Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/04/1997 S (LDC Amendments) SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 4, 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 MEETING in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine ALSO PRESENT: Hike HcNees, Assistant County Hanager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Harjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Item #3A ORDINANCE 97-26 AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to call to order the special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, June 4th, to discuss amendments to the Land Development Code. Mr. HcNees, would you be so kind this evening as to lead us in an invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance, please? MR. HcNEES: Our heavenly Father, we ask your blessings this evening as we once again gather to conduct the business of this county government. We ask that you give the commissioners wisdom as they face the difficult decisions that -- that they face this evening. We thank you for the efforts of our support staff and ask that you bless our time here, that it be used to appropriately assist the community that we're here to serve. We ask these things in Jesus' name. Araen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Those are difficult decisions. I ordered a pizza before the meeting. I hope to beat it home. Mr. Hulhere, good evening. MR. HULHERE: Good evening. MR. HcNEES: I'm just trying to give you all the help I can. MR. HULHERE: This is the second of your two evening hearings on the January 1997 LDC amendments and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is now an appropriate time for a motion, Mr. Chairman? Sorry. MR. HULHERE: I did drop off to you a memorandum packet which contains those -- those changes that you directed. We were unable to get those done in the short time frame between your last meeting and this meeting. And I have highlighted those changes or -- or highlighted them in gray so that you could easily refer to them. The first of those changes and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: From what I understand, we will be operating out of this packet here? MR. HULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. For people in the audience that are looking at something else -- MR. HULHERE: No. I have copies if anybody -- right up here if anybody -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MS. BILES: It's through this summary, right, for the board commitment? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's make sure what the board is operating off of and what the audience is operating off of is the same thing here '- MS. BILES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- otherwise we'll have -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Chaos. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- absolute chaos and anarchy. MR. HULHERE: The -- I'll give a -- just a couple of minutes and let you know a couple of -- of items I -- I did, as I said, bring copies for the public to -- to review. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: And, traditionally, at the second meeting, we've simply gone over the changes directed by the board and then, of course, if any member of the public wishes to speak on any -- on any issues, so I'll start right in with the first change that was directed by the board, which starts on Page 2, which we did not discuss at your first hearing which was the Collier County Streetscape Master Plan. The ordinance number for that is 97-25, which you most recently approved with the direction that over the next few months, the staff work internally and with Naplescape and the HSTUs to bring back a recommendation to the board relative to any conflicts that might exist in that code and to amend that Streetscape Master Plan to incorporate those right of ways within the Golden -- or approaching the Golden Gate HSTU as directed by the board. We'll -- we'll do that and -- and we'll bring that back to you during the next LDC amendment cycle. The next change occurs on Page 12. On Page 12, there is an amendment to include time-share facilities in the RT district as a permitted use. The Land Development Code does not reference time-share facilities. This was not discussed at your first meeting because the legal staff was -- was reviewing this issue prior to us bringing it forward to you; however, it was included and -- and was advertised properly. The RT district, while it doesn't specify time shares as a permitted use, in another section of that district it talks about time-share facilities and it sets forth the density that's permissible for time-share facilities, which is 16 dwelling units per acre. In the definition section of the LDC relative to time shares, it says they're only permitted where specifically referenced. We have allowed time-share facilities in the RT district at that density that's specified, and we consider those to be a hotel-motel type use, a commercial type use, which also are permitted in the RT district. So, function is -- really, it will do nothing different other than to expressly list that as a permitted use, but I also need to let you know that Miss Student will be reviewing the statutes relative to time-share facilities because they're -- there may be some -- we may need to amend the definition of time-share facilities to specify exactly how we choose to treat them and if -- especially if we choose to treat them specifically as a commercial use because the term time share really refers to only a form of ownership. So, we may have to look at that issue and we will look at that issue, and -- and if there are any changes needed, bring it -- bring it back for your consideration during the next cycle. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Hulhere, time share is specifically defined under Florida real estate law. MR. HULHERE: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, we would want to use that same definition, would we not? MR. HULHERE: We can and -- and that's something that we'll -- we'll look at. But we may want to -- we may for the purposes of our code want to define that even more because we have traditionally treated time shares as a commercial use and we have not necessarily allowed time-share facilities in, for example, multifamily districts that don't otherwise allow hotels and motels. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, Commissioner Hac'Kie, while you were gone, we abolished the unincorporated general fund. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Other than that, everything else is the same. MR. MULHERE: But we will -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: We will -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. MR. MULHERE: -- look at that -- at that definition and I think the issue is the question of exactly how do we want to treat these facilities. We have pending some potential interpretation on that issue and -- and, so, you know, we may be looking at or visiting it even prior to the next LDC meeting. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, if I might, the other side of the question is whether we want these to be a standard permitted use because there can be some controversy at times associated with time share. A good example, I guess, is the city which doesn't allow it anymore. MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They don't allow it at all anymore. MR. MULHERE: That -- that -- well, for your -- for the board's information, the only place where we do allow it is RT and C-4 and C-5, which also are the only districts that allow hotel and motel. So, that's -- those are the only districts where we currently will allow it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I had -- I had two questions on that. The first is by allowing -- by putting time share in, are we creating the potential conversion of hotel-motel to time share? If we are, I think that's an unintended possible impact. The last thing I'd want to do is take a normal daily or weekly hotel-motel unit and create a time-share situation just because -- they're just -- by history, are problematic. MR. MULHERE: We -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, that's -- you know, I'm a little concerned by including it that we create the possibility of conversion of existing zoned properties to time share? MR. MULHERE: We can say new time-share facilities, but the other thing I -- I need to mention is that the Marco Island Master Plan also allows time-share facilities within the town center designation, I believe, within the town center designation, so it does expressly permit time shares in the same areas on the Marco Island Master Plan that allow hotel-motel, the same as our LDC permits time shares where we allow hotel-motel. This appears to have been a glitch that -- within the RT district which allows hotel-motels. In a -- in another section called -- entitled Maximum Density Permitted, it references time shares and it provides for a lower density than hotel-motel. It allows for 16 dwelling units an acre versus 26 within an activity center. So, it's referenced in that section but it's not listed as a permitted use, but when you go to the definition section, it says it's only permitted where it's expressly noted. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, we could catch conversions there, couldn't we? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because there could be some density difficulty -- MR. HULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- in doing that. Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So, if -- if a hotel wanted to convert and they were over 16 units, they would have to -- MR. HULHERE: Reduce their density. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- come get a variance? MR. HULHERE: Reduce their density. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Have to eliminate some units and come in and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Both. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would they have to come in before this board if they will -- willingly reduce their units? You know, we're talking a lot about it. It's just there's such a negative connotation with time share that I -- I'm not sure we want to encourage or provide the opportunity for a greater deal of conversion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Frankly, I don't -- think it's more than a negative connotation. I mean I -- I think it's -- I -- I personally wouldn't care if we didn't permit time shares in Collier County. I think they're bad. I think they're nothing but trouble. I mean I don't know -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where did this change originate? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think it's an inconsistency. Mr. Hulhere just pointed out in that we reference it elsewhere -- MR. HULHERE: Well -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- but did not list it as a permitted use under RT district. Is that correct? MR. HULHERE: It came to my attention when we're looking at the Marco Island Master Plan where it was specifically referenced as a permitted use. Then I went to look as to where else it -- looked at the definition and it says it's only permitted where expressly noted. And then I went to the RT district where I know, you know, there are time shares existing and noted that it's -- it's addressed under the maximum density permissible but it's not stated as a permitted use because time shares in general are considered to be only a form of ownership and not a use. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's -- it's a real interesting concept to think of if we even could regulate it or prohibit it when we're just talking about how it's owned. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we can do it. The city does it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, the city does it and I -- I don't mind if we try. I just would want to do the -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: You have some -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- legal research. COHMISSIONER BERRY: You have some large corporations that have now gone into that. I know particularly that's popular out west, huge corporations that have taken older facilities and converted them, and that it isn't necessarily all bad. I mean I know the experience that -- that it had -- we've had in Florida with it but there's a little bit different type of thing going on, too, so '- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I -- I think we have two issues here. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One is -- is a correction in our Land Development Code -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to be consistent from one -- one element to the next. The second appears to be a new discussion of whether or not time shares are something we even want as a permitted use. I don't think both discussions are necessarily appropriate tonight. We have to correct the LDC to be at least consistent, so either remove them from one section or add it in another. Maybe it would be more appropriate to pose the other questions to Mr. Weigel in the interim and bring it back as an LDC -- LDC amendment in the future to eliminate time shares if we so wish, otherwise I think this correction is needed for the sake of consistency. And then we could deal with whether or not we want them included at all at some point in the future. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's acceptable. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's acceptable to me. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's proceed on that then. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. MULHERE: The next change is on Page 16 in which there wasn't really a change directed by the board but there was a little bit of confusion on the part of staff, I'll say, as to what the standard industrial code designation relative to pawnshops, secondhand stores was, and I did -- was able to clarify that. I'm sorry. I didn't have that at my fingertips at the first meeting. The -- the code under Number 15 on Page 17 under Miscellaneous Retail Services, the code now reads 5912 through 5961. And used merchandise stores are 5932, so it is permitted in that inclusive fashion. This change would -- would take that out by adding the comma and then only allowing 5942 through 5961, so we would take those second -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: -- here now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That meets what I was looking for. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. No pawnshops in C-2. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about no pawnshops? Okay. Maybe not. Just kidding. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We just got off the time share. Take it easy. MR. MULHERE: The next changes occur in the Marco Island Zoning Overlay found on Page 23 of your memorandum. It starts on -- on page -- it basically starts on -- on Page 23, the status paragraph entitled Status After May 21st, 1997 LDC Amendment here. And I think I can summarize the changes. You directed us to remove the reference to C-4 uses -- or, excuse me -- C-5 uses along Barfield Drive, which we did, on those several parcels that were proposed to allow C-5 uses. And you also directed us to extend the time frame or actually to -- to place a time frame on -- for on-premise commercial signs in which they would have to adhere to this code to four years. I would ask that the board might -- the language that I put in there cites a day certain, and if that pleases the board, the date that I chose was June 15th, 2001 which is four years, approximately four years, from the date that this will be approved or received by the Secretary of State. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are -- are there some codes we can do that with and some we can't do that with, because it seems like there are an awful lot of things when we look at our land development code as a whole that we always say, well, I was grandfathered in. And it seems like we might be able to improve some of the older districts if we started doing this with other areas as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. MR. MULHERE: I think we can do it with most things as long as we consider the value that a legally permitted structure -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to get off on that discussion. I just wanted to make a point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that's probably the stronger litmus test in whether we can or can't do it. It's how it applies -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and what the magnitude to the implication is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's it cost? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: The only minor change in that document, which I neglected to bring to your attention at the first hearing, was that we -- or the -- the -- the Collier County Land Development Code currently allows those temporary real estate signs to be placed on the property line; however, no closer than ten feet to the edge of pavement. And we proposed in this document to say on the property line; however, no closer than 15 feet to the edge of pavement. I did not see any reason or the staff really didn't see any reason why we should have a different -- we want to minimize the differences where we can where they make sense. And to me ten foot is an appropriate distance off the edge of pavement. It's a safety question. The signs will be smaller. So, I'm recommending that we amend this to say on the property line or ten feet from the edge of pavement at a minimum just as our current Land Development Code treats the same signs. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I don't have any problem with that. We're talking about two paces there. MR. MULHERE: It's really a question of safety. How -- what distance is safe from the edge of pavement, and as our current code says, ten feet. The signs will be smaller so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: That's it except the -- the other change that I mentioned which is to set a four-year time frame in there. Those are the only changes that the board directed to the Marco Island Zoning Overlay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Before we get off that, I know we have people in the audience on that issue. Do we have any speakers registered on that? MR. McNEES: You have none. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have no registered speakers at all? MR. McNEES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to encourage anyone here who has any desire to speak about anything to go ahead and fill out a sheet, turn it in and mark the issue in which you wish to address the board on. Please do so sooner rather than later so we get a chance to do things in a timely fashion. Okay. Mr. Mulhere, why don't we continue? MR. MULHERE: The next change is Page 76. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a nice jump. MR. MULHERE: That is the -- was the -- the amendments to the landscape section. We have -- we've reduced the size of that amendment by taking out all those sections that were not going to be amended and only including those that were. And just minimally we've -- we've included -- we didn't discuss it at your first meeting because we didn't discuss the Streetscape Master Plan, but on Page 80, the last paragraph is added, which is a new section which references the Collier County Streetscape Master Plan and basically requires that people be consistent with it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think in Commissioner Constantine's absence we eliminated the carrot wood. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. It's gone. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We really need to eliminate -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And no grandfathering at all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a little more trees. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just kidding. COHMISSIONER BERRY: It has a line drawn through it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, that's because it's supposed to be taken off. HR. HULHERE: The next change is in the boathouse or boathouse section. The only -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Page. MR. HULHERE: -- change -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Page. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Page 89. And the only change that the board directed to that section was that -- well, basically two things: One, that we include in all boathouse -- boatdock extensions and boathouse requests a -- a condition that -- that notifies the -- the applicant that four -- there's 14 days in which it may be appealed and they would proceed at their own risk; and, two, that we verbally mention that at every meeting and I've already initiated that procedure with my staff. So, that will occur. But the only actual change to the document was on Page 89, the board directed us to change the maximum height to 15 foot regardless in height for a boathouse facility. That was -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I actually had just on that -- that time of appeal, I had a practical application of that in a meeting today where in -- in Bonita Shores for absolutely no given reason whatsoever an appeal was filed and no -- everyone's at a loss as to why. I mean the neighbor who filed it even has a dock that is larger than the one he's complaining about, so I think that real world application kind of came home on that, so I'm -- I'm glad to see we didn't go too far -- too overboard with that because the folks have already got a contractor who was ready to start. Now they have to hold off. So, again, just kind of an extreme but I just wanted to let you know that I think that was a good idea in retrospect. MR. MULHERE: Those were the only changes directed by the board. I do want to let you know that we have a draft copy in the original ordinance of all of the map changes that are referenced in the title to add the Marco Island Zoning Overlay designation and the Jefferson Avenue Overlay designation in -- in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Mulhere? Seeing none, Mr. McNees, what do we have? MR. McNEES: You have one registered speaker. That is Marv Needles. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Needles, could I ask you to step to the podium and let us know what issue you're addressing us on first and then go from there? MR. NEEDLES: It's on the Marco Island Overlay -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NEEDLES: -- primarily on the -- THE COURT REPORTER: Sir, sir, sir -- MR. NEEDLES: -- sign issue. THE COURT REPORTER: -- identify yourself. MR. NEEDLES: Pardon me? THE COURT REPORTER: Did you identify yourself? MR. NEEDLES: I thought the gentleman here did. Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just need your name for the reporter. MR. NEEDLES: My name is Harv Needles. I'm a resident of Marco Island. I've been a resident for 27 years on Marco Island. I have a business on Marco and I have a concern, one concern, about the sign issue relative to commercial properties. Basically and simply, I'm here to ask for a grandfather clause in one issue relative to the commercial signage. Everyone has an opinion of beauty and -- and certainly all of us look at whether it's this building or someone's tie and some people like it and some people don't. Signage is not too much different. The person that creates the sign thinks it's nice. The person that -- that goes down the -- the boulevard, and it's oversized, doesn't necessarily like it. When we developed and many other people developed a commercial property on -- on Marco or anyplace else, there's several factors that come into play. One is the building location, one is the building design, parking, landscaping and certainly signage fit in. For a number of years everybody had and yet today has to work with the county and the planning department as to how these all fit together to make a harmonious development. I have some -- some pictures here of some signs that were on properties that were designed with parking in mind. To accommodate the required parking for the county, many times signs had to be placed in the middle of a parking area. To accommodate the reasonable signage, those signs had to be lifted anywhere, usually five to six feet above the ground, so when cars or other vehicles were parked next to those signs, they were visible from the street or certainly so that the public could find the -- the properties or the -- the -- the business that was there. By lowering the signs from 20 feet to 15 feet, significant changes will be effected and it's -- the visibility of these signs would be reduced by about a third because of the parking requirements by the county. The -- the changes in design of a particular sign would be significant. We have a sign -- and I'm going to pass these to the board if they would like. All of those signs represent that kind of a sign where parking is a -- is a factor. To eliminate any one of those signs and replace them with a complete new design to -- and -- and though -- every one of those signs are in compliance right now, were permitted, and all of those signs meet all the other criteria except the 15-foot height. All of those were built at the 20-foot height. The estimated cost of removal, taken to the dump and disposed of, and redesigned and to conform to this new overlay would be about $10,000. Some of those were even more than the -- the particular one that we're dealing with. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that the total cost or per -- MR. NEEDLES: That's for a sign to be removed, hauled away, disposed of, redesigned to conform to. The only thing that every one of those signs do conform in the overall square footage, many of those are slightly smaller than the -- the hundred square foot allowable but yet they don't conform because -- they will not conform because of the 20-foot height. Today, there are quite a few signs, I would venture to say probably 30 to 40 signs, that are illegal signs on Collier Boulevard and other commercial properties just on Marco Island today. The new overlay, if implemented as it stands, would make those illegal signs conforming and legal and signs such as these that you see in front of you would become nonconforming for four years and illegal within four years. I -- I would suggest that this probably is not a fair assessment of the -- the system. I would also suggest that if -- and I'm asking if -- that the grandfathering would take place for those signs that are conforming only as long as they meet all of the other criteria set up by the new overlay. If -- if they are over a hundred square feet and that's the particular case, if they are 150 square feet and the new overlay requires a hundred, as it does in this particular case in its 20 feet, then, fine, let's remove it. But if it is a hundred square feet and some of those are less than a hundred square feet and they conform in all other areas except for that, then I would -- I would like for the -- the 20 feet to be allowed. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question for you. MR. NEEDLES: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said there are some -- and perhaps I didn't understand. You said there are some signs that are currently illegal -- MR. NEEDLES: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that if we made this change would become legal. MR. NEEDLES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you describe what those -- what those -- MR. NEEDLES: Yes. Today, you are required to have 150 foot of frontage to have certain signage. Presently there are many signs out there on hundred foot lots. All those lots with the new overlay, those signs would be conforming. Many of those signs, maybe they're not made of the same materials but they are -- certainly are conforming in their size and locations because, again, today they're not allowable. The signs would -- I've got in front of you were all permitted. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mulhere, we need you for a second or more. A question Commissioner Constantine just asked, the response is that properties that need 150 foot of frontage currently -- MR. MULHERE: By our code. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- by our code, and adoption of this, a hundred foot property can have one of these signs? MR. MULHERE: A pole sign? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. MR. MULHERE: No. 125 feet. And the reason that the 125 foot comes into play is that the -- the platting on Marco Island, the lots are generally one hundred foot. So, either you're going to have two lots come together or a single lot is not going to be able to have a pole sign because they need 125 feet. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, a hundred foot wide lot with a sign that is nonconforming now will be nonconforming after the adoption of this. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. MR. NEEDLES: Let me clarify that if I can. A hundred foot sign -- or a -- the -- the signs that are out there today on these hundred foot lots are -- are not pole signs necessarily. MR. MULHERE: A ground sign -- MR. NEEDLES: Ground signs are not allowed even today. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. A ground sign -- the Marco Island Overlay allows for a ground sign on parcels under 125 foot but it limits it to 20 square feet and only allows for the name of the business and the street address. The reason for that was a small ground sign out by the street with the name of the business and/or building and street address would allow for identification, easy identification, from the street. You wouldn't have people stopping and, you know, searching for what -- what the building is. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What is the height of that ground sign allowable? MR. MULHERE: The maximum height is eight feet. And the -- there's also a stipulation that it cannot -- the width cannot be twice the height or vice versa, so what you're talking about really is a pretty small sign. You're not going to get a two by ten -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- in 20 square feet. You know, you're probably going to get a four by five -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- or something along those lines. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Which I think would make most of the signs you're citing nonconforming because I know the ones you're talking about. They're basically sandwich board signs that are sitting out there on 20 square feet of ground. MR. NEEDLES: I agree. There -- there are some of those but there's also -- there are signs out there that are nonconforming right now that will become a -- that will become legal and those that have gone through the permitting presses -- process will be illegal. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What you're asking for, in essence, is to ask this board to not change something that a community has workshopped and defined or -- or determined to not be desirable. And -- no, let me finish. MR. NEEDLES: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The whole idea of this entire process was to obtain input not just from residents but from businesses on the island. There were many, many workshops held and we just went through this countywide on architectural standards that were adopted and I believe those standards are 15 feet, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Fifteen feet in outparcels, 20 feet on shopping centers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On shopping centers. MR. MULHERE: Down from 25. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We've got to set a standard for what is in the best interest of the long -- long-term best interests of the community. And that's why there's a four-year window for signs to be brought into conformance. I don't think we can just accept everything that has occurred as positive. You have to draw a line somewhere and if that line were to grandfather everything at 20 feet, then we probably wouldn't have given four years for that -- for it to be brought under conformance. Some of the signs you show in these pictures, in my opinion, are bordering on the offensive in their size and in their scope. So, I think you've almost made the case of the reduction to 15 feet and reduction in size by showing us these pictures, so -- MR. NEEDLES: Those size -- the size of every one of those signs will conform to the new ordinance. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The size of the signs but not the height. MR. NEEDLES: Right. Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. When you bring the height down, some of the bottom parts of those signs are going to be below landscaping and so forth. I don't know if you visited communities where 15 foot is the rule, but the end result is far better than what we have on Marco Island. And that's what we're trying to accomplish. So, it -- it may cost you money and you may not like it but it's the result of a lot of intensive discussions with island residents and our staff, and just to grandfather them for the sake that they were permitted previously and now wouldn't conform is, in my opinion, not a valid argument. MR. NEEDLES: Can I make one more comment? I think -- believe the City of Naples is somewhat similar to what we're talking about. I would say the exception to that is the City of Naples allows the signs to be a lot closer to the -- to this front property line thereby taking out the -- the parking item that is blocking a lot of the signage that's out there. So, I think it's -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Certainly want Marco Island to look better than the City of Naples, don't you? MR. NEEDLES: I don't question that. I -- the opinion of -- of some people as to the signage is a lot different. I would state one further comment relative to that. I think the biggest problem, the reason that all the to do about the signage, has been lack of enforcement of the -- the existing codes. And I certainly would hope that if we are -- obviously we're moving in that direction, that the existing codes be enforced. The new real estate signs, our company has already gone with the new 12-by-18 inch signs. We are very much supportive of that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would certainly encourage you, if you see violations, to share that either with your commissioner or with our Code Enforcement Department and I'm sure it will be enforced if we're aware that there's a violation. MR. NEEDLES: I don't think I need to do that. I think your entire staff is aware of all the violations that are out there. You need only to drive down Collier Boulevard or right now there's a -- on one street there is a bus, a yellow bus, parked on the side of a house that has a for-sale sign on it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. And -- MR. NEEDLES: These are items that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, that's fine. MR. NEEDLES: -- that enforcement -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you think our staff knows every violation in the county, that's -- that's fine. MR. NEEDLES: Thank you. MR. McNEES: You have two more speakers, Mr. Chairman. Fay Biles will be followed by Lynn Bradeen. MS. BILES: Fay Biles, president of Marco Taxpayers Association. I don't have too much to say except to maybe think that maybe over the couple of weeks ago you might have had a change of heart and go back to making those signs be enforced in three years instead of four years. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was getting close '- MS. BILES: I'm simply representing -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- about five minutes ago. MS. BILES: -- my board who made me come up and say that. They -- they wanted that three years and I'm just here to say do you have a change of heart. MR. HcNEES: And Lynn. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, they're -- we're not all reaching for the mike, Fay, so -- MR. HcNEES: Your final speaker is Lynn Bradeen. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You get two points for trying though. MS. BRADEEN: My name is Lynn Bradeen and I'm here as president of the Marco Island Civic Association, and by request of the Architecture Review Committee of our association, I would like a -- Mr. Hulhere, I tried but, I'm sorry, I didn't have enough time. We're concerned about the change and a -- if we could have a clarification at a seawall where to build out not for a dock but the same construction of the dock to -- for people to sit on and fish within the limits of the setback, of course, what will the regulation be and would there be a special consideration for properties on the river that have -- are totally unobstructed for some areas for miles? MR. HULHERE: The -- I mean it's a good point and -- and as -- as a matter of fact, I had a permit in today where that issue came up. The staff was caught between approving a dock facility that was very much oversized for the utilitarian purpose of dock, of placing a boat there and receiving many, many complaints from neighbors and people coming in and, you know, why does someone need a 2,000-square-foot platform. And I understand that's why you're talk -- what you -- necessarily what you're talking about. So, the -- the amendment that we brought here to the board contained some language that allows the staff greater flexibility in determining what is the purpose of the facility. Is the major purpose of the facility for the docking of a vessel? I think there's some flexibility in there. It does not specifically say that you could go out ten foot and put a platform out there and it would not have to be for docking a boat but could be for viewing, but it does allow us some flexibility. I would like the -- the opportunity to -- to function with the language that we're proposing and I certainly and -- and -- and let you know that we will review those on a case-by-case basis. But I don't object to maybe taking a look at that issue and placing some criteria in there that would allow maybe someone who is on the waterfront to place some limited type of a platform out in the water that they could use for sitting and/or fishing, but there has to be some limits and we really haven't, I think, addressed that. What we have are sometimes two or 3,000-square-foot platforms going out 20 feet, meeting the side setbacks and they were able to do it just through a permit, not even through a boatdock extension. So, that's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's -- that's one of the sad situations in regulation in that you try and write them so that you avoid the -- certain things and eventually you're going to miss some. And we don't -- apparently don't have the ability to use any discretion in that, so I think that's something that you've -- you've got a case to look at rather than try to answer something that results in a change here today that really hasn't gone through the process. Why don't you, maybe with Mr. Bradeen and others -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- work that a little bit and see if -- what we do in the next cycle to address that issue. MR. MULHERE: It could be, you know, six months and -- and we could take a look at it and define something more specific. I would be happy to do that. MR. BRADEEN: We would appreciate that. One last comment, commissioners, following up on Dr. Biles' comments, the Marco Island Civic Association would also like to see that time frame moved back to three years and it is Marco Island and we live there. Most of you don't. And if you would poll the residents of Marco Island, you would find out that they want those signs out of there as fast as if -- if they had choices, it would be less than three years. I think three years would be a good compromise so we would appreciate that consideration. Thank you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I just say I -- I wondered if we -- because you guys know that I was supporting the three years last time and I -- I was confused about what we compromised between. I know that the island wanted one year, somebody wanted -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think the island wanted four hours -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- the first time. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: How did -- MR. MULHERE: I can -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was the compromise that led to four? MR. MULHERE: -- clarify. It was the subcommittee the -- that -- that worked on this overlay recommended one year. The staff had a concern that that wouldn't meet the legal test. We know that our code and previous predecessor to the zoning code had three years, so the staff recommendation was three years. The Planning Commission recommendation at their second hearing and their final recommending to the board was five years. So, I would say that the board's compromise was between the staff recommendation of three years and the Planning Commission's recommendation of five years. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And in retrospect, you know, Mr. Needles presented -- showed some of the reasons why the sign ordinance is a good idea. But there were -- was one picture of a sign in there that wasn't particularly bad. And there's -- there's the case where someone who put up a sign that conformed at the time is going to have to change it and they've only got so much time to pay for it. And I think -- I think industry professionals would take exception with the $10,000 price tag. I think that's a little high. But -- but I think that's why, you know, whether it's three years or four years, if you're the business owner, and four years, better if you're a resident, three years is -- is too far out. In retrospect, I don't think the difference is going to be noticeable. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was wondering if Mr. Weigel could tell. Is -- is there a magic legal number? Is there a legally defensible minimum? MR. WEIGEL: There's little magic in the law but again -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Somebody see our reporter. We need that in a quote in tomorrow's paper. That's good. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There's a couple out there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's little magic in the law. Oh, there's Gina. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Paper? MR. WEIGEL: But again -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry. MR. WEIGEL: Hargie, again, we've got -- we've got historic press and it was three years under our prior code which has attempted to -- to, I think, in itself be a bit of a compromise on an amortization schedule and just the sheer ability to get something out and enforcement scheduled, too. When we previously had three years and were looking to get rid of signs, my recollection is that the -- the Development Services Enforcement arm was still pretty busy even with that as the time rolled by. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further comment? MS. STUDENT: I think that pretty much says it because we only did -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name? MS. STUDENT: -- the sign code a long time ago -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name? MS. BILES: Your name? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name? MS. STUDENT: Oh, excuse me. Harjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thanks, Fay. MS. STUDENT: When we did the research a long time ago about amortization, the idea is the time frame allowed to depreciate signs are of different value and so that the three years is based on history from what we did a long time ago. MR. BRADEEN: I think at the commission or the Planning Commission meeting for conformed or approved but not a -- not conforming to the new code. It was just a very small percentage of signs. And I think to take them out in three years and make the population and the residents happy, it isn't like this is a huge problem because it just isn't there. We estimated, at the Planning Commission Meeting, I believe, that approximately 35 to 40 percent of the signs on Marco Island are illegal, period. So, the permitted not conforming, it's -- it's very few but I think three years would be plenty and I think the residents would appreciate that consideration. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Any further speakers? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Seeing none, I'll ask the -- the board if there are any final questions of Mr. Hulhere or recommended changes to the document in front of us. Seeing none, close the public hearing. Mr. Weigel, on this matter, do we need a singular motion for the adoption of the document? Is that -- is that sufficient or are we going to need anything? Is that okay? MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. I think that's fine, too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: We've been asked a question here today; what is the consensus of the board on the three years versus the four years? I have no objection to either one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can go with three. I'll tell you why. With the workers starting on -- on Davis, the frustration of -- yes, it is my theme. With the -- with the -- it would be frustrating to think that, you know, three years from now, you can't expect to see implementation of what you're working on. I understand that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you'll see implementation tomorrow when a sign permit comes in. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. I mean -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My -- you know, it's -- it's 12 months and the truth is, you know, you're not going to notice 12 months whether -- you know, regardless because, you know, the idea that two and a half years from now someone's going to be really upset because in six months it's not going to change instead of 18 months is -- is just not there. My problem is that -- that when you think about the businesses that did obtain signs that were conforming at the time and were -- you know, there are some businesses on Marco Island that are owner-operated businesses. They don't turn a lot of dollars. You know, there are the other ones, of course, and -- and some of those pictures Mr. Needles showed us, I -- I think can easily turn revenue next season that would -- would accomplish that. I just think we need to be -- err on the reasonable side for the businesses when we're changing something that was previously permitted to something that must be retrofitted and I'd rather err on the high side of that. That's -- that's my reasoning. You know, the -- the handful of businesses that we may adversely affect with this, I think we do have to give them some consideration, and that's what I'm trying to do. And I think if the residents want to say we're not giving them consideration, then they've got a hundred pages that -- that flies in the face of that statement. So, I -- I think we are giving more than ample consideration to the issue and I'm more comfortable with four years. Well, that's three of us. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd be more than happy to go with three and a half years. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The Bob Dole of the County Commission. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The Bob Dole of the County Commission? I don't think so. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tim Constantine says... CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. What I'm going to do is I'm just going to proceed and ask for a motion. If there's a motion with amendment, fine, we'll see how it flies. If there's not, then we'll go from there but we need a motion on the document. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a burning desire but when you get down to splitting hairs of three or four years, I don't think it -- I -- I really don't think it makes a lot of difference at that point in time. I have to tell you, looking at these signs, all due respect to the sign maker in the audience, I -- I'm just amazed when I look at these signs that if you've ever been to Hilton Head, South Carolina, people are able to find their way around up there without having massive signs up out of the ground. And -- and that just is amazing to me. But I do realize that business owners have spent a great deal of money on these signs at this point in time. So, Mr. Chairman, I will make a motion for the four year -- four years. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Basically to approve the document then with -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Approve the document -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- as it reads? COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- as it stands. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, the three and four-year contentious issue was resolved. Anything else, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that case, ladies and gentlemen, we can all go home. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:58 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN 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