Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/02/1998 S (LDC Amendments)December 2, 1998 Page TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 2, 1998 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, 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: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - CONTINUED TO JANUARY 27, 1999 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like to call to order the first Land Development Code hearing for this particular session of December 2nd. If we'd rise, please, for the pledge of allegiance. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think you all have your books, and we'll turn this over to Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes, I will. For the record, my name is Ron Nino. Let me start out by first reminding you that a second public hearing has been planned for December the 16th. I wish the record to note that that date has been canceled out, and that the new date, as confirmed by your office, Madam Chairman, will be January the 27th of 1999. I would remind you that the Land Development Code amendments that you have before you have gone through some extensive review by the Development Services Advisory Council and by the Collier County Planning Commission, and as I indicated in your executive summary, the timing of your package with the Thanksgiving season made it impossible for us to convey the Planning Commission's recommendations to you. And I have a handout that will supplement your package to achieve that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. NINO: Let me say that that handout's going to tell you that the Planning Commission approved all of the recommended changes as recommended by staff, and in two instances, some modification, particularly with respect to the issue of awnings and the architectural specifications. That industry had indicated some objection and some closure came to that, and the Planning Commission and DSAC both agreed with that. So we have the DSAC and the Planning Commission agreeing, and -- or recommending all of the amendments that are before you. I have with me the authors of the many components of the Land Development Code amendments. I think it's important to indicate for the record that while this looks like a rather voluminous document, I think you all appreciate the nature of amending ordinances means that there's a lot of material in here that is really not an amendment. And in the -- I'd like to indicate that -- that really this cycle has been one more of tweaking things that were causing us some problems, particularly with respect to the architectural provisions. And there -- in my opinion, there's little substantive change in these amendments. We can go through them one by one and explain the amendment, or we could take the shortcut form and ask you if you have anything on your plate that you would specifically like us to address. What would be your preference? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think further evidence the fact that these are sort of glitch amendments, mostly, is that there's nobody here from the public to comment, you know, and I haven't received any calls, I haven't heard anything from people. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I've only had one, and I will ask, but not right at this point in time. But I don't know, if you want to take the proposed amendment short form, if there's something there, if each commissioner has this, and just after kind of glancing over these issues, if there's any of you that have any questions on any of them, we can certainly do it. Is that easier, Mr. Nino, to do it that way? MR. NINO: It would be more expeditious if we did that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let the record reflect there is a member of the public present now. Mr. Agoston has joined us. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The funny thing is when you said that a minute ago, the thing that popped in my mind was, where's Ty. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then the answer. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a question in regard to the first one. It says the minimum area requirement from five acres to 20 acres for certain agricultural practices. Can somebody tell me what those practices are? Could it be pig farming, by any chance? MR. NINO: Yes, that's probably what drove that amendment. Basically, that amendment says certain agricultural practices will henceforth require at least 20 acres of land. If they're under 20 acres of land, they will be required to obtain a conditional use approval from this board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. But this won't affect anybody that's in business now? MR. NINO: This will not affect those people who raise two chickens, two cows, two goats, who do not engage in commercial farming. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. Questions? On the first -- let's take it page by page. This -- the first one we're on is page two. Commissioner Carter, do you have any questions on this page? COHMISSIONER CARTER: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Let's go on to page three, then. MR. NINO: This page deals with the architectural changes, and as I indicated, I think by and large, the changes reflect the problems we've encountered in one year's operation with the architectural standards, essentially is one of clarifying. In one instance, for example, I think we -- we loosened up the regulations somewhat. And it has to do with the service bays that are attendant to an automobile -- an automobile dealership. We -- currently, we did not allow fabricated metal. This amendment would allow fabricated metal, provided it's not within 300 feet of a public right-of-way and not visible. So we kind of loosened it up there a bit. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, I think you're actually on our page number four. Our cover page here is number one. MR. NINO: All right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the catalyst for that change, Ron? MR. NINO: The automobile industry itself indicated that that was a difficult one to comply with. For example, Getmain is undertaking a service bay development on the Trail, and they said, hey, we're way back off the road, no one can see us, there's no residential area looking at us. That's an imposition to have to go to something other than -- steel, you know, traditionally has been the development standard for that type of activity. COHMISSIONER CARTER: In the future, though, wouldn't people be looking at that behind their property, what would be developed there in time that might cause us to not like what we decided? MR. NINO: In that particular facility, the answer is no. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Are you back on our page three? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, you're actually reading to us from page four. MR. NINO: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, what was the impetus for the modification to the C-3 district, or quick lubrication, detailing and window tinting? Is there something in particular? MR. NINO: Yes, we had -- well, for one thing, we found that those uses were no more intensive than the uses that are allowed by right in the C-3 district. And we have several areas that are zoned C-3 that in fact have car detailing, quick lube and car tinting. Example, the southeast -- southwest corner of 93rd Street and the Trail; one example that readily comes to mind. So -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm only lukewarm on that. I just think there's an awful lot of C-3 around town, that this may or may not fit accordingly. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think it fits. In fact, I have a letter in my files from a building that I owned that -- dated 1988 that says that quick lube is acceptable in C-3. MR. NINO: It wasn't -- it's not the quick lube so much as it was the window tinting that drove that concern. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Window tinting is a very quiet operation. MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unless you can tint the operation's windows and you can't see what's going on anyway. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, you can't actually put that on with a hammer, so it's a fairly quiet operation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think it has more to do with the aesthetic impact. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's also done indoors because if you do it out in the sun, it'll -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, I meant of the building itself, you know, how the facilities look. What I'm thinking about, the gateway triangle and what kind of, you know, improvements you hope to see in that area. I mean, one thing that we've all realized, I think, is that there needs to be -- there are some uses that need to have a specific limitation on the number of them, like gas stations we've talked about, I think probably pawn shops. I think there are probably others. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did you say porn shop or pawn shop? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: P-A-W-N. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No limitations on the others, is that what you're suggesting? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm suggesting that we stay with the current regulations on those. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I didn't go to law school for nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You dance well. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I wonder if these -- you know, this is not something I want to be encouraging. It's not something I want to see more of in this community, just like those title loan places and all that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, it doesn't seem as though we have a problem. Do we have a shortage of Jiffy Lube type places now and so we need to open up extra zoning to them or -- I've got to agree with you, as I look at the double bay, open at the both end garages, I don't know. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't have a problem with it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You don't have a problem with this or you don't have a problem -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: With the modification. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would prefer to leave it as is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Unless staff can give some strong reason for the change, I lean toward leaving it as is, too. MR. NINO: Well, the strong reason is that our position is that these activities are no more intensive than the uses that are now allowed in the C-3 zoning district, and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How has this use changed, and how is it that it got in the other zoning before, and now we've reviewed it and said now, wait, it doesn't seem so bad? MR. HULHERE: I think the reason for -- MR. NINO: Well, if we were to compare automotive services, quick lube, window tinting, auto detailing, for example, with a marina, which is a permitted use -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But did somebody call you up and say -- MR. NINO: -- eating places. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- you know, we need more of these? What was the impetus, Bob? MR. HULHERE: For the record, Bob Hulhere, planning director. Yeah, I think the impetus was requests from potential business owners or people looking at existing buildings and converting them. I think that the -- this use is -- has become more of a convenience type use, and they're looking for the exposure that's afforded them on those roadways. Whether that's something that the board agrees with or not, I think that was the reason for -- and then when we looked at the use and we looked at other uses that were permitted, for example, service stations, minor repair, those types of uses, they were permitted, and this did not appear to be any more intensive and pretty much is restricted to the interior of the building. So that was basically the reason. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the examples you cite, Ron, eating places, I would say, you know, while you may generate as much traffic so it's no more intense from that standpoint, it is a different -- going back to Commissioner Mac'Kie's aesthetics and all, there's a different feel between having a restaurant and having people drive through every ten minutes, getting their oil changed. And it is indoor, however, it's all wide open at virtually every oil change place, so that you don't disappear. I mean, I visualize Stoney's corner there on Golden Gate Parkway and Goodlette and, you know, it's okay there with the car wash next door and all. I don't know that it's okay in an awful lot of C-3 locations. MR. NINO: Well, as I indicated, the southeast corner -- southwest corner of 93rd is one that I pass every day, like all of us who live in the north end, and without this amendment, it's a non -- legal, non-conforming use. Presumably, if one of those bays were to be -- one of those uses -- and there is a detailing shop in there, and a quick lube in there, and I think there may be a window tinting in there as well. If that were to go vacant for three months, it would not be able to reoccupy that space. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: John, as you're -- I don't want to confuse anybody. I know you don't own the building anymore. But is your old building -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's under contract to be sold. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Has that been vacant for some period of time and is that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it's occupied. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I was curious there, trying to see what a real life impact is. That's all. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you know, I think the county's position for many years has been that the quick lubrication service is allowable in the C-3 district. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The uses that are also mentioned here, detailing and window tinting, are certainly a lot less intensive than the quick lubrication. To add that to the building only would enhance it to any location, because if you were using less quick lubrication services and more window tinting or detailing, which are both done inside the building, I think you'd have a much less intense use. So it only makes sense to go ahead and allow those. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think what it's highlighted for me is that the way to discourage uses that I -- as again I keep going back to gateway, because it's what I'm watching -- is to only permit the uses in the most intense zoning districts. And this is not something I want to see more of in this community, so, I mean, it seems like a place to start. Why would we -- I'd rather -- I'd rather be giving you direction to take some things out of C-3 instead of put some things in, because this is no worse than some of the other things in C-3. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And I look at it a little differently. I don't mind you having these in there, but I think again, we step up the landscaping in front of some of these areas and make it -- make it look better, whether -- how we go about doing that, I would need certainly some direction on that. But I would rather see more intensification in that kind of thing and allow this kind of a business, if you've got something -- you cited the case. If this is unsightly, then let's do something about the appearance of having this kind of a facility. MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Or what can we do? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could we have uses that they're permitted in C-3, but those particular uses have extra aesthetic kinds of requirements? MR. NINO: We've done that for car washes. I don't know if -- the car washes are not necessarily -- they're not a C-3. But we did have, as you know, automobile service stations, car washes have enhanced landscaping requirements. So there is precedent for doing that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Why not? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a great idea. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I mean, I think that this way, you know, we're not keeping someone -- if this is their thing -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Their livelihood. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- their livelihood, we're not keeping them from having their business, but we're saying if you're going to have it, fine, God bless you -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Gotta make it look like Naples. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- but we want you to follow some more stringent requirements in terms of how you're going to fix your business up. MR. HULHERE: I would suggest that we could easily cross-reference the additional and very stringent standards that we recently adopted for service stations, and we could simply cross-reference that in that section of the LDC under that use. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You can -- we can do that, Bob? MR. HULHERE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That makes sense. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I could go there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like to do that. I think to -- you know, I just hate to see people not be able to do what maybe they've been trained to do, or whatever, and then -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. MR. HULHERE: Well, those are very, very substantial restrictions that we placed on service stations, so that would -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. HULHERE: -- definitely have a large impact on the appearance of these facilities. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, while we're on that subject, are there similar -- are there similar uses that we should also cross-reference to those restrictions, like automotive repair? You know, what else is there? MR. HULHERE: I think that already is covered. Automotive repair already is covered under that. But what I would suggest is that we would take a look at all of the districts and maybe come up with a list of uses, obviously for the next LDC amendment cycle, but where we might apply some more stringent standards. And I assume that the criteria would be outdoor, you know, types of activities, and perhaps that might not apply in a C-5 district, but it might in a C-3, which is located in closer proximity to residential properties. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But while you're at it, and not just on the automotive side, but on things like pawn shops and title loans and some of the things that are disincentive to economic redevelopment might also have to have some kind of special aesthetic requirements in order to enhance the community to make up for the sort of negative impact that they otherwise have. MR. NINO: Well, that leads us, of course, to a very complicated type of structure of an ordinance. It really leads us to a performance ordinance where we write in the standards for each and every use. That would be a tremendous -- not an impossible task, but it would be quite a task to achieve that, and I certainly think you'd be breaking new ground if you did that. To draw more of a performance requirement with each and every use is certainly not your standard zoning ordinance throughout the United States. We'd be breaking a lot of new ground there. Not to say we shouldn't. We broke new ground with architectural standards. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And look at it, how wonderful it's been. COMMISSIONER CARTER: What's the difficulty of establishing a performance standard that if we can do this cross-referencing, I'm not -- if I'm following this discussion -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good point. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- the uses is one thing, but what you're going to look like is another. And I think we need to get all this pulled together. I'm not for limiting, as Commissioner Berry is saying, of limiting uses, but I am concerned that if we start expanding and allowing more of something we really don't need or want, why are we doing that? MR. NINO: We always -- let me try to answer that in this way. We always have to -- and I don't want to speak for the attorney's side, but we have to be careful that we don't create legislation that has become so onerous that we invite -- invite challenges. And as Commissioner Hac'Kie would know, there's a uniformity provision in zoning that suggests that you cannot discriminate between uses. We're getting -- we're really going afield here, believe me. And when you start talking about picking and choosing uses that are basically been traditionally deemed to be uniform in terms of their impact, we're treading on very sensitive ground. And that's why when you mentioned, you know, taking out uses that are basically traditionally have been considered similar and compatible, you need to look at the possible legal ramifications of doing that. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So maybe we could ask you to look at it and give us some advice about, you know, how far could we go; get the county attorney to give us some advice on what are the parameters within which we could operate. MR. HULHERE: And may I just add that we also have -- we have adopted very successful architectural standards that we will continue to look at, and that's one avenue of improving the appearance of these, which we could embellish, and also our landscape code, which is an excellent landscape code. We just recently adopted a comprehensive overview of -- or amendment to the landscape code. But that is another area where we have -- we have increased requirements for specific uses, so I think that that is an option that is available to us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there's precedent in the county for -- I mean, am I remembering this wrong, didn't we say we've decided how many gas stations is enough gas stations at a major intersection? MR. MULHERE: We did -- well, what we put was locational restrictions on service stations and then -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the same kind of -- however you get there, the same kind of restrictions could be developed for similar uses that otherwise take over an area. And I'll stop on this, because you guys know I'm talking about gateway and pawn shops and title loans and all that stuff and we'll be dealing with that in the overlay -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct, right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- as we go forward, but I'd like to do it as broadly as possible. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other discussion on this item? I think on this one, the cross-referencing perhaps might be the best way. I would think, too, though, that some of this may well be market driven as far as how many you're going to have. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're exactly right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know, it just isn't -- they're just not going to spring up, I don't believe, unless -- they'll probably buy an existing location, if the market's out there to do that. And certainly a business person's going to take a look at that before they're going to open up a business, otherwise they're not going to be there very long. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: True. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At any rate. Okay. Moving on. Anything on the next one on that page, the airport overlay district, bicycle parking facilities at all nonresidential developments. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we ever building a bike path, that's -- makes good sense, I guess. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Changing the length of time people can have an RV in front of their house after they've been using it, as I understand that. MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was the impetus for that one, just out of curiosity? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Abuse. MR. NINO: Beg your pardon? MR. MULHERE: The impetus for that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: RV thing. MR. NINO: Code enforcement. We're having a lot of difficulties and felt that this would help them deal with that issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I don't object to it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, I was looking at that, and I have a suggestion. Let me get back down to that. Allow me just a second, 2.6.7.2. Okay. Page 22 and 23 of your booklet here. On page 22, it says in -- I have it in the -- on the residential premises for a period not to exceed six hours during loading, unloading, cleaning, so forth, prior to or after a trip. What we've -- what we used to get into -- I don't know if it's still the problem, but when it said 24 hours, someone would just drive it around the block and start another 24-hour period. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Came around and picked some stuff up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, what we need is something that says 24 -- or six hours here, but make it so that they can't start another six hours by going around the block. And I think you could do that by saying six hours in any 24-hour period or one-week period, or something to that effect. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Something like that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's an improvement, seems to me. MR. NINO: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: I was just going to -- Michelle Arnold, for the record. I was just going to suggest that I look at this and bring it back to you with some modified thing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Might want to look at it -- MR. NINO: Within a 24-four-hour period or -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, six hours within a 24-hour period or maybe even longer, a 48-hour period or a one-week period or something to that effect. Because otherwise you really haven't done anything except make them drive it around the block four times a day instead of once. MR. NINO: Yeah, we've covered that with respect to temporary uses for visitors, but the same theory. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. NINO: We'll bring you back a modification for that one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good. Moving on then to the next one regarding the public hearing. This is from the Collier County Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, what page? Where are we? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm on page three, 2.7.3.5.2. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotcha. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's at the bottom of the page, third one up from the bottom. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is the insubstantial changes to PUDs. We've had a couple of discussions this year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I think that's an improvement. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. The next one, division 2.8 clarifies by applicability by including industrial uses fronting arterial or collector roads. And -- MR. NINO: That's an expansion of the architectural standards. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Now, the next one, interior parking lot landscaping may not be grass. Give me an interior parking lot -- give me a -- MR. NINO: I can't recall specifically what that is. The -- MR. McHARRIS: Joe McHarris, for the record. I think what that's referring to is that when you're going to do different type of parking in one large parking area, that if you're going to -- you have to separate it. And we don't want just a separation of grass, we'd like something higher than grass, which would be shrubs, trees, et cetera. So that's just telling you that you can't put grass in between the parking lot, that you really want a separation, a visual separation, not just a physical separation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Between parking lots? MR. McHARRIS: Between different types of parking areas in a major -- so if you've got a two-way parking area -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. HcHARRIS: -- in front of Publix, and then Beall's wants a one-way parking, that there is a physical separation between the two types. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I was reading this like how some churches have the parking lots, and I was reading this, if you said no grass -- MR. HcHARRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- because I know they use grass -- MR. HULHERE: No, that's permissible. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know what I'm talking about? MR. HcHARRIS: Absolutely. MR. HULHERE: One example would be Waterside Shops. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, okay. So that's not a problem. MR. HcHARRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's just to clarify it. I understand. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Page four we did. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. Moving on to page four, we did that one, where part -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino went through that one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. The setback requirement from the street for cases where 100 percent parking is rear oriented. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, those all seem to be real practical kinds of catches. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Requires lighting to be in harmony with landscaping, lighting to be consistent in design with landscaping through use of colors. Explain that, the lighting, Joe. MR. HcHARRIS: Again, Joe HcHarris, for the record. We got a little duped in the language that was in the design standards initially by Lowe's. It initially said that lighting needed to be contingent -- or aesthetically the same as the building. Well, they took that to mean that the color of the poles could be red. And so you have 50 poles out there that are red. We wanted to not allow that again, so we were saying that they needed to be bronze, and bronze is a color that is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Gotcha. MR. HcHARRIS: -- you know, or patina or something that would add to the community instead of bright red poles. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Gotcha, okay. All right. Next one, redefine service function areas. I don't know what that is. MR. HcHARRIS: Garbage areas, loading docks, et cetera, et cetera. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. These are all in regard to the building -- the new architectural standards. MR. HcHARRIS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You all can read on through. Do you have anything? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just wanted to hear from Joe. Obviously, I assume you're comfortable with this automobile dealerships prefab metal, that it's sufficiently screened or set back so that it's not going to be viewed? MR. HcHARRIS: Yeah, I believe that that's in the best interest for both the community and the industry, to make them -- I mean, they do large bays, they're typically off. They're buildings are usually pretty intense buildings, and to make them have to use concrete block is probably not in the best economic interest of the county or money well spent, so -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: But are you confident that the way it's drafted will -- MR. HcHARRIS: Achieve? Yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it will require the placement of the prefab metal buildings not to be visually -- MR. HcHARRIS: We did say in there, and I don't know if the brief summary says it, there has to be no more than 20 percent of the building showing behind the main showroom. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. HcHARRIS: So yeah, we're trying to hide it behind the main I can live with 20 percent. building. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I gotcha. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, the next one is -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Has that been a problem? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- the building orientation. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Has that been a problem? MR. HcHARRIS: Has that been a problem? You're seeing, if you go up to Bonita, there seems to be a large concentration of auto dealerships, and what they're doing is putting four or five nice dealerships and then they're just running the back all the way with metal buildings. And there's usually a good distance between each building, so then you see the metal building behind there, and there's no landscaping, and so you see the metal building. And that's what I'm trying not to have happen. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. The next one has to do with standards relative to the degree plain walls must be interrupted with windows or facade treatment. MR. HcHARRIS: Yeah, originally we had asked for like 50 percent windows, and what we've done is actually reduced it down and given more flexibility within that, all the way down to 25 percent of windows along a facade. So we've actually tweaked it from reality of looking at buildings and working with the people who were doing the buildings, and 25 to 35 is probably a very practical -- 50 percent sometimes can be hard. Remember that these are the minimum, and they can always do more if they would like. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, I actually heard a complaint from an architect about that, you know, that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that right? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh, that it inhibited their, you know, ability to be -- design and creative and dah, dah, dah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, fine, but then they need to come up with some of the-- get away from that blank wall look and do something more along that. That's the reason I'm a little hesitant to back off on this. MR. HcHARRIS: We've also allowed landscaping -- we have a blank wall area that's definitely 20 by 10 that you can't have more than those areas. We've tried to open that up so that landscaping also can be put in in that area. Because landscaping is really what Naples is about, besides nice architecture. So we have mitigated that in many places, and I really believe that the changes have tweaked that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So you're comfortable with this? MR. HcHARRIS: Yeah, because I don't like blank walls either. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. And then the number nine there is -- I'm sorry, number 14, add specifications to facade standards to require that attached facades are architecturally consistent with the primary facade. And I think you've kind of touched on that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. Glad you caught the fake windows. MR. HcHARRIS: Yeah, we've seen a couple of those pop up in Lee County and also in Naples and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: City of Naples. MR. McHARRIS: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are you saying you don't want fake windows? MR. McHARRIS: You don't want the appearance of fake windows. When you drive by, you want to think that it's a real window if it's going to be fake. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I certainly agree with you. All right, let's flip on over to page six, I think. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Five. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Five? I looked through page five. I didn't see anything. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't have any questions on page five. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions of anyone on page five? Commissioner Carter? COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pam? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, just -- I have so much respect for Joe's opinion that if this is coming with your recommendation, then I'm going to bow to it because I know you know more about it than I do. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I suspect he's going to recommend all of these because he probably wrote them all. MR. HcHARRIS: Yes, sir, I did. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the point. That's why I don't have a question. MR. NINO: I neglected to advise you, Joe was hired under contract to do this work for the county. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good. Glad you did. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Over on page six, further clarifies the use of colors. Can you just elaborate a little bit on that one? MR. HcHARRIS: We wanted to make sure that the use of color -- we had had some working -- I mean, color's a very difficult area to articulate and mandate. We wanted to make sure that that was -- gave enough creativity to be used, but also that it was better defined. We had an -- someone had mentioned that maybe restricting the use of gray since Wal-Hart and K-Mart and all of those -- we've got enough gray buildings in town at this time. That was one of the changes. Also, to include secondary colors besides primary. Primary is your red, green. Secondary is purple or orange and those other colors. And we wanted to make sure that that worked within what we had already learned over the last two years of working through this. Minor changes, but I think pretty good impact at those areas. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Anything else on that page that anyone feels strongly about or has a question about? MR. NINO: Then the next group just repeats all of the previous group, but for buildings under 20,000 square feet. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. HULHERE: Hay I just add a comment? I'm not sure -- I don't think it was discussed here, but I just wanted to bring to the board's attention that one of the amendments included in this -- the architectural standards deals with fencing. I know that was a specific request of the board, and I don't see it here in your summary table. So we are prohibiting chain link and wood fencing for the primary facade or within 100 feet of a right-of-way. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yea. MR. MULHERE: And that was specifically requested by the board. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Anything else? Anyone? Go on then to page seven. Any questions? COMMISSIONER CARTER: On seven, the first statement, what was the practice in the past? It says extends the right of appeal to any aggrieved party. What was going on before? MR. NINO: Which one is that? MR. MULHERE: I think I can answer that question. Previous to that point, it referenced only the applicant through the appeal process, and the appeal process should include the applicant or an affected party, whether it's the property owner or some other group or organization as an affected party. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to be -- I don't know if I agree completely there. I understand if you're got a neighboring property they should, but I'm afraid this opens up to tinkering from groups that could be trying to create a difficult situation for any or all development or any or all project or any or all change. And I -- unless we can better define affected party, I don't want to put this in. I completely understand if somebody has an amusement park they're changing and the neighboring property wants to deal with that, that's great. But if, you know, a group out of Tallahassee that has one representative in Collier that's trying to weigh in on every situation, I'm not sure that the appeal should be put in place every time then. MR. MULHERE: I agree with that. And this is specifically an appeal -- a decision of the Planning Commission. This refers specifically -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. MR. MULHERE: And I, perhaps, would defer to Ms. Student to discuss that, but I'm under the impression that we used the same language elsewhere in the appeals process. An aggrieved party is defined in the statutes, and I just want to -- MS. STUDENT: Yes, it's also defined by case law. For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. And the case law also defines such a person as having an interest that's greater than the community in general that gets to the standing issue. And we could take a look at our definitions and see if it's adequately covered in there. And when we come back to you, if it's not, you know, come up with some language to deal with that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, that would be what I would like to see is maybe some more clearly defined definition of what an aggrieved party would be, and have some restrictions on those, because like Commissioner Constantine pointed out, we don't need somebody from Lee County or Tallahassee coming down here and telling us how to run Collier County. MS. STUDENT: Exactly. And that is in the case law, and we could take it from some of the common law that deals with the standing issue. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that's a good move. And the next one -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had a question about that one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And also, Commissioner Carter, understand the Environmental Advisory Board, that was removed and changed to become -- it was incorporated with another -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Another group, right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my question, just a problem with my own recollection is, have we seen this ordinance before? I mean, I know in theory we decided how we were going to create the new environmental board, or I guess we're calling it a council now. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Council now. MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. No. We just discussed, in a previous executive summary, the proposal that we made to you to abolish EPTAB, abolish EAB and combine it, one new board with criteria for the membership and what their requirements would be and what their responsibilities would be, but this ordinance hasn't come forward yet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There were some comments at that time, Vince, about how large the board should be, what its communication ability with the County Commission should be, somehow to try to put it on a par with the Development Services Advisory Council. MR. CAUTERO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And does this ordinance do that? MR. CAUTERO: I believe it does. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: I can't tell you what the membership is, but I will in just two seconds. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I've got it open here. MR. CAUTERO: Nine. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nine? MR. CAUTERO: Nine on the board. Now, I will tell you that the DSAC is 15. This is nine. And we limited it to nine, because they're going to be reviewing development applications, which DSAC does not do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not so much concerned with the numbers as I am that this council had the same opportunity to review -- have the same requirement that they review LDC amendments, that they do basically what the DSAC does, only they do it from the environment perspective instead of the development perspective. MR. CAUTERO: That will happen. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the way it's drafted? Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do -- I'm not opposing that. I'm just having trouble with the idea of creating yet another hurdle to jump if you're trying to do something. That's one more time you've got to go pay for an attorney and pay for -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, no, no, no. This is actually less. Well, this is no more new, because the Environmental Advisory Board was always there. So to the extent it's a review level, it's not an additional review level; am I right? MR. CAUTERO: That's correct. And it's not an additional review level. That's already being done now, and it's actually done with two boards. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what I'm looking for is more communication like Development Services Advisory Council has such a good communication or rapport with development services division, and has so much input into all of the changes as they come before us. We're always careful to ask, has DSAC seen this, because they're the industry, and I don't want to change that at all, but I do want to be sure that this environmental council has that same level of input and review. And it sounds like we're getting there. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What did we -- did we end up -- we had a debate before on the makeup of that and whether all the people would be required to have some sort of specific background or whether we'd break that up and allow some of average John Q. Public to participate as well. MR. CAUTERO: Let me defer to Bill Lorenz, but as he comes up, my understanding is that we have listed criteria similar to what your EPTAB ordinance says now. However, I believe there's a proviso that allows you to appoint people at large, which is similar to DSAC and other committees as well. But let me defer to Bill on that, Commissioner. MR. LORENZ: For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. Yes, there -- it's a nine-member board and we specified three technical members and three non-technical members. Technical members are to have the qualifications that are listed in the ordinance. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You said three technical members? I believe you meant six. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He meant six. MR. LORENZ: Excuse me, six technical members and three non- technical members. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, looks like that's addressed, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Okay, that actually concludes the information that they have presented us. One question I had, and this was -- I was asked to ask about this. An interested party had questioned why the landscaping -- the problem with the landscape architects versus the designers, why this was not placed on this particular cycle. MR. NINO: We had -- staff basically disagreed with the proposition that that person was making, that they had achieved sufficient qualification comparable to a registered landscape architect to design commercial landscape plans. There is no official registration or certification process as there is for landscape architects. There just isn't sufficient evidence to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just haven't gotten there. MR. NINO: -- suggest that they've reached that plateau, that they ought to be considered on a co-equal basis. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, haven't they done something -- the state has approved this group now and they're trying to get in -- MR. NINO: The state is recognizing -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Recognizing, they're trying to get in concert with that, to get in concert with those -- MR. NINO: But that law does not overrule or set aside any local requirement that limits the design of landscape plans to a registered landscape architect. And we have legal opinion to that effect. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe one of the things that we had discussed when this came up before, we were looking to the state to come up with probably a more stringent requirement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And they were going to try and address that, I believe, through legislation. Well, then, they got to a point, and then they kind of -- the legislation backed off from that, is kind of my understanding. That may be oversimplified. MR. NINO: If they were to establish a formal system whereby they could determine the qualifications of members of their -- of that profession, i.e., as there is for engineers and landscape architects and architects, then we could look at it again. But as of now, they're a self-regulating body. There's no prerequisite requirements by which to evaluate their competency. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. HULHERE: Hay I just -- I just wanted to add that this issue was also discussed by the land code sub-committee of the Development Services Advisory Committee who did not recommend that it be included, and obviously a Development Services Advisory Committee agreed with that recommendation of the sub-committee. And Ron -- MR. NINO: And the Planning Commission. MR. HULHERE: Yeah, I was going to say, if you could also speak to the fact that it was presented at the Planning Commission, and they did not recommend it as well. MR. NINO: That same presentation was made to the Planning Commission, and they -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I, just because I'm going to beat this horse to death, but I want to be sure that direction is clear, that Bob, the next time we get an LDC cycle of amendments, in addition to a column that has DSAC recommendation and Planning Commission, we'll now have the environmental council recommendation as well. MR. HULHERE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just look forward to that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER CARTER: Before we leave this issue with the landscape architects, is there a way that people who are not landscape architects, is there a due process that they have to go through to finally get approved, so that if they meet or exceed the criteria of a landscape architect, that they could bid on projects? MR. NINO: I might ask Ms. Simeon to address that. Also, Ms. Student spent some time with that issue. MS. SIHEON: Good evening, I'm Nancy Simeon, landscape architect. To answer your question, if there's a way for somebody who's not a state registered landscape architect to submit under our current process, there is. They can team up with a registered landscape architect and prepare their plans and have it reviewed by a registered landscape architect and submit under them. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Basically, it has to be sealed by somebody MS. SIHEON: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- who has been certified by the state. But it's just too complicated for somebody without that certification, I think, to be able to do it. MS. SIHEON: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the thing is that for the benefit of Commissioner Carter, we've had this discussion several times. I think the point is that they're certainly welcome to design the plans, but before the county accepts them we need to have the seal of a registered architect. In other words, just at least look at the plans to make sure that they're up to standards, someone with the qualification to do that. There has been the suggestion that we delete that requirement, but my position all along has been that all of the things that we've been doing for years in our LDC has been to increase standards and oversight. And this I see as an attempt or a suggestion to try to lower the standards. And I just can't go along with it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I would agree, I would never want to lower a standard. My question really is -- the concern is, if they had passed the requirements by the State of Florida and now are coming back to us to try to get into this -- into this business, if you please, what do they have to do to do it? Your standards are higher than what the State of Florida requires? Is that what I'm understanding? MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. They either need to work with a licensed landscape architect or obtain that certification, and they can. In fact, we had several individuals here at the last discussion who had obtained that certification by going through the process. And the only last thing I'd like to add is that that requirement only applies to site development plans. It does not apply to single- family landscape plans, nor does it apply to site improvement plans. So there are some opportunities for -- where we do not require the -- it's simply at the site development plan because of the nature of that development. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They could still do something for a resident. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The only thing that it cuts them out of is doing something for a strip shopping center? MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Something similar to that, or an office building? MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anything where there's going to be more public involvement, I guess. MS. SIMEON: Or a landscape median. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And more correctly now, it doesn't cut them out of that. It's just that they need to have their plans sealed before we can accept that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. MS. SIMEON: Correct. And some do do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Any further questions or comments? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I have one area. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I guess this is the point for me to bring it up, and that's on accent lighting. I understand, talking with you, Bob, that we -- because it crosses over to sign control or signage, that it could not be put on this agenda, it would have to come up on the next go around. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One of the frustrations. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, which is okay, but what I'm going to ask and hope that the board would be supportive on this, is that we eliminate accent lighting on the exterior buildings. And talking with staff, it seems like this is possible, and they would look for some direction from us that they could put together a process to tell us how we could do that and incorporate it in the next round of code changes. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Could you explain to me or clarify what you mean by accent lighting? Could somebody? MR. MULHERE: I think the reference to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What constitutes accent lighting? MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, Bob Mulhere. From my discussion with Commissioner Carter, we're talking about use of neon. The code does address neon for, I think, horizontal trim. In other words, you can't run the neon around the outside of your building, that's already prohibited. But it does allow the use of neon in a vertical fashion, and it also allows the use of neon exterior signage. So I believe what we're talking about is the use of neon on the building in the form of a sign both vertically to outline the building, but also for the purpose of a sign. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, yeah, and I'm supportive of taking a look at that in our next cycle. And of course we'll enlist the help of our Mr. Davis. MR. MULHERE: I suggest that we would go to the community, several people in the community and work with them on that process. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And he, by the way, is very supportive of that process also. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have just a general question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's a shame to have been here four years and not know the answer to this, but I guess this is for you, Mr. Fernandez. What is the process by which we give direction to staff for the kinds of things we'd like to see in the next cycle of LDC amendments? MR. FERNANDEZ: I'd ask for the planning staff to jump in, but my thought is at any point along the way, typically, if you have a public hearing, there's a discussion, you reach a point that really the ordinance doesn't serve you the way you would like for it to, you can give us direction at that point for the next cycle, please include a change to the ordinance that deals with this issue. That's typically how it would come up. Any other mechanism we would invite, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: No, I think that -- well, there might be one other mechanism. But Mr. Fernandez is correct, anytime that the board, at any of their meetings, discusses an issue and directs us to make that change, we will incorporate that into the next land code amendment cycle. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The thing is, it sort of keeps us in a reactive instead of a proactive policy making kind of a role. And I feel the frustration of there are things that I've been wanting to see different that I don't know if there's a majority support or not, but maybe it's a workshop kind of an issue or something. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that was my thinking, if you bring it up under item ten at any meeting, you've certainly got an opportunity there to discuss it and give your point of view and if the board agrees with you, then we'll go forward. MR. MULHERE: The second note that I had as another option is, of course, whether or not there's a strategic planning workshop sometime in the future that obviously would be a more comprehensive opportunity to look at a number of issues, and I know that there may be some in the future, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would love to do something like that sometime, just to talk about here are some things that I see that I wish we could have less of and come to the professional planners and say give us some advice. I know you hate workshops, John, but I like them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Go ahead and have one. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would agree with you, Commissioner Mac'Kie. I like a strategic planning workshop. I really think that that's a good way to get -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Guess what? There's going to be one. MR. MULHERE: There's one other way that these things come about that, I just want to let you know about. And we always bring them to your attention because we want to get the direction of the board before we proceed in spending man hours. But obviously, the Planning Commission, the EAB, the Development Services Advisory Committee, any of those three bodies can suggest to staff that an amendment can be made, and we always tell them we will discuss it with the board and then proceed if directed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And now in the future with the Environmental Advisory Council. MR. MULHERE: Correct. And any individual member of the public, if they pay a fee. So those are the ways that it can be amended. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. NINO: And we should also appreciate amendments to the Growth Management Plan oftentimes -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They do. MR. NINO: -- trigger amendments to the Land Development Code. For example, the issue you dealt with only the other day, an overlay for the North Naples area, traditional neighborhood design, that becomes a part of the Growth Management Plan. Then that automatically gives us marching orders to bring the Land Development Code into line to achieve that Growth Management Plan objective. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any public speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have none registered, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No registered? Nobody wants to talk here? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Gentleman in the back, would you like to speak? No? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, he's just hungry. COMMISSIONER CARTER: We've got a box of candy up here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got chocolates, Don. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If there's nothing further to come before us, the meeting is adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:05 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 BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC