, that is not an acceptable manner, to screen your boat either -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, it -- MR. ARNOLD: -- currently in the code. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It has to be garaged on Marco Island. You cannot put it in the -- MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- side yard period. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. That's what it says there on Page 113. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I was unaware of that. I didn't know that that was already -- MR. ARNOLD: The -- the county code -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- restricted on Marco. MR. ARNOLD: -- that applies elsewhere in the county with the exception of the RP overlay would provide for that mechanism to screen it or buffer it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Landscaping. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Well, you're -- you're correct then, Commissioner Norris. We're not changing something that's been there for ten years. I don't see any reason to change it now. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me. Go back to the -- I'm talking about the hours. The -- the words that are struck here -- I'm on Page 112 -- recreational equipment is -- are you assuming -- are we talking about boats here or are we talking about motor homes or -- MR. MULHERE: That's -- it's both. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Both? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Page 113. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because it mentions -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Eight hours. COMHISSIONER BERRY: -- for loading and unloading, 24 hours. Now, is this the old information here and this other is -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER BERRY: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: page -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: says eight hours. COHMISSIONER BERRY: they're happy -- MR. HULHERE: Right. We -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Commissioner Berry -- ---- new? -- on Page 113 in the middle of the Yes, ma'am. -- it talks about boat trailers and it Okay. Well, if they're living with it and We -- we haven't changed the substance. Okay. MR. HULHERE: We just cleaned it up. I -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. You -- you answered my question by -- by what was previously -- I wasn't aware that we had a different overlay on Marco for the parking of boat trailers, so never mind. I do have some questions. We're -- we're -- I assume we're now through that entirely? MR. HULHERE: That is -- that is it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I do have some questions back in the earlier portions of this that I'd like to get answered before we go -- MR. HULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to the public speakers. And let me get to it. Page 32 of our -- our document, minimum floor area and -- MR. HULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- single family? MR. HULHERE: Yes. That's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 1500 square feet, is that consistent with what is already in place on Marco -- MR. HULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- or is that new? MR. HULHERE: It's consist -- I don't know if it's consistent with the deed restrictions because I really did not look at the deed restrictions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What do we limit single family to in the -- MR. HULHERE: But we -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- down into the county? MR. HULHERE: In the county, it's 1200 square feet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, we're saying Marco, the house has to be bigger. MR. HULHERE: That's correct. And that -- that was the recommendation of this committee and the staff did not have a problem with it because we're not aware of any homes that have been constructed down there in the last, you know, eight or ten years that have been less. I talked to Ed Perico. Nothing less than 1500 square feet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: So... CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That -- well, that -- that's important. I just wanted to make sure we weren't artificially bumping something up there that -- that was already occurring. Page 34. As I understand it, these mixed use developments -- first of all, I -- I don't like the wording that, you know, we shall develop standards but until we do, you know. I'd like to be more definitive, you know, that this is the rule. And then if we develop standards down the road, let's include them. MR. HULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's my -- it's just my personal feeling. I've read this and am I reading it correctly in that basically we are forcing them to go to PUD? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: They have no option but to fezone PUD. MR. HULHERE: Well, I guess -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MR. HULHERE: I guess the answer to that is yes. We're not saying shall fezone to PUD, but there is no other option until we develop standards. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Then -- then let's say it. MR. HULHERE: Well, I -- I tried to do that but I think legally, we can't. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Legal won't let you. MS. STUDENT: I have a problem with having it written in that way because there's case law that says a local government cannot require it. It's one thing if the circumstances are such that's the only way to do it, but if we have a statement in our ordinance that says thou shalt do it, that's a red flag. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I'm not '- MS. STUDENT: That's the problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm not an attorney but if you tell me, here, eight options, seven are not available to you, so you have to use this one, it's no different than saying you have to do it this way. That's what we're doing in effect. MS. STUDENT: It's -- it's a little different than a specific requirement and I realize -- I believe we are going to develop that, are we not, Bob, so that we're going to -- MR. HULHERE: We are and the intent here was not to necessarily say that someone could do -- could not develop in the interim because for some of those districts, it might be a bit -- you know, it might be a little while. And yet there was -- and it -- my first draft did -- did require that but we've changed it subsequently. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Just because I don't even have an inkling of what these specific design and development standards are going to be, if someone comes in for a PUD fezone tomorrow, what is it -- you know, I'm not going to know, you know, from Adam what we should be applying and say -- and I go back to the architectural standards. When we decided to do them, that wasn't enough. We had to have an idea of what they were going to be before we could start holding people to that standard. So, I'm -- I'm just a little concerned about the follow through of that, not enough to make significant change to it. I just -- I think we're being a -- a little disingenuous with that wording. MR. HULHERE: I don't disagree. We will -- we will try to come forward as quickly as possible with each of the sub-districts with specific standards starting with the Town Center because I think the Town Center or Village Commercial are probably the two most likely to come forward and get developed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let me -- let me ask for a scenario and tell me how this application differs than what currently is in place. If I have a property zoned RHF-12 and it's point nine acres, I want to build on it the day after this is adopted, could I just go pull my building permit? MR. HULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, it doesn't affect existing zoning. MR. HULHERE: It doesn't affect existing zoning and the -- the -- the requirement to -- you know, to go to PUD applies I think only in one acre or greater. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. If I have -- and, again, I'm going to ask for a scenario. If the Marco Island Master Plan allows me to request multifamily zoning and I go in and request RHF-6 tomorrow for straight zoning or the day after this is adopted, I'm going to have to go PUD. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On a 1.2 acre site. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On the -- MR. HULHERE: No. Only on mixed use. You -- if you want to come in for straight zoning for residential, that's no problem. If it's permitted in the district, it's no problem. It's only a mixed use because there's no -- there's no development standards out there. We don't have a district that allows mixed use. That's why we're caught here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And TND is the closest thing and that's just coming in the Growth Management Plan. That's not even found its way to the LDC yet. MR. HULHERE: We're working on that, yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, okay. Understood. I just -- I do fear a little bit of a -- a legal problem with that. I know that it's been worded in such a way that it shows options but in reality there are none. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. MR. MULHERE: Well, and the other aspect is that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The County Attorney's office is busy enough. MR. MULHERE: Well, we wanted to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's get that on the record. Probably do. MR. MULHERE: We wanted to have the opportunity to review those and -- and yet not necessarily hold someone up for some extended period of time. I know I already said that but in -- on the smaller projects, we're requiring a conditional use to go to mixed use so that we do have some level of scrutiny on them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I had read it that it wasn't just mixed use. It was straight zoning, too, so that was my mistake. Does anyone have any other questions on this section? I think this, much like commercial architectural standards, we're going to find in six months after adoption, a lot of areas that are going to need to be tweaked but it's -- it's kind of breaking -- breaking new ground. There are other areas in the county that I think are individual and should be -- that -- that are prime for overlays and I think this is going to give us the -- the ability to do that, so... COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All right. Let me -- the Davis triangle, just to plant a seed. Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's what I like about you, Pam, you stick with something. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm subtle. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any other questions or comments on that before we go to public speakers? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. HcNees, would you go ahead and call the public speakers? MR. HcNEES: Your first would be Jim Johnson who will be followed by Art Segal. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those of you that have not had the opportunity to speak, you're limited to five minutes. If you agree with the direction the board is taking, you feel free to waive your time. MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the board. Speaking on behalf of -- THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, you need to identify yourself. MR. JOHNSON: My name is Jim Johnson. Speaking on behalf of the Marco Island Civic Association, we would like to urge you to go with a three-year limit on signs. Many of our constituents are aged. They'd like to see this happen before they depart us, so we have to move a little faster on Marco than in the county in general. Secondly, going from C-4 zoning to C-5 zoning, you're granting rights to folks that own that land that you'll have a hard time taking back from them if in the future you decide you want to more carefully develop that land. So, I'd strongly urge you to leave that as C-4 zoning and keep it the way it is for now. Study it further before you do anything. Thank you. MR. HcNEES: Art Segal followed by Fay Biles. MR. SEGAL: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, my name is Art Segal. I am here as a member of the Board of the Marco Island Civic Association, and as of today, the public announcement was made that I'm now the chairman of the Architectural Review Committee. Our president, Lynn Bradeen, asked me to present to you the position of the Marco Island Civic Association with regard to the down zoning of the Bald Eagle site from C-4 to C-5. I can say very quickly that the position is that we feel this would not be a proper use of the -- of the zoning code, that C-4 is proper, C-5 is not, and I will shorten Mr. Bradeen's remarks by saying that Commissioner Norris has already addressed this admirably and has expressed our opinion succinctly. So, thank you, Commissioner Norris. I have taken some photographs that I would like to turn over to the county. Two of them are of the subject sites showing what it is today, a vacant piece of land, and the rest of them are photographs of other C-5 sites that are contiguous with the subject site. Thank you. MS. BILES: Fay Biles, president of the Marco Island Taxpayers Association. And we agree with your verdict on the zoning so that's gone by the wayside. We do want the three-year limit on signs, please. Most of the signs on Marco Island have been there for ages. The new ones that have been put in, I'd say, within the last two or three years, and we have kept pretty careful track on them, are very inexpensive signs. I don't know if you have been on Collier Boulevard lately but the one on Marooned on Marco with the naked woman thing is just card -- almost a cardboard type of thing. They're very inexpensive and they're obnoxious, and so we really do want to clean up the signage, especially on Collier Boulevard. The people who live on the -- on the gulf side, that's their front yard, some of them. And they're the ones that are really complaining about as they come out of their condos, and that includes tourists and people who live there part of the year are -- are very upset. Every time they come back we hear about all the obnoxious signs. And they're not expensive and they've been there a long time. So, many of them really do need to be replaced just by the look of them. And if you go down Collier Boulevard, you'll see all those signs right at the -- right at the curb side practically that are really bad news. And they just -- they just put right -- one on top of the other. As far as -- so, we really would like to go to the three years. If there are problems, then perhaps we can handle them. As far as the boats go, if you live on Marco Island, you'd been amazed how many visitors come on to see people on Marco Island with their boats. What are they going to do with them? Some of them -- if -- if you can have them in the yard or the backyard, you're going to see boats all over the place. We even have boats on vacant lots right now that sometimes we have to go and figure out whose boat is it, who put it there, and have it removed. And, so, boats are a real problem with us and that's why we like the particular zoning that they have to be on davits or if they own them or whatever. We do have storage places on Marco Island. Cedar Bay Marina is a huge boat storage place. We have the Marina Marco. We have on Isles of Capri storage so that the idea of storage is not really a problem. There -- there are places for that. Thank you. MR. HcNEES: You have no further speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On any subject or just this one? MR. HcNEES: On any subject. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I noted two changes that were being proposed by the board, one was Commissioner Norris in the issue of the -- the district difference, Bald Eagle, that C-5 we would cap the -- the intensity of zoning at C-4 there for the future. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, they're C-4 today and the proposal was to upzone them and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. What we're going to say is no C-5 in that -- is it just that sub-district that you were referring -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- there is some C-5 back behind there and there is -- I think there's a piece or two of C-5 right on Bald Eagle but there's very little point if you're trying to upgrade the community to -- to upzone right on Bald Eagle and there's no point on it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does the wording in the document satisfy that concern for you? MR. HULHERE: It doesn't contain that language. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That -- MR. HULHERE: That language has been taken out of the document per the Planning Commission's recommendation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then we need to make sure it's crafted and reinserted. The second thing was -- MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know. MR. MULHERE: No. I mean the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The language to upzone. MR. MULHERE: The language to up -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- has been taken out. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So it's not there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's fine as is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Leave it -- leave it as it is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Leave it as it is. That was my question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The second issue was one of -- of how many years for the signs. The truth is you wanted a year, so anything more than a year is not going to make you happy. I -- I understand the point but the fact that when we did this countywide, that there was no time limit. You know, I -- I think even four years is a little aggressive. You're right. The people that have been abusive, I don't mind hurting them at all. But the people who haven't, I have a little bit of a difficulty with, so I -- I'm comfortable with the four years rather than three. That's -- that's my personal feeling. That will -- I'll -- I'll put one in there. That was the only other issue I had for change in this document, so I will guess we'll just kind of take a straw poll on the board as far as should that number be three, four or five. I'm going to -- I'm going to weigh in at four. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sticking with three. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: 3.5? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I suggested four in the first -- first time, so I think it's reasonable. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I agree. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then we ask that to be changed to four. Of course, the way to word that is we are reducing the language from five to four. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Five to four. That's right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Were there any other changes to this -- this document? I think we owe Commissioner Norris and the folks on Marco congratulations. This is kind of a first and it will be interesting to see how it pans out. So, Mr. Hulhere, to you and your staff, work well done. MR. HULHERE: Thank you. I know we have a lot more work to do on that so... The next, on Page 76, there are two small overlays -- I mean small in terms of comparisons, not in terms of significance -- both of them located in Immokalee, both called for in the Immokalee Master Plan. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Called for in the Immokalee Master Plan? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. HULHERE: Yes. And they're entitled the State Road 29 Commercial Overlay District and the Jefferson Avenue Commercial Overlay District. There are maps in the packet and -- and the standards are pretty similar, fairly -- fairly short. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They were great. I didn't have any problems with it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: comments on those? COMHISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: COMHISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry, did you get any -- any Not a thing. I didn't receive any. Not a thing. Okay. All right. Next. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Talk about a freeze sensor. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the crowd is cut in half. MR. HULHERE: Well, this is the -- the landscape code which was also completely comprehensively reviewed in your last land development code amendment. You're probably surprised to see it back; however, there were -- there was a -- an error on the staff's part in transmitting this document. The board's direction was to -- to leave in two species of trees that the staff had recommended. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, he's not here. We can get ready to take care of it without. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's take it out. MR. HULHERE: And, believe me, I thought I did everything within my power to make that happen and somehow the document came back and those two trees were struck through and prohibited, so this would remedy that situation. I believe it was ficus and carrot wood. There was a request by the staff to include a freeze sensor when the temperature drops. I'm not even completely certain exactly how it works. It either turns on the water or turns off the water to protect the -- the vegetation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we're going to pass on that. MR. HULHERE: The point is it was recommended that it be excluded by both the Development Services Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I think we're going to pass on the freeze sensor, but thank you. And does anyone want to strike a blow to the save the carrot wood foundation? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know but I would sure like to see this tree. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Green Tree Plaza. They're in the islands in the parking lot at Green Tree Plaza. Those are carrot woods if I'm not mistaken, which is -- MR. HULHERE: On -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- which is a fact that I never really cared to know but -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Now you do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- came to me anyway. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: In this document, they're struck through, Mr. Hulhere. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's because -- MR. HULHERE: That -- that's because that's a list of prohibited plants. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Prohibited. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're removing them from prohibited. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Then known of the fact that they're struck through. MR. HULHERE: And on Page 87, the paragraph about the middle of the page, 2.4.3.6, we're -- we're revising or changing a reference that we -- a -- a document that we've referred to there to include Practices for Trees, Shrubs and Other Woody Plant Maintenance ANSI, it's just a document that's used for reference in the landscape industry. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. HULHERE: It's suggested that we reference those. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I suggest we don't have to talk about everything to that level. MR. HULHERE: No. I just wanted to get it on the record. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, you know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: That -- that I believe constitutes all of the changes. I'll -- I'll let you know that when we bring this back to you in the form of an ordinance, we will not include the whole ordinance. We'll only include those minor sections that are being changed. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, the carrot wood lives to fight another day. I'm sure Commissioner Constantine will be ecstatic. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wherever he is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Next. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I hope he's listening to us talking about him. MR. MULHERE: The next was an amendment on Page 104, was also a directed -- oh, I'm sorry. One other. Mr. Arnold just reminded me of one other thing. There is a proposal in the landscape code to reference the Streetscape Master Plan. I didn't discuss it now because I know we're going to talk about that both on the 27th and then following on your next LDC hearing, so it may or may not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Save it for discussions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Suffice it to say that we'll save that for the second LDC hearing for detailed discussion. Okay. MR. MULHERE: Page 104, Susan Murray and Fred Reischl of Current Planning Staff are here and they together worked on this amendment. I'm going to let them make the presentation. It was directed by the board that we comprehensively take a look at our boat dock regulations and boathouse regulations partly because the -- the criteria contained in the conditional use section really had nothing to do with boathouses in terms of traffic impacts and those types of things. And, so, we wanted to create some specific criteria for boathouses and also to look at our -- it had been some time. I think 1985 was the last time that we looked at -- comprehensively we looked at the criteria relative to the boat docks although we've made some environmental related changes over the years, manatee protection and such. So, I'm going to let -- I think Susan's going to come up and present that to you. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray for the record. I'm just going to go straight into the proposed changes because Bob basically touched on the major reasons and -- and the major things that we are changing. So, if you go to Page 106 under Section 2.6.21.1, about a quarter of the way through the first paragraph, you'll see an underlying section. Basically, what we did there was we clarified the intent of docks and boathouse structures and, basically, what we said was that their intent was to adequately secure moored vessels and provide safe access by users for routine maintenance and use while minimally impacting the navigability of the waterway and the native marine habitat. And the rationale behind this change was to keep the docks for what they were intended rather than these large party docks that we -- seem to function as extension of living area rather than for docking boats. So, staff felt it was necessary to clarify that. Moving further down the -- the paragraph on unabridged barrier islands, that was -- you'll see that underlined. That is a holdover from the original ordinance. We just moved it to this section of the ordinance. We felt it would be a little bit more appropriate here. Moving a little bit further down the same paragraph on the same page, as Bob mentioned, we proposed to change boathouses to be considered as an accessory use or structure rather than going through the conditional use process; however, they will be required to be approved through the procedure and criteria for a boathouse extension. So, essentially, the Planning Commission will review all boathouses and make a final decision on whether or not they would be permitted and that would be based on the criteria that we established. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Miss Murray. Commissioner Norris? MS. MURRAY: That would be appealable to the -- just as a boatdock, it would be appealable to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The same 30-day ruling and all that? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I think it's 14 days -- MS. MURRAY: 14 days. MR. MULHERE: -- in the code. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: 147 I thought it was 30. MR. MULHERE: It sure -- I believe it's -- MS. MURRAY: 14. MR. MULHERE: 14. It was discussed and 14 was what was approved by the board at that time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Previously, did we have 30? MR. MULHERE: No. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I don't know. For some reason I was -- MR. MULHERE: Under the appeal -- under the general appeal section of the LDC for any appeal, it's 30 days. But under the boatdock section, when we brought that forward, the recommendation was for 14 days. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you know, one of the things that we get over the years, the most -- I would say one of the most popular complaint-call type things are boathouses and boatdock extensions and that sort of thing. It causes a lot of concern and they can be at times controversial. I'm not sure why we went to 14 days but I think maybe 30 days like to be consistent with the rest of the code would be -- MR. MULHERE: If -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- appropriate. MR. MULHERE: We can change that. That's no problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, let me -- let me ask because you can build a dock in 30 days. And what I'm worried about is if they get the approval and begin construction, and 29 days later an appeal is filed -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That was -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- they could be -- substantial construction could have been completed by that date. MR. MULHERE: That was -- you're bringing -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That may be the reason. MR. MULHERE: That was the discussion, as I recall now. It's starting to come back. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As opposed to a house or a structure in which they may only be finishing site prep at the end of 30 days. With a boatdock, they'll have the pilings driven and the framework up and possibly even completed in the 30-day period. MR. MULHERE: We could -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's why the shorter window is there. MR. MULHERE: We could create a -- a standard stipulation that says beyond notice that affected or neighboring property owners may appeal this decision within 30 days. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. I think that they can be -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- noticed and -- and avoid that problem. They -- they're likely to know if there's going to be some controversy but perhaps not every time in every instance, but -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just trying to avoid somebody getting sandbagged here, you know, where they get out and, you know, no one says anything and then all of a sudden a late last minute appeal and, yeah, they thought they were free and clear. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. It's a very good point and it's certainly worth consideration but the whole point of the appeal process which we -- we installed last year or the year before, whenever it was, is to protect the adjoining homeowners as well who may not know that a permit was given until after it's already given and -- and permitted through the Planning Commission. And rather than having the Planning Commission be the final authority, we decided it was better to go ahead and have the appeal process. So, there's two obviously conflicting groups that we're trying to take care of here or accommodate. And I hate to, you know, it's always hard to balance them but you don't want to favor one group over the other. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I guess -- I guess the middle road there is to require noticing to the permit -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Permittee. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- permittee that there is an appeal period that can be initiated up to 30 days from the date of issuance and that, you know, any construction in that time frame is -- MR. MULHERE: Be at their own risk. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- at their own risk. And let's see how it works. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's see if that's problematic. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Does it cause any hardship to have that notification through the Planning Commission? Is -- is there -- is there -- can we come up with a system that -- we'll have comfort, we won't have people falling through the cracks with no notification? MR. MULHERE: No. We'll -- we notify right now any property owner within 300 feet of a boatdock extension requested. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the permittee. MS. MURRAY: At the hearing. MR. MULHERE: Oh, no. Yeah. We'll condition it as part of their approval. We'll let -- we'll make sure that they know it as part of their approval. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need it stated on the record. MR. MULHERE: Right. On the -- on the resolution of adoption or approval from the Planning Commission CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But I would like it verbally stated because I'm -- MR. MULHERE: As well. Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please. MR. MULHERE: No problem. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Okay. And I think -- let's see how it goes. Let's see if we get anyone that, you know, caught. MR. MULHERE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And, Miss Murray, we have had the opportunity to read through most of this stuff -- MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- so the -- basically, I guess, the material elements that -- that changed the process the way in which you've done it may be a -- a primary focus. Okay. MS. MURRAY: All right. Then I will move on to -- let's see -- Page 109, which I just touched on. Obviously, the Planning Commission will base its decision on the criteria and, as Bob mentioned, we hadn't looked at the criteria in quite some time and felt that the existing criteria provided more information rather than a -- a planning level analysis, so we amended the criteria to make it more of an analytical tool rather than just providing some information so that we could base our recommendation on that. I did want to point out also, this is on Page 109 under 2.6.21.3.1, that we had included a minimum -- excuse me -- for boathouses and boatdocks, that a minimum of 50 percent of the platted canal width between dock structures and moored vessels on the opposite side of the canal had to be maintained. This was done because through many of the public hearings, there was always a question about what was considered reasonable navigability and there was no criteria with which to judge that by, so that is why we included that in there. And then the rest are -- are fairly similar to what was existing, only present more of an analysis or analytical tool. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. One -- one question I had on maximum height. 50 percent of height of principal structure or 15 feet, it just seems to me that there aren't too many homes built on the water these days that -- that don't start at 12 foot NGVD where your seawall is generally about three feet above sea level. Are we trying to -- to limit because the -- the older homes there because in newer homes 15 feet is going to give because they're -- they start at floor elevation 12 to 14. I'm just curious as to why we just didn't say 15 feet on that one. MR. MULHERE: I think the intent -- first of all, I think that's a good question. And the intent was to measure it from the -- the seawall elevation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. Read -- I read that but I'm just -- MR. HULHERE: Okay. And then -- and then we just -- we had a couple of circumstances where the boathouses were built consider -- equally more higher than the principal structure with a platform up top and for maybe sunning or viewing or something like that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right, which I wanted -- I want that eliminated. There's a monster like that up in Vanderbilt Beach. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Right. MR. MULHERE: And, so, we thought 50 percent, but we recognize that you could have a -- and you're right. Most -- but there are older homes that are -- I guess that's the answer to your question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: There are older homes that are only 20 feet or 22 foot high. Then you only have ten or 11 feet. That might not be -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. There's only -- there's only -- there may only be -- and I'm thinking of Vanderbilt Beach specifically. Some of the homes built in the sixties, there's only about a three-foot rise from the seawall to the floor elevation of the house. MR. MULHERE: And the home itself is -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is -- is a low profile roof that they built -- MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- in the sixties and seventies. And they may only be allowed to build a -- a ten-foot boathouse. MR. MULHERE: That's right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. So, I'm thinking maybe just cap it at 15 feet above the seawall as a rule of thumb? It keeps the monsters from being built which I thought was the idea. Does anyone object to that? I'm just trying not to penalize the older homes unnecessarily. I'd like to see that just at 15 feet, measure at the top of the seawall or bank, whichever, period. And leave whichever is more restrictive because seawall or bank -- I'm not sure if you could have one or the other or if you could have both but -- anyway, 15 feet, that's all. MS. MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. MURRAY: And that's really about it. We added a stipulate -- or a requirement in there for the roofing material of boathouses for aesthetic purposes so that should be the same material and color used on the principal structure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any questions or comments on boathouses? Okay. Thank you, Miss Murray. MR. MULHERE: The -- the next on Page 112, which we discussed already, which is the restrictive parking overlay. And, so, the next amendment is on Page 115 and that is a -- a staff proposal regarding the limitations on rezoning property. It deals with the -- some of the difficulties that the staff has had, the current code would require that when you fezone property, say in an infill situation, that -- that you could only fezone to the exact district to which you are adjacent. If it happens to be C-3, you would be required to fezone to C-3. And this proposal would allow a fezone to an appropriate district, similar district, and that means that you might be able to fezone to C-2 or C-1 if that was deemed to be the appropriate district. Four or five possibly, but considering that they are more intense, that's less likely, you know, that -- during the analysis or during the review. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This looked like a good correction as far as I was concerned. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. It's almost like their hands were tied and you had to fezone to the possibly higher intensity, so I don't have any problem with that. Anyone else? MR. HULHERE: And that only applies to -- that's on those, you know, the smaller parcels. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's an improvement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not a lot of application there. MR. HULHERE: Next, Page 116, this one was directed by the board as well. We had a variance for a relatively conservatively older structure. I think it was built in the 1950's and the -- the staff in looking at that wanted to condition the variance that should the structure be destroyed for any reason, that any future structure would conform to the development standards of the overlying zoning district at the time of redevelopment. And the problem was that legally, in the way our code was written, the variance runs with the land. We could not do that. So, we had a completely conforming lot that was very -- had an older building in which we were going to grant the variance because of some existing after-the-fact condition that once that structure was destroyed, that zero or three-foot setback, whichever the variance, which was approved, would apply really forever and run with the land. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, we asked for that. MR. HULHERE: And this -- this recommendation, number one, would change that and would allow in the case of after the fact -- after-the-fact variances, the board would have the discretion, wouldn't have to, but would have the discretion of conditioning that -- that it be -- apply to the structure. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This is then the conditional variance that we talked about. MR. HULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. What page are you on? MR. HULHERE: I'm on Page -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 116. MR. HULHERE: -- 116. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 116 and 117. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Under variance. I'm sorry. I read that. MR. HULHERE: There is another change, too, as well and maybe that's partly why you -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I read the change -- MR. HULHERE: -- jumped into something else. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- paragraph and thought I was on the wrong page. MR. HULHERE: The other changes that we had some difficulties with advertising and, oddly enough, the variance section reads differently than all the other land use sections in terms of advertising requirements. It -- it required that we couldn't advertise the public hearing for the board until after the Planning Commission's decision, hearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MR. HULHERE: And we -- we know that we have to bring the Planning Commission's determination to you for consideration and we know that has to take -- that your hearing has to take place -- take place after theirs but there seemed no reason why as with all other petitions we shouldn't be able to advertise your hearing potentially prior to their hearing because what that meant was that it -- it sometimes was three to five weeks later based on that requirement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. And I -- I think also when we had either vacations or holiday weekends or holiday meetings where we had to try and -- we were causing six, eight week delays, so this makes sense to me. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It also -- I think there were some people contesting things because of that point and so -- MR. HULHERE: That's right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- it eliminates the ability to do that. MR. HULHERE: We had -- we did have one contested. That's good. That is -- is all of the proposed amendments. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, before you close, you just need to announce on when the second meeting, the date and time and place of the second meeting. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Hulhere, would you so advise us? MR. HULHERE: I would and I -- I would like to add one other mention, that Harjorie and I spent some time today and we will continue to spend the next couple of days working on the actual ordinance. There are some structural changes that need to take place within the ordinance. They're not substantive but locating certain things within the document. We're going to work on that over the next few days, so I just want you to know that we'll continue to get that so that we could have a document to you on the next hearing which is June the 4th, 5:05, Wednesday evening. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. It's my understandings that no action is necessary by the board since we have a second public hearing that will complete the adoption of these-- of these. Are there any public speakers we missed that were registered, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, does anyone have any objection to this meeting being over? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to remain a couple hours. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We will adjourn but Barbara Berry will be here until 9:00 p.m. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:56 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY ROSE H. WITT, RPR