Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/13/2004 S (LDC Amendments) October 13,2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 13, 2004 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 district as has 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: CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala Torn Henning Fred W. Coyle Jim Coletta Frank Halas (absent) ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Patrick White, County Attorney Page 1 _.~.- -.. _.^'-_._.,-,.....,~ .' --._~.."--_._.,--".-,--....."".,~... October 13, 2004 MR. SCHMITT: You have a live mike. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good evening. This is the first of the three hearings for the land development codes, right? MR. SCHMITT: Two. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Two? First of the two, and cycle two. It is October 13th. I welcome you this evening, and if you would all please rise and say the Pledge of Allegiance with me. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. ) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And with that, I think I'll just turn it right over to you. MR. SCHMITT: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of community development/environmental services division, and I welcome you to the first reading of the land development code amendments, second cycle, 2004. Tonight we'll be going through the amendments, we'll be reading them. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what I was trying to say, first cycle. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: And you have a book in front of you. It's broken down by tabs. The amendments have been broken down by topic so we can at least try and keep some semblance of continuity. And I would recommend -- I will eventually turn this over to Russell Webb, who will be running through. As you flip through the tabs, you'll have the summary page followed by the appropriate and accompanying amendments. We'll proceed through those in that manner. But first I'd like to turn this over to assistant county attorney, Patrick White, so he can read into the record the sufficiency of advertising. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. Assistant County attorney, Patrick White. Page 2 October 13, 2004 Madam Chair, Commissioners, I've reviewed the Affidavit of Publication for this evening's meeting and find that it's legally sufficient for it to go forward, and I'm turning the original over to our minutes keeper for recordkeeping purposes. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have one item that I would like to bring up before we start. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Surely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In asking approval from the Board of Commissioners for an item that I'm working on. Two -- two meetings ago we passed a proclamation recognizing the leukemia and lymphoma walk coming up on the 22nd, I believe it is. I will be soliciting funds for this event. I'm asking the Board of Commissioners for endorsement of putting the solicitation on our letterhead, and -- but not pay for any of the mailing costs or printing costs. CHAIRMAN FIALA: In other words, sending it right from the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah. Just saying, endorsed by the Board of County Commissioners, but no public funds will be expended for the cost of this mailing. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we would be endorsing the fund-raising effort of the Society's Light the Night Walk to help fight cancer -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- is that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's to find a cure for leukemia/lymphoma. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think what we're doing is Page 3 October 13,2004 endorsing Commissioner Henning in this and offer any assistance we can, but possibly Mr. Weigel might be able to guide us through this. I see no reason why we can't. Mr. Weigel, I know this isn't a regularly advertised item on an agenda, but something as innocent and as well meaning as this. MR. WEIGEL: Right. No, advertisement isn't necessary, and it's appropriate for the board to treat the issue as they wish. The board appears to be being asked to allow for a statement on the message for endorsement of the board, which is certainly appropriate, and the board in so doing would be finding that it's in the public interest and benefit to do so. It appears Commissioner Henning is not asking for the board to pay for the mailing or the postage as far as that goes and -- is that correct, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's correct. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. So the question is simple, and the board certainly has the prerogative to discuss and corne to any decision it wishes to in that regard. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, let me jump in then and say, I'd love to do that, because I have a feeling for it because it's so close to home when our own Kathy, my son's wife, had lymphoma, and-- Hodgkin's lymphoma she had, and I think that anything we can do, just like if they were so helpful to her and she's in total remission now, I'd like to see that this research and this help is given to everybody who happens to run into the deadly disease, so I'm all for it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we need a motion? MR. WEIGEL: I think that that would be best. And, again, I note that Mr. Henning has indicated that this board at its meeting prior to yesterday's meeting, did, in fact, pass a proclamation endorsing the cause and the activity that was -- that this is about as well. Yes, a motion would be appropriate. Page 4 October 13,2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I make a motion to approve Commissioner Henning's request to use the county stationery to promote the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society's Light the Night Walk. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Joe? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Madam Chair, I would recommend that we proceed as indicated through the tabs. What we will do is do this by exception. We'll go through the summary sheet, if you have any questions, we'll certainly stop at that item. In particular though, at Tab B, we want to give a brief overview of the architectural standards, because this -- that is really the crux of this evening's amendments. And regards -- it will be a short briefing. We have no intention of going through this in detail. You certainly can highlight any issues you so wish. But we do want to get some overview in regards to what precipitated this, how we got to this point with the architectural standards and that you understand the impacts, and I think that's really what we need to do for you without belaboring the issue. So with that though -- but if I could please advise anybody that's Page 5 October 13,2004 here in the audience, if you would -- if you wish to speak, please fill out a speaker slip, bring it up to myself or Russell so that we have it, we can match the item that you wish to speak with as we go down through the items. And, Madam Chair, I recommend if, in fact, we have a speaker associated with that topic, we will stop and identify the speaker at that time, whatever, which -- whatever amendment we're at. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And are you collecting the speaker slips there? MR. SCHMITT: Yes, yes. Right now we have just one. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So as long as you can coordinate them with that. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Thank you very much. MR. SCHMITT: So with that, I'll turn this over to Russell, and we'll start the first piece, which are the definitions, and I think go through those quickly, then turn it to Tab B to Susan. So, Russell? MR. WEBB: Madam Chair, Commissioners, good evening. Russell Webb, principal planner with zoning and land development reVIew. As Joe stated, you'll notice the summary sheet is broken down by subject matter. In Tab A, the first subject, are the definitions. And if there's no objections from you, I'm going to go through each numerically -- they're all pretty much the same section number -- and if you have any objections, then let us know. The first, on page 1 of your LDC packet, section 1.08.02, the definition for residential density. The second, also on the same section, 1.08.02, is the definition for building zone height of, and that's on page 2 of your LDC packet. The third, also section 1.08.02 on page 4 of your LDC packet, are some definitions based on our rewrite of the sign code this cycle. Page 6 October 13,2004 On page 2 of your summary sheet, same section 1.08.02. On page 6 of your LDC packet, we're revising the definition of final local development order. And finally in that same section, 1.08.02 on page 7 of your LDC packet, reinserting the definition of destination resort hotel. If there are no questions on that particular tab, we'll move right into Tab B, which are the architectural standards. And I believe Susan has a short presentation she needs to -- MS. MURRAY: Ready? Good evening, Susan Murray, director of zoning and land development review. I'm kind of pinch-hitting tonight for Carolina Valera, who had planned to give this presentation, but due to some scheduling conflicts, was unable to make it. Regardless, she will be here for the second hearing, so if there's anything I can't answer or Keith Scamehorn can't answer, she will be here as well, so I wanted to go ahead and -- at the next meeting. I wanted to go ahead and give you a brief overview of the history of these amendments because we're pretty proud and happy to be able to bring these forward to you knowing that we've worked these through an established committee for the last 18 months, and we feel very happy and proud of what we're bringing forward to you because, with the exception of one area, we've been able to reach agreement and be satisfied with the results of the committee. And I think I speak for the committee saying that we've been able to work together well, and it's been a long and arduous process with positive results. So I'm anxious to go through it with you briefly and explain what we did. Just to give you a little bit of background, the original land development code amendments for commercial and site design guidelines was originally adopted in 1996. And one of the main reasons these were adopted and promulgated really was to address commercial project building and site design concerns. Page 7 October 13, 2004 And if you recall back in '96, and actually previous to '96, several big box style developments carne to be in the county, and they employed long massive walls and roofs, very large parking areas, and lacked significant or efficient pedestrian access. That's the main reason they were adopted in '96. There has been a minor revision since then, and that was to provide standards or to make the standards applicable also to noncommercial buildings facing major roads. And I also have some illustrations that will kind of give you an idea of what the standards address and what they haven't addressed. Again, these are some of the examples of the big box stores that came in line previous to '96 that generated, if you recall, a lot of public outcry. They were at prominent locations in the county, major intersections, and as you can see, they really didn't do much to beautify the county in any way or bring any type of character or style to the development. Just to give you an overview of how the regulations are broken down. There's two primary areas. The first addresses site requirements, specifically the distribution of parking, pedestrian accessibility, light pole height, and service area buffering. Those are related to the site. The second part is really related to the building design, and it addresses these four primary areas: Building facades, which include windows, doors, and walkways; the building's massing; the roof massing; and the color. This amendment that's before you tonight is really the first comprehensive review since the original adoption in 1996. Some of the shortcomings we've identified in working with the existing code now is that there was a large amount of window requirements. There was a deviation process from the standards that tended to be very subj ective, and that was applicable to noncommercial uses. And there were requirements for all facades on outparcel Page 8 October 13, 2004 buildings, and those were some of the key areas that were identified by the committee as being problematic. The committee was comprised of seven architects, one landscape architect, an engineer, and a county staff member, and the requirements were reviewed for over 18 months. Some of the impacts in the requirements that I mentioned to you previously, that we had done a minor amendment after the 1996 adoption to address noncommercial buildings located on major roadways, and here's an example of the impact of that change. I don't know if you remember this, but the picture at the top shows -- and I'd call it an outbuilding. It's rather large for a church, and those -- that was developed prior to the standards being required for noncommercial buildings fronting on major roads. And since that time, the church has come in to add on to that building and was required to meet the standards. And you can see on the lower part the difference in the requirements when they're applied to a building such as this upon redevelopment. So that gives you kind of an idea of the impact of the changes. The proposed changes we brought forward to you tonight, I just wanted to provide a brief outline of what we've done. We've moved certain standards to appropriate areas of the LDC. For example, fencing and landscaping. We had some standards within the architectural that dealt with those areas, and we've moved them to the landscaping and fencing standards of the code, which we felt was more appropriate. That way the users of the code, when they're looking for fencing standards, go right to the fencing standards. They don't have to go to the architectural standards and find something buried in there that they weren't aware of. Same with landscaping. We've combined the requirements of all buildings into one location, but we've deleted most of the illustrations. I think in part one of the reasons was that the committee felt that the illustrations were Page 9 October 13,2004 conveying a very specific type of architectural style or detail that was required, and they did not want that. And we debated that issue for a while and deleted most of the illustrations and made the illustrations that are in there very generic. We've deleted references to a preferable style of architecture. These standards before you are minimum standards. They do not dictate, or they are not intended to dictate a particular style of architecture. They are intended to employ the greatest amount of flexibility and design flexibility while establishing very minimal standards for development. We've reduced the required amount of windows. We've created specific requirements for specific uses. As an example, we have specific requirements for ministorage buildings, or indoor storage buildings, for industrial buildings, for institutional buildings. So those were broken out and separated and given very distinct standards to address those distinct needs based on their use. We've added choices to the list of facade requirements for outparcels, so the list of choices has expanded. Here's an example of building types, or architectural style types that the code would allow, and you can see a great variation here between architectural styles from very modem style to a traditional style, and that's really the intent of the ordinance. It's not to funnel or tunnel anybody into one particular style, and this is an example of applying the standards and the result. Some of the proposed changes; we've added redeveloped and vacant buildings to the list of deviations. So if you're redeveloping a building or you have a vacant building that's been vacant for a period of time, you are eligible through a defined process to go through a deviation process. And we did that to kind of address some of these older sites that are very challenging to bring up to current code because they were developed so long ago, and this gives a little bit more flexibility to Page 10 ,.~^",,--'" October 13, 2004 redeveloping those sites without discouraging it. We've added choices to the list of facade treatments. We've deleted facade requirements to be repeated in all walls. We've increased the depth of required projection and recesses. We've added a roof massing elements. We've deleted the vertical roof change requirement for buildings under 5,000 square feet and buildings with sloped roofs under 200 feet, and we -- where previously certain materials were prohibited, we've allowed the facade prohibited materials to be used up to 33 percent. The next couple of slides just shows you, or gives you an example of buildings that have been developed in the county using the very minimum standards. And I use this as an example, or I'm giving you this as an example because this is what a building would look like using very minimal standards. Often the buildings that you see around town actually exceed the standards in some cases. And this is kind of an example of a result of simply applying the minimal standards of the code. The same thing. This is -- the top picture is an example of an outparcel and some of the standards applied, the minimal standards applied to an outparcel. And this is pretty much what you get. You've got on the top and bottom slide one change in roof elevation, which is, again, a minimum standard. Some of the proposed changes for the deviation process -- and remember we had a deviation or currently have a deviation process for noncommercial buildings, but we've added to that list, and we've added that specific uses qualify for deviations. Again, we broke out buildings for specific uses and put very specific standards in for them. We've also created an architectural -- or the ordinance will create an architectural arbitration meeting to appeal a staff decision. Now, the deviation process is an administrative process, so it does not go before any board for approval. It's something that's worked out between my project reviewers and the applicant based on Page 11 October 13,2004 criteria within the LDC. However, what we did -- or what the committee decided to do was to add an architectural arbitration committee wherein if the applicant did not agree with staffs final determination or my final determination, that they could take the issue before an arbitration committee and appeal staffs decision. At the end of the committee, ultimately it is still an administrative decision, but the -- myself, would take into account the recommendations and findings of the committee before a final decision would be rendered, so that's something new, and, I think, is a real positive change. It eliminates a lot of the subjectivity that currently exists in the code, and that's really one of the objectives we were trying to achieve by making these changes. We put up this example because, as I mentioned, one of the changes was use of color. And where primary colors are prohibited -- or I'm sorry --limited to a certain amount, here's an example where you get certain stores that use very specific primary colors in their prototype buildings where the code does provide the ability to use those primary colors on a limited basis. So, again, you have the same result. This is an example of one of the options that's provided for some of the outparcels in terms of facade treatments they can do. You see the glass block and the covered walkway here as one of the options, and I just thought it was a really interesting and unique use of the option for McDonald's. Not something you typically see but really adds to the building. This is an example of some of the requirements for the automobile service station requirements. There are specific requirements, and normally you'd see the very colorful striped canopies and banding. And our code does not allow that and requires that the canopies match the same building color as well. So that's Page 12 October 13, 2004 some of the unique features of the code that, I think, have had real positive results. I think we have some of the nicest looking service stations that I've seen anywhere. Here's an example, again, of a government building using the very minimal standards. You see one roof plane change there. And the result is, even using the very minimum standards, you can have some pretty nice looking buildings that add some character to the community . Here's an example illustrating what architectural standards do. And the bottom picture of Costco is actually a picture of a Costco in a different community that does not employ architectural standards where you've got facade treatments and elevation changes. And the top picture is as -- the same building as a result of applying the architectural standards. And I think this really says a lot for even the minimum standards that we have, that you can see a difference here. One of the changes also that we're bringing forward is, there was a list of prohibited materials, and one of those was metal on buildings. And one of the changes that we brought forward is to actually allow some of the metal on the buildings to a certain percentage and that be approx -- 33 percent. And that's all I have. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? MS. MURRAY: Can I answer any questions? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What triggered the proposed changes, or who? MS. MURRAY: A variety of factors, time, staff, applicants, you know, our customers, which are mostly developers, the public. The change -- the minor change I mentioned with respect to noncommercial buildings along major roadways was really kind of a result of public outcry when that church was built. And the standards had really never been comprehensively Page 13 . -~'-_._-"... ~ October 13, 2004 reviewed, and we -- when you adopt such a major change in your land development code, part of your responsibility as a staff member is to monitor that success or failures of that, so that really was the impetus. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I could just highlight. This started probably almost two and a half years ago based on demands of the industry in regards to the difficulty they had in meeting the standards. Frankly, what the standards do is somewhat ration out, allow more flexibility, more creativity, and certainly allows for -- and does remove some of the restrictions, because also what we experienced is unintended consequences. Some of them, the criteria solved problems with large buildings, but on a reduced scale, it really created, architecturally, not a very satisfactory design, and I know we have some of the folks from the industry here tonight, and they certainly can express their opinion on that, because they participated in that process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't see any downward move of the -- from the present code to what is being asked for us to adopt today. More flexibility? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. This code is more flexible from a standpoint of applying design criteria. It does allow for some relaxed standards or at least less restrict -- less strict standards in regards to outparcels and some of those activities that we're primarily very restrictive in trying to meet the standards and guidelines. MS. MURRAY: It also enhances the deviation process for some of the -- like I said, the existing buildings that have been vacant for a while or are undergoing redevelopment. I think that employs some flexibility with respect to that. It reduces the window area requirements, which I know we were -- were problematic for the industry . The existing deviation process was really, really subjective, and what it came down to was a staff decision. And it was almost as if Page 14 October 13,2004 you had, in the case of those individuals seeking deviations, you had one individual in the county making decisions about what qualified as a deviation and what was consistent with the code, because the code is relatively subjective anyway. It's intentionally that way. Again, we're not trying to drive any particular style of architecture and not trying to squash creativity. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- so what you're saying is, there is no added cost to the consumer, or people wanting to remodel or build a new building, there's no added cost to it because it's less restrictive? MS. MURRAY: I can't answer that definitively, because that's really not my purview in terms of -- I'm sure there's additional costs somewhere and less cost to others, and I think it's really going to be a matter of project specific. I'm sure some of the AlA members might share some of their experiences on that with you, but, overall, I think it's a less -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: For historical purposes, I remember this whole issue when architectural standards started with Commissioner Tim Hancock, and it was the toy store on Airport, and I never knew that it reached out that far. I thought it was just the big boxes out there. MS. MURRAY: And then the later board actually -- well, I mean the same board later on actually asked us to address the issues with the automobile service station because -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. MURRAY: -- Pine Ridge Road was being rezoned, and I remember Commissioner Mac 'kie saying -- former Commissioner Mac'kie saying, it's becoming gasoline alley. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And we had the architectural standards for -- you had overlays for that. MS. MURRAY: Right. And we still have the overlays for the activity center number nine, and you still have the Bayshore mixed Page 15 October 13, 2004 use. And this -- it does not change any of those specific standards for those overlays. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, yeah. Just a historical perspective. I -- okay. MS. MURRAY: The Planning Commission voted unanimously, I believe, to approve the document that's before you. There were a couple minor changes they asked for that did not get in, and I would just like to read them into the record. And, Russell, if you could help me, because I -- MR. WEBB: Sure. MS. MURRAY: -- I thought I had located both of them, but I seem to only have one in front of me at the moment. And I'm on page 13 of your package under number 2. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thirteen on the bottom or 13 -- MR. WEBB: The handwritten 13. MS. MURRAY: It's the handwritten 13 in the middle of the page. And under number two it says, to nonresidential buildings and projects, and the word "proposed" should be crossed out and "submitted" should be put in its place. We made that change in a few pages previous to that, and it was supposed to be carried over, and that just adds more clarity to when the -- what projects the standards are applicable to. MR. WEBB: And Susan, I believe the -- excuse me. The second change, also Commissioners, is on handwritten page 20 under D, III, or 3, water elements, a minimum of 100 square feet in the area. I believe we're deleting that, if I'm not mistaken. MS. MURRAY: Yes. It was the Planning Commissioner's recommendation to delete one of the choices for site design elements. There's a list there of five, and the projects have to select a minimum of two, and they asked that water elements be deleted as a choice. And I believe it was Commissioner Strain who had concern over Page 16 October 13, 2004 the use -- excessive use of power and water as limited resources, and that we were encouraging, by encouraging that as an option, the use of limited resources. Am I saying that accurately, Joe? MR. SCHMITT: It was pretty much mandating a requirement that fell from a conservation standpoint. It's still -- certainly you can use fountains and other type of water enhancements, but it should not be something that government -- he felt that -- that commissioner felt that it should not be something that is required as an alternative. It certainly can be incorporated, but not something that we should promote through code. MS. MURRAY: Right. It wouldn't be a prohibition. You just could not count that as a feature. And I mentioned earlier when I started that I believe that committee and staff -- and staff was part of the committee -- but some of the committee members and staff ultimately ended all the discussions and multiple, multiple meetings in disagreeing on one element of this change, and that has to do with the deviation process. And we had quite a discussion in front of the Planning Commission on that, and ultimately the Planning Commission agreed with staffs recommendation, and that being that the deviation process should be limited to noncommercial buildings. And, in fact, the applicability of the deviation process is spelled out in the code. This is really a carryover from the existing code. Presently right now an applicant cannot request a deviation for a commercial building, and we wish to retain that for several reasons. First of all, we feel like it's a significant dilution of the standards of the code that have been relatively successful, I think, in our opinion, and we don't wish to see the code diluted to that extent. Then it becomes a very subjective matter, again. And I think we've reduced some of the subj ectivity through the process as we've established, but there still is quite a bit. And your Page 1 7 ~_,.,__w··, October 13,2004 commercial buildings really are your prominent buildings within the county. I mean, they're the buildings that are mostly along your major corridors. And we believe that the standards are very minimum standards. And it certainly doesn't prohibit anybody from going beyond the standards. But if somebody meets the minimum standards, as I showed you, you can have a relatively attractive building in terms of scale and massing and relationship to the street. And we just don't wish to dilute that process. As well -- and secondarily, because I feel real strongly about the standards and the way they've worked the last eight years. But you consume quite a bit of staff time when you debate issues of standards through a deviation process. And, again, like I said, this is an administrative process that goes on with meetings between individuals, and we feel like it may open the door up for everybody to come in with all of their projects seeking a deviation if they don't like the code provisions, the minimum code requirements. And as you know, really, ultimately, it's a developer's budget that controls the look of a building and directs the architect. And I just feel like, you know, we're going to spend an awful lot of staff time debating minimum standards that are really just minimums and not worth it. I think we've got some good standards here that have some good results. And Planning Commission agreed with us, and I'd be happy to discuss that further, if you wish. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, question. Existing buildings that are out there now, are they going to be required to come under the standards sometime in the future? MS. MURRAY: Yes, sir. There's criteria that they have to meet. For example, if they're -- if they've been vacant for a period of time, if Page 18 October 13, 2004 they're repainted, or if some remodeling to the exterior occurs, and there's percentages there that require certain things to happen based on the percentage. MR. SCHMITT: It's a threshold criteria, Commissioner. If it's a certain percentage, then the entire building has to be brought up to the standards. So there are square footage thresholds if they're exceeded. MS. MURRAY: It's crafted to achieve that objective. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me just give you a for instance. If a tenant rents a building over here at JC -- on JC (sic) Boulevard, and that tenant goes in and they remodel the inside of the building, would they be required to do the outside of the building also? MS. MURRAY: In that case, because it's not located on a major road, it's -- it really isn't going to apply. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see. MS. MURRAY: But yeah, ifpeople -- if they are -- if the structure's located where the standards apply and they do some outdoor -- outside remodeling -- I'm not talking inside -- then there's certain triggers, depending on the cost of the improvements or the size of the building. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it's not necessarily every street? In some areas, like off of Airport Road it might not apply? MS . MURRAY : Well, Airport is identified as an arterial and __ COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Airport is, but the roads -- MS. MURRAY: Off -- yes, off of Airport. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mercantile, and-- MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. Page 19 October 13, 2004 MR. WEBB: Madam Chair, we have two public speakers. First is Matthew Kraeh, representing AlA; the second is Dallas Disney. MR. KRAEH: Hello. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hello. MR. KRAEH: My name is Matthew Kraeh. I am a local architect and principal of Architectural Network, Incorporated, here in Naples, and I am also the current vice president of the American Institutes of Architects, Florida Southwest Chapter, and I'm here today to represent AlA Florida Southwest. I'm also here today to represent our 120 -- 120 member architects to accomplish two tasks. First, to thank the planning staff of Collier County government for working with all of our local AlA chapter in revising the design standards of the Collier County Land Development Codes, and second, to pass along to you our involvement with the process. AlA Florida Southwest got involved with the revision upon the request of a few local architects. A few months ago we began to participate in the public meetings of the Collier County DSAC committee. Along the way, we noticed some key flaws in the pro -- in the proposed revisions of the architectural design standards. We organized a workshop with the Collier County planning staff to discuss these issues, and subsequently held an AlA workshop to fine tune our thoughts and gain consensus among our members. Consequently, our suggestions were reviewed by staff and recommended for approval with the exception of one key request. We, as an organization, conditionally support the revisions proposed to the current document. The condition is in regard to staffs recommendation to not allow all building types the opportunity to attain approval through a deviation process. We feel the deviation process is one of the most important aspects of the design standards. Section 2.8 was written to avoid poor Page 20 -"--,.,-~ October 13,2004 quality architecture and to promote good architecture. We feel the deviation process being open to all building types will allow architects the opportunity to create great architecture. As mentioned before to the Planning Commission, the code under this current revision would not allow for certain quality designed buildings to exist in our county. I can give specific examples, if necessary. We realize that staff and the Planning Commission feel that opening the deviation process up to all building types will cause an excessive load on staff. We also realize they feel the deviation process will open the door for developers to try to save a buck in their projects. We feel this is not the case. We feel that architects will think twice before presenting a sub par design to their peers for review . We also feel that those developers who would try to use this as money-saving device will quickly learn the opposite. We all know and realize that this code was initially developed to prevent poorly designed big box retail, and it has done its job; however, we should not let our codes prevent the possibility for great designs and great buildings. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. WEBB: The last registered speaker is Dallas Disney. MR. DISNEY: Good evening. It's a pleasure to be here. My name's Dallas Disney. I'm a local architect, principal and owner of Disney and Associates, architect. I, too, would like to echo some of the comments that Matthew made. And having been involved with the two-year process of going through this document, the one real point that I think is simply one of fairness is, if you're subjected to the code, you should be open to the deviation process as well. Page 21 October 13, 2004 We -- none of us, no matter how hard we try to think about all of the various issues and building types that might come before us in the years down the road under the implementation of this code, are going to be able to anticipate all of the circumstances. The types ofprojects that are excluded are warehouse retail, factory, industrial, parking and distribution related proj ects, auto related proj ects, animal shelters, and commercial nonrnixed use office type projects. Now, as Matthew said, the fact is, the deviation process is rather extreme, and for a developer or anyone else trying to achieve that, you're going to have to have a pretty good reason because you're going to stand before a group of your peers, and the smoke and mirrors are going to go away, and we, as architects and other professionals looking at that work, are going to be able to see right through that. In addition, the review process for everything else that you're doing with that submission simply goes on hold. So if time is the impetus, as it is with most projects, that's a severe penalty for someone coming in and applying for a deviation. It just seems that, again, it's -- it's an item of fairness. And from that standpoint alone, if you're subjected to the code, you should have the opportunity to apply for a deviation for anything that it falls under. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- Susan couldn't answer the question about the fiscal impacts and some of the things out there, and I'm -- do you have any estimates or -- MR. DISNEY: In my opinion it's not possible to estimate that, but there's no question in my mind that this, in areas, will cost substantially more money. What -- what we have in there, when you were discussing where Page 22 , .-*_..~-_..~--~ October 13,2004 does it apply and where does it not apply, anything within 300 feet of an arterial or a collector road is going to be impacted, whether it fronts the road or not. Whether you're a quarter of a mile away from it, if your property fronts on that and you're 1,000 feet deep, you're still going to be subjected to it. So in some areas, yes, there's going to be a substantial impact. The pre-engineered metal buildings and those types of more economical type structures maybe have their place in a particular district, but not necessarily fronting on a roadway, are going to be pretty dramatically impacted. I think the costs in some areas are going to go up quite a bit, and others probably about the same as under the current code. I hope I answered your question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you did, and you brought up something that I didn't realize. I mean, I know there are a lot of lots that are 125 feet, so we're just -- MR. DISNEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would imagine it would be a big concern for some of the property owners out there that are in the back side of an arterial roadway. MR. DISNEY: Well, I think it would be, Commissioner. The issue of somebody who's owned a piece of property in a commercial area for quite a while trying to save their pennies to be able to do the project, now this is -- this is likely to impact them to some degree. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Example, with the animal shelter on Davis Boulevard is a metal building. Would that be allowed under these standards? MR. DISNEY: Well, I'd let staff respond to that. But in my review of this, I don't believe that it would be. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because that's -- MR. DISNEY: It's an extensive metal building with some masonry trim under it. I mean, that's a county facility. And, you Page 23 October 13,2004 know, I mean, trying to economize with as many of those tax dollars as you can is a good thing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's functional for its use. MR. DISNEY: It is. MS . MURRAY: I'd like to read, just to make sure that you all understand where these standards apply, because I'm not sure it was stated correctly either by me or Dallas, so let me just read it right into the record. The provisions of 5.05.08 apply to all new buildings and projects submitted on or after November 10th, 2004, in the zoning districts set out below. A, commercial zoning districts; B, nonresidential PUD districts and nonresidential components of any PUD district; C, business park districts. Two, to any -- to nonresidential buildings and projects submitted on or after November 10,2004, in any zoning district, but only when the following conditions exist: A, the project is located on an arterial or collector road as described by the traffic circulation element of the GMP, or a proposed building's footprint would be located within 300 feet of the boundary of a residentially zoned district. Three, to all renovations and redevelopment, including applicable additions of a building or site, and then it goes on to describe the percentage of renovations, and I've discussed that with you so -- abandonment or discontinuance of use, and then it goes on to set standards for when that applies. MR. SCHMITT: That is on page 13 of your packet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Doesn't a lot of the -- on the older buildings, you have to -- that are vacant, they have to come up to the new landscaping code, where you have a tree every 25 feet or 50 feet and then a row of hedges? MR. SCHMITT: If it's vacant for a -- six months or more, it Page 24 October 13, 2004 comes back in. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or any substantial improvements on the property? MR. SCHMITT: Right. MS. MURRAY: Right. It comes up to the greatest extent possible. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's an improvement, aesthetic improvement. MS. MURRAY: That's required even for a change of use in some cases, when we review the zoning certificates, to the greatest extent possible for landscaping. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a problem with this -- what we're doing here and the cost of -- associated with it. I can understand on the arterial roadways, but I can't understand why we're doing it across the board. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I need to clarify so you understand, make sure -- Dallas, if he wants to clarify. When you asked him about costs, I think Dallas did it from a perspective of -- and I just want to ask him to correct it. If, in fact, compared to the current standards versus this. This should be -- provide a little more latitude than the current standard -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any projects that you're working on now that -- there's the change in the cost? MR. DISNEY: Well, there's one in particular. It happens to be county government proj ect. I don't believe that we could do, within the current budgets of the fleet maintenance, redesign and rebuild the same proj ect under the new standards as we would under the old simply because that is fronting on the arterial of County Barn Road, so we might have some pretty significant impacts there. We're -- that would be an example. I think we're going to be able to not have to deal with that because we're going to make our Page 25 October 13, 2004 submission prior to the implementation of this code. MS. MURRAY: But that building is also subject to the deviation process, and if there's site conditions or standards or landscaping that might mitigate the impacts of some of the visual aspects of that building, then that is taken into consideration when staff reviews the project through the deviation process. It's a noncommercial building. MR. SCHMITT: And on this project -- we're pretty sure it will, because the building Dallas is talking about is much further back into the property, and there is a building in front of that which will be designed to the standards, but that's still yet to be submitted. But as Mr. Disney said, that will be submitted under the current process rather than the new one. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the whole intent of this was to try to beautify our roadways with some of the architectural (sic) out there. I think this is far-reaching. And, you know, the -- I had an automotive business, and I can tell you that you repair cars, you know. There's hoods open, there's wheels off of cars inside, outside, it is what it is. If it's -- if it's the use that's offensive that's driving for the architectural standards, maybe we should change the uses on the roadways instead of driving up the cost of the -- for the businessman and ultimately the consumer for some of those services out there. And I can understand the big boxes, that we need to soften those symbols or whatever, and I can understand the outparcels. But, you know, whatever we do up here in this change, I think we're going to affect the consumer, the bottom line. That's my concern. MS. MURRAY: You're not significantly changing where the standards are applicable to through this change. I mean, they exist today. They've existed since '96. The only minor change really was the noncommercial buildings and along the arterial and collector roads. I think it was '98 or '99, if I recall. Page 26 _.~","'- October 13, 2004 COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's just the deviation, is the question? MS . MURRAY: The deviation was a remaining issue between staff and the committee as they've presented to you. But again, it's -- I mean, the deviation process already exists in the current form that we're proposing with modification, but we're not proposing a dilution of what currently is eligible for the deviation process, whereas, we believe they are. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, just to highlight, that's on page 41. It talks about applicability. It shows what -- the types of buildings that are -- that fall into the deviation process, and just to that short brief paragraph on page 42 describes the deviation process. So the following types of buildings and uses qualify for administrative determination of deviations, assembly, educational, institutional, mixed use buildings, and any other noncommercial buildings. What the issue is, of course, is Mr. Disney is looking to include commercial as well, which basically then allowed -- would allow for all -- all uses to basically ask for a deviation through the deviation process. And you'll note on page 42, the appeal is -- goes before the county manager or his designee and the voting members. At the architectural arbitration meetings shall be two representing Collier County planning staff, two appointed by the American Institute of Architects, and one representing the American Society of Landscape Architects. So that's the peer committee that basically will -- is the arbitrator and the reviewer for the deviation process. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. This is -- this is a little confusing to me, and I don't understand the objection, but let me see if I can state my understanding of this. There is an administrative process that is applicable to many Page 27 October 13, 2004 types of buildings but not commercial, but there is an appeal and assistance procedure which is available to everyone? MR. SCHMITT: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that true or -- MS. MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It doesn't -- you see, it doesn't restrict the appeal and assistance procedure to specific types of buildings. It merely says that procedure exists and describes the procedure. But that's in paragraph 5. It is only paragraph 4 that seems to limit certain types of buildings for the administrative deviations. MS. MURRAY: I see what you're saying. The intent was to have the appeal and assistance process only apply to those items listed on number 4. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Also. Then we might add those to make sure it's clear. MS. MURRAY: I agree. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But let me ask you to tell us why you have exempted commercial buildings from the appeal -- the deviation and appeal procedures. MS. MURRAY: Several reasons. First of all, that's the way the code currently exists, and we believe it works quite well. You drive along your major roadways, your arterials and collectors, and mostly what you see are commercial buildings. The standards are very minimum. These -- I can assure you that there are many communities that have far more restrictive standards in terms of building design, color, that sort of thing. These are very minimal standards to blend a building and add some character to a building. So we don't really feel like they're overburdensome in terms of squashing in the architectural creativity. You have to have some minimums. I mean, that's just the bottom line. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this -- so you're not changing Page 28 October 13, 2004 current code? MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the -- it's been the same for how long? MS. MURRAY: Since 1996. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Are -- is anyone aware of any extreme hardships that we've encountered as a result of that restriction? MS. MURRAY: I'm not personally. Carolina's probably the better person to answer that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think where the extreme hardship would come about would be in the time of an economic downturn when businesses have tendencies to draw back and buildings would be emptied. And then at the point in time when they're empty for -- what is it, how many months? MS. MURRAY: Six. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- six months, if they have the misfortune of being within 300 feet of an arterial or collector road, at that point in time, besides the person not having the rent for six months, he's now going to be burdened with the fact that he can't rent it out until he goes through extensive renovation at tremendous cost, and probably money that doesn't exist to do it. I think there's a flaw in it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I had -- I have a friend that bought a building that -- an old building right on the East Trail in the -- in that section that has all the boarded-up buildings and so forth, and he was going to move his printing business in there. But the -- the architectural standards were such that he would have had to tear out most of the walls in order to put extra windows in there to meet the standards, and it would have cost him so much more Page 29 October 13, 2004 to remodel the building and open it up as a thriving business, so he just -- he just never went over there, and it's just sitting there with a "For Sale" sign on it. So maybe this will help something like that. Is that what you're saying? MS. MURRAY: It should with the renovations and redevelopment and abandonment, there's a deviation process for those types of buildings. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Because we have a lot of them along major arterial roads in East Naples. MS . MURRAY: Now, was that a commercial building or -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. It's the old Thalheimer's building. Yeah. MS. MURRAY: And it probably wouldn't apply then. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why is that? MS. MURRAY: Because it's a commercial building. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because it's a commercial building? MS. MURRAY: Because it's commercial, yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the difference between a commercial building and what we've been talking about? MS. MURRAY: You have -- and I don't want to mix things up because you've got -- I'm talking really commercial use, okay. A building could be used for anything, but these -- I'm talking about structures located in commercial zoning districts that are used for commercial uses. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Retail-- MS. MURRAY: Retail-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Auto repair? MS. MURRAY: Correct, correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's such that's commercial use. Page 30 ---~~'-'" -~.>,-"",_......-""--" October 13, 2004 Noncommercial use would be people that live there? MS. MURRAY: Noncommercial use would be really anything other than your standard retail. That -- and sales, that sort of thing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Give me an example. MS. MURRAY: Sure; manufacturing -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh. MS. MURRAY: -- industrial, residential, institutional, government. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, is this triggered by the zoning classification that the building's in, too? MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Give me some examples there. MS. MURRAY: C-l, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, you know, Best Buy, Publix, all of your drugstores, fast food restaurants. Most of the stuff you see along our major roads, car-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I agree. I think you're going in the -- MS. MURRAY: -- retail. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- right direction with that. My concern was the value of something a person may have invested in. And because of an economic downturn, something beyond their control, now they find themselves not only with the lack -- without rent, but they also find themselves saddled with the renovation, and with -- before they can even rent it out again. MS. MURRAY: Perhaps maybe the board would want to consider adding that to a deviation process under a certain set of criteria based on age or time or something. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think that would be a good idea. I can understand new construction, then people have to plan it out ahead what they're going to do. It might be another year or so before a small businessman might get the revenue he needs to be able to go into a building, but what will Page 3 1 October 13, 2004 be there will be worth its -- worth the value of what's put into it, will have a greater resale value. And I'm very concerned about how we set up the small businessman up there and the small commercial property owners for failure. Also I'd like to see a map, too, that possibly lines the primary roads and the collector roads and what the 300 foot boundary would be. MS. MURRAY: The 300 feet applies to residential zoning districts, so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, residential? MS. MURRAY: Residential, yeah. MR. SCHMITT: If you're within 300 feet of residential. MS. MURRAY: If you're within 300 feet of residential. So what you're looking at there is you're trying to achieve your residential folks not looking at ugly buildings, or -- MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I want to make sure you understand -- MS. MURRAY: -- not being properly screened and buffered. MR. SCHMITT: We can take that back with guidance and work with the renovation process to allow for that deviation, but with the understanding, of course, part of the architectural standards were to begin to get the community to evolve and create a sense of character, and so -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand. MR. SCHMITT: I understand that you're slowing that process down, and that's not a problem. We just want you to understand that with that guidance, some of the areas, especially along the East Trail that are older buildings, will be that way a lot longer, and that's -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just concerned about what's going to happen, like such places as Immokalee where you have a -- an income level that's considerably less than the coastal region. And if we impose this standard on them, and -- we may find that there's a Page 32 October 13, 2004 major disaster taking place. I'm not too sure. I've just -- I've got reservation on it. I understand new buildings. I've got no problem on that. I endorse it 100 percent. It's just the renovation of existing commercial buildings, and that 60 -- that six-month clause in there. In other words, that's just condemning someone to hell in a bad -- MR. SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- time in their lives when they might have their whole life invested in a building. MR. SCHMITT: We're constrained by that today, so that will be something that would be changed in this if you want us to come back and add that as a deviation process as well, and we'll -- we can do that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala just stated that somebody, a printer, wanted to open up a store, remodel it -- well, open up a store, a print shop, and because of the architectural standards, could not afford it. So it's just the opposite, what we're seeing. We're not seeing places where we want to see redevelopment happening because of the architectural standards. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And some of them didn't even really make sense. You worked with me a little bit on that one, Joe. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- so it is problematic. We're not doing East Naples any good by this. MR. SCHMITT: Well, we-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I also have a question, but we -- I think it is a valid concern. And I know that we pumped in quite bit of money, and the CRA is trying to beautify that area, and nothing's happening. So maybe it's the regulations that we have that we need to change, and widen the deviation, you know, small businesses. I don't know whether it would be small businesses. You know, banks can afford -- or a franchise can afford -- or Page 33 October 13, 2004 company -owned franchises can afford to come up to standards, but the mom and pop shops can't. And I would like to see some changes before this comes back. But I need to understand the issue about 300 feet from residential. Is that just on a collector or arterial or what? MR. WHITE: No, Commissioner. That would be 300 feet from the sidelines of any residentially zoned district. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it could be -- it doesn't have to be on a major roadway? MR. WHITE: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whoa. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, Commissioner, realize what we're doing is protecting the property value of the nearby residential neighborhood. If a -- they're near a commercial property, you want to make sure that the building is architecturally pleasing so it doesn't then take away from the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me give you an example of the building I had. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The dump across the street, the duplexes, I wish they were commercial, because my building was a hell of a lot -- excuse me -- better than what was across the street, so they were bringing down my values. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And there's other examples like that in Immokalee, too. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can't you handle that through landscaping? I mean, the present code through landscaping? MR. SCHMITT: Well, it becomes a choice, and, frankly it does become the choices -- the regulations will help drive the change in upgrading of the community if we want to go that way, which is what you're suggesting, and that's fine. It just will not -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ask Michelle Arnold what was Page 34 October 13,2004 across the street. MR. SCHMITT: Oh, I know exactly where you're talking about. I know exactly. And all you're doing is slowing down the evolutionary process of the redevelopment to accept -- what you would you call acceptable standards from a -- regards from the community character. So that's a choice. You give us that guidance and we'll move with it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Spending -- if I would have spent $100,000 on my building, it wouldn't help the problem across the street, so -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I'll pass that on to my customers. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think that's a good reason to have these standards. You know, the problem we have here is that we're trying to develop uniform standards and a code to deal with them, but yet we know there are going to have to be some deviations to them, and the problems with economic downturns is a good example. Rather than trashing the effort to upgrade the standards, I guess I would prefer to see us have you implement these standards but provide a way that property owners can appeal and -- if they have valid reasons. And if we make determinations that there are good reasons not to force somebody to renovate a building at a time when it's impossible for them to economically do so, then we can grant them relief from that for some period of time. I think that the real danger here is -- is developing a code that provides no escape clause when you have unanticipated events. And if we can deal with the unanticipated events, I would feel comfortable with the code. And if we could then take a look at those special circumstances Page 35 October 13, 2004 and grant people some relief from the adverse impacts of the code, then I -- I think we deal with the question -- the issues that have been brought up by the commissioners here. MS. MURRAY: May I address that? I don't like to admit mistakes, and -- but this is a good one, because Patrick helped me out, and it was not my understanding in terms of the way it was written or intended to be written. But regardless, it is written that way, and Patrick pointed this out to me, that he believes -- and I agree with him after reading into it a little bit further -- that the deviation process is intended to address renovations and redevelopments the way it's structured now, that it is not excluded if it is a commercial building, and I apologize for that, but I think that's a positive, because I hear you saying that's what you want. The second thing I just wanted to bring to your attention was kind of a -- well, the reasoning of the Planning Commission in terms of the deviation process for commercial buildings, and their thoughts __ and Patrick can enhance my words if I leave anything out, Patrick -- is that they were not aware of any hardships created for commercial structures in terms of applying these codes. Their direction to us was to monitor the process as we have done from '96, and should there become a pattern or problematic pattern, that we ought to come back and revisit that section of the code and see if we need to address it, but to actually wait and see if that becomes a problem rather than diluting the existing process, which we feel has worked pretty well without -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I would feel comfortable if you just provided the property owners an opportunity to petition for relief if they have good reasons to do so. And if that opportunity exists then I would feel comfortable proceeding with it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to try to stay to thei Page 36 October 13, 2004 original intent of the architectural standards, and that was on our major roadways, period. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Anybody-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: That means that proximity to residential should have no bearing on the applicability of the architectural guidelines -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- is that what you have in mind? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can give you a lot of examples through all of Collier County where you have, within 300 feet, you have some residentials, just like Commissioner Henning mentioned, that are not quite substandard units, but they leave a lot to be desired. Just because of the proximity of them doesn't mean that these people should be -- that have the buildings and put their lives and investment into it should be treated as second class. In Immokalee there's a lot of examples of it, you know, and I'm very concerned with the direction of it, that we're going to find ourselves to the point where we're not going to be able to offer relief. I mean, how are they going to be able to come in here and plead a case? It's going to be difficult as anything to come up with a procedure whereby we can say, well, you're a little bit disadvantaged from the next person, or yeah, your building looks a little bit better than Joe Schmo's down the street. I don't know how that can be done. I do agree with Commissioner Henning that the main thoroughfares should be addressed differently because the property values on the main thoroughfares have considerably more value than those in the back side streets. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it affects the whole community on major roadways where, you know, the issues around neighborhoods in the commercial where you have a building that closes for a period of time, they have to come up to the landscaping Page 37 October 13, 2004 codes, and I think that you can soften any uses or personal perception of a building. And architectural standards is, in my opinion, a perception. Some people like South Miami neon lights and some people don't. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's pursue this issue about the residential proximity. Don't we have an obligation to try to protect residential communities from the intrusion of inappropriately designed commercial structures? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I think that's the intent here, it is to provide the residents with protection from having a big box come in and being plopped down. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No problem, agree with that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And, you know, I think that's what you're getting at. It's not an issue where the residents are being punished or in any way discriminated against. It's a situation where you're saying to the commercial, or these buildings that are covered by this provision, that if you're within 300 feet of a residential, you have to conform to these guidelines because we don't want to push something upon a residential neighborhood that is likely to make them unhappy or diminish their property values. I think that's the intent here, and I think that's a good thing to do. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And one of the things that concerns me as we're talking about this -- and I hope that when we come up with a conclusion -- or at least a direction, not a conclusion, but a direction -- one of the things, if we relax standards too much -- you give anybody an inch and they're going to take a mile. And we have to consider that in our deliberations as well. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the analogy of a big box next to a neighborhood, a big box is going to locate on a major roadway. It's not going to locate on a side street or something like Page 38 October 13, 2004 that. And, again, I think that any redevelopment or new business, you're going to -- you're going to have trees 25- foot on center, or is it 50- foot on center? You're going to have a row of hedges, double row of hedges. MR. SCHMITT: For the landscaping? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: I'd have to turn to my -- MS. SIMEON: Thirty-foot. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thirty-foot, all right. Split the baby. The -- so I feel that you do have a -- some protection there. My concern is, we're going to have more vacant buildings in Collier County because people can't afford it. This is a new standard. It's not something that is existing. We're not relaxing it. It's a new one that we're applying to our community. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I had understood we're relaxing it. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I need to point out, page 13, it basically described in detail just two issues, page -- paragraph 2. This is basically applicable, and it says, to nonresidential buildings and projects submitted, and it gives the date. The project site is located on an arterial or collector road as described by the traffic circulation element of the GMP, or the proposed building footprint would be located within 300 feet of the boundary of a residentially zoned district. So those are the only two applicable criteria. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that new, number B? MR. SCHMITT: Keith, is that-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: 2B, is that new or old? It's underlined, so I guess it's new, right? MR. SCHMITT: But this entire ordinance has been rewritten. It's not -- we didn't rebuild the other ordinance. I mean, we basically Page 39 ~-'-'~ October 13,2004 trashed the other ordinance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is this language 2B -- MS. MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- in -- MS. MURRAY: It was not in the previous. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's the point I'm trying to make, that we're not loosening up anything, nobody's trying to take advantage of anybody, but it's a new thing. And I'm just -- I think that we can resolve it through landscaping, and there won't be any big boxes on a side road. They're going to be on our major roadways. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, but look what they did with the CVS and landscaping. You know, that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a major roadway. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, it is. And they put in -- they put in not only the barest minimum, but their place looks a mess. And as their first entrance into Collier County, you would think that a -- I don't know if it's a big box or not, but you would think a company like that would make an entrance, instead of skimping on it, they would do something. They're located right in the entra -- at the entrance to a neighborhood. You would think that they would put in landscaping. But I don't think that they much care about their neighborhoods in many -- they care about the pocketbook. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that should -- that's on a major roadway, and that should be addressed on our existing laws. And if we have a landscape problem, we need to address the landscape issues on our major roadways. MS . MURRAY: These standards also address things like service areas and the back of buildings and the side of buildings, as well. So if you've got residential, you know, that has a view of a back of a building, they feasibly could be looking at something rather plain and Page 40 October 13,2004 ugly. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta, then Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Once, again, I think we're missing the point here. I'm talking about two different entities. One would be new buildings that would be building within this particular designation and the other one would be existing buildings. New buildings, they can plan it out ahead of time, they can make the arrangements with the bank, the extra financing it takes. They can walk through this thing with their eyes wide open. I'm concerned about existing buildings. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Maybe we ought to split this into two subj ects now so that we -- we're all focusing on one subj ect at a time. New first, and then old second; what do you think? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So Commissioner Coy Ie, you're up to bat. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The church that you showed us earlier, where is that? MS. MURRAY: That's on Goodlette-Frank Road just north of Pine Ridge Road. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it's also adjacent to a residential neighborhood? MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, that church could have been built in a residential neighborhood that is not on an arterial road; could it not? MS. MURRAY: If it had the proper zoning, possibly, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So here's the situation where a church that was not acceptable to the neighborhood was, in fact, built, ultimately remodeled to be more attractive and acceptable to the neighborhood. Here's a situation where that could just as easily have Page 41 October 13, 2004 been built right beside a residential area not on an arterial, and you'd have the same problem. So this -- this code would prohibit that from happening, and it would protect the neighborhood. So if we're talking about new construction now, then my opinion is that this is fine for new construction, again, as long as we provide the opportunity for an appeal under certain circumstances, right? And you've already determined that it currently permits that, right? So -- MS. MURRAY: Right, the noncommercial building. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You solved that problem with that interpretation -- MS. MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- so I think for new buildings, it's fine. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I think Commissioner Coletta has said the same thing. Commissioner Henning, how do you feel about that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: How are we going to address old buildings? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, let's get this one first. MR. SCHMITT: You mean for the old buildings. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, no. Let's -- just so we can put this one to bed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So you feel this is okay with the new buildings, right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We're -- it looks like we're all nodding on the new buildings. So now let's hit the old buildings. MR. SCHMITT: If I could direct you to turn to the top of page 14, and basically that describes the standards for proj ects that are abandoned, and actually I'll turn to the -- Page 42 October 13,2004 MS. MURRAY: Thirteen. MR. SCHMITT: -- previous page. Thirteen is paragraph 3 for renovations and redevelopment. And that -- you can see the specifics. I won't go through it. But more important on abandonment or discontinuance, there's a one-year period where the structure, building, or proj ect ceased for any reason, except where government actions impede access to the premises for a period of one year, then you've got to comply. But if it's six months, you apply the site design standards. So one is one year for structure, six months for site design. So there is a period of abandonment already built into this. If you want to extend that or-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, let me ask as far as definitions for abandonment goes, does that mean like a building that's boarded up, or does that just mean a building that's been for sale for a while that hasn't been able to sell, but nobody's occupying it? MR. SCHMITT: The latter. MR. WHITE: Both. MR. SCHMITT: If it's empty -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Period. MR. SCHMITT: -- period and the use -- Susan, I need to ask the zoning director for clarification. MS. MURRAY: On -- both is the answer to Commissioner Fiala's question. MR. SCHMITT: Both is the answer. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: But I guess if it was abandoned, it would be boarded up. We would implement the new procedures anyway for the maintenance -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Somehow in my head, for sale and abandoned -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Same thing. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- were a different project, see, or a Page 43 October 13,2004 different -- but in this they're considered the same; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: Yeah, there's different -- I'm sorry. There's different -- I was trying to look up something for you -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. MS. MURRAY: -- so I could help you answer the question. But, yeah, in this case there's different standards depending on the time frame for discontinuance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there a possibility we could create a deviation standard for the existing buildings, financial hardship? MS . MURRAY: I'm not sure if I'm qualified to answer that because I think there may be some legal implications with that. Maybe Patrick could take a -- MR. WHITE: I guess I'd want to hear some kind of an example. I mean, with -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's say we have an existing building and somebody has to spend $100,000 to put a different facade on it. That doesn't include all the other things they have to come up to code, mind you, such as landscaping, retention, parking, so on and so forth. We give an exemption to architectural standards? MR. WHITE: Well, I think that the facade number that you mentioned would have had to assume that it was more than 50 percent of the facade that was being changed, because there is a limitation on anything less than 50 percent of the facade area, these regulations don't apply. It's not a, quote, renovation. So assuming that your dollar figure is based on the fact that they're going to change one of the facades in an area greater than 50 percent -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, we've got a bunch of experts out here. Why don't we ask them what we should do? MR. WHITE: I apologize if my answer was nonresponsive, but Page 44 <-< October 13,2004 COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. I just -- it was a little confusing, and I didn't understand -- I just -- we want to fix the problem, I guess. We want to assist our staff, but I just -- sorry. MR. WHITE: If the use is abandoned, then the structure had to have also met these requirements for renovation before the architectural standards would be triggered. They, otherwise, may be subject to other types of site redevelopment standards. And we'd have to look at them on a case by case basis. But generally speaking, yes. When uses are abandoned and brought back in to be effectively redeveloped, then we do look at, not only the architectural standards to see whether this thing would be tripped, but others as well, and it could affect parking, it could affect landscaping, but those are things that I think we're going to take a better look at in the upcoming cycles of the LDC. We know that the nonconforming use and structure sections, the abandonment and discontinuance provisions, are things that we need to get a better grip on so that we're applying those regulations effectively. So I don't know how to help you with the policy choice at this point, but -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I can help you a little bit. MR. WHITE: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can understand what we're trying to do. We don't like the idea of abandoned buildings, boarded up, just sitting there for years on end, decaying, becoming nuisance factors, drug addicts, and all the other problems that go with it; on the other hand, we're trying to weigh the rights of the property owner, that small individual that's got his life savings invested in the building and may be into an economic downturn at that point in time where there's a lot of empty buildings. If something was there like a one-year, that would be a little Page 45 -« "'---'-- October 13, 2004 more realistic. And at that point after the one -- before the one year ends, the person could apply for a variance from the commission for reasons that we might not even foresee, that would answer it for me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think that this permits that, based upon Susan's earlier interpretation -- MR. WHITE: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that an appeal is possible. After -- it doesn't even trigger until it's been vacant for one year. And then at that point in time, if the person wished, they could corne to us on an appeal and explain their circumstances, then we could examine them to determine whether or not the circumstances were, in fact, real and grant a further delay in applicability; could we not? MR. WHITE: Yes, but that assumes that it wasn't resolved by working through with the county manager first. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. MR. WHITE: So with that caveat, yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we'd be talking about a year, not six months? MR. WHITE: Well, I think many of the provisions we have with respect to abandonment talk in tenns of one year. And certainly if you think that number should be changed here, we can __ COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure. MR. WHITE: -- specifically change that time. That's your prerogative. MS. MURRAY: There are other -- yeah. There are other code provisions that address, for example, parking issues, and there's administrative relief for parking. There's shared parking options. There's -- you know, so with respect to parking, there's a lot of options that exist already in the code that somebody could exercise if they're on older sites, and they often do, same with landscaping. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So do you have any direction from all of that? Page 46 October 13, 2004 MR. WHITE: The way I understand the board's direction, you're looking to make sure that the abandonment term should be at least one year to apply the provisions pertaining to abandonment or discontinuance. And I can't tell you that that already isn't the case, but the one year that probably we're looking at is the idea that there's some type of government action; in other words, typically we're out there with a road in front trying to improve it. And if we've limited their access, then that's what that provision talks about. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. MR. WHITE: The site design standards are one where there's six months, 180-day limit, and you may want to offer some direction to the staff in regards to that provision. I think as to abandonment, we're pretty much at a year. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Are we all okay with sending staff back to kind of rewrite this a little bit? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's project management. COMMISSIONER HENNING: They got about a half? MR. SCHMITT: If I could ask also, was there any clarification based on the public speakers in regards to the deviation process? You're -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, that's what started this whole thing, isn't it? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Most everything is covered. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commercial should -- MR. SCHMITT: You've got commercial -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- be deviated. MR. SCHMITT: -- and you've heard two speakers, you heard __ you've heard the staff. We gave you the guidance of the Planning Commission, and what we want to know is, do you want us to relook at the deviation process for some aspect of commercial, all of commercial, or what is your druther or your desire in that regard? CHAIRMAN FIALA: What I'm just concerned with is that we Page 47 -~._-_."."-,.- October 13,2004 keep a standard up that we've been -- that we've established, that we don't -- and yet, that we're not so strict that we don't, in some way, prevent people from either buying a building or whatever. We want to make sure that we all can live with what they build and that it's something that will add to our community or at least, I, myself. And so I think there should be some flexibility, yet at the same time, we don't want to open the door so wide that everybody's in here asking for deviations and eroding all the hard work we've put together, or at least that's how I feel. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about this, no deviation for big boxes and outparcels, and that would capture all our, you know, major roadways to begin with and still protect that __ CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that smaller business, 300 -- I mean 3,000 square foot. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And by -- that way we're protecting the neighborhoods too. That sounds good to me. What do you think? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, one more time just to make sure I understand it. You're saying along the major roadways, new construction? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'm saying big box and outparcels, the things that are out in the public's eye, there's no deviation process application for that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree, I agree. You're right, Commissioner Henning. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. WHITE: I think that the staff can probably convert big box into the regulatory language we have here, but if not, we may need to come back and get some greater clarity at the next meeting, but we'll certainly have a proposal. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you, everybody. MR. SCHMITT: If I could on the record then ask Dallas and Page 48 - --'--"--'-~-'" October 13, 2004 Matthew that, based on the board's guidance if you would care, or I could ask for you to volunteer some input on that and shoot it to the staff, and we'll bring it back -- because this was a cooperative effort. I -- truly a cooperative effort from the entire community except this one issue in regards to commercial. I think what I just heard you say -- and we'll bring this to closure, is you're looking for some avenue for commercial, but not all, and we'll bring some guidance back that allows at least a foot in the door. I think we -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: For some deviation. MR. SCHMITT: Some deviations. CHAIRMAN FIALA: As long as it isn't the big boxes __ MR. SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- or that type of structure. MR. SCHMITT: And we'll clarify again to make sure you fully understand in regards to abandonment or at least -- and I agree from a standpoint, you and I have discussed the one issue, and I know there are others, that we certainly don't want to inhibit __ CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. MR. SCHMITT: -- someone from going in where rehabilitating or renovating an existing facility is more costly than building a new one. I know there are certainly areas we certainly would prefer that they would go and renovate. One is, of course, they could save impact fees, but we -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: There you go, there you go. MR. SCHMITT: -- won't bring up impact fees. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one last note. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On that appeal process there, if we could keep it something that's realistic __ MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- as well as affordable, because Page 49 '---- October 13,2004 we're going to be talking about someone that's in an economic situation at that point in time, if we could keep that in mind. We're talking about existing buildings that they're going to maybe exceed the one year for reasons that are beyond their control, like you mentioned, tearing up the road in front of their building or -_ CHAIRMAN FIALA: And yet at the same time, Commissioner, we have to think about the surrounding neighborhoods. I'm afraid sometimes if we relax things too much -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm not saying relax it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just have the oversight be here on the commission where the person could bring it here for an appeal, or county manager, then commission. CHAIRMAN FIALA: How many times have people promised us it's going to look like A and it looks like F instead, right? So-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess. MR. SCHMITT: We won't go there. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, I was going A, B, C, D. Sorry about that. I think it's time for a break, 10 minutes. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Please take your seats. Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Okay, Commissioner -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we're going on to a new subject, right? MR. SCHMITT: -- we're going to flip to Tab C, and that will be dealing with the landscape provisions. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, good. MR. SCHMITT: Russell and Nancy, if I could turn it over, and we'll go through those. And again, you stop us if there's any ones that you wish to talk about. MR. WEBB: Absolutely. The first landscape provision is on page 4 of your summary sheet, section 4.06.01 E.3. Woops, sorry. Page 50 October 13, 2004 That one was pulled. Let's go to the next one. 4.06.02 C on page 45; section 4.06.02 C, again, on page 50; section 4.06.3 B.1 on page 53 of your packet; section 4.06.05 A.1 on page 55; section 4.06.05 B.4 on page 57; section 4.06.05 C.2 on page 59. And on page 6 of the summary sheet, section 4.06.05 C.4 on page 61; section 4.06.05 C.11 on page 63; section 4.06.05 G on page 65. And finally on page 7 of your summary sheet, section 10.02.06 J on page 68. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, I'd like to stop and highlight that, that that is one that you asked us to bring back and create a process for vegetation or cultivated tree removal permit, and we've done that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's on page 60 -- MR. SCHMITT: Sixty-eight. MR. WEBB: Sixty-eight. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sixty-eight. And I have a question, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do, too. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Some time back we had some -- a neighborhood petition us to establish landscaping requirements to prohibit the planting of live oak trees because of the damage done by their roots. Is that included in this particular provision, and have we taken any action on it? MS. SIMEON: Okay. For the record, I'm Nancy Simeon, landscape architect with community development and environmental servIces. Good evening, Commissioner. Within the body of these landscape amendments, there are some amendments that pertain to oak trees, not directly, but what we are -- for example, we have an amendment where if they choose to use an oak tree and it's within 15 feet of a building or a sidewalk, they're Page 51 October 13, 2004 going to have to provide root barriers and protection for the sidewalks and the buildings. Probably what the real result of this will be is that they will choose a more appropriate species for the space. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. SIMEON: A smaller species that won't create so much damage to the building structure and sidewalks and pavement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what kind of root barriers would we normally require? MS. SIMEON: Gosh. There's a number of different barriers on the market. There's plastic sheets that are 12 to 18 inches long, there's fabrics that are impregnated with a chemical, when the roots come up against it, they turn around and go in a different direction. I think the least expensive solution is probably just a concrete curb that is extended 12 inches into the ground, and that's just enough to cause the roots to go down and around. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. SIMEON: But we're going to leave that up to the designers to make that decision as to what's best for their project. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page 57, landscaping with waterfront properties, I think it is. What triggered this? MS. SIMEON: It just became overly burdensome, and it was just too many -- too many requirements. What we're finding is that, especially along a waterfront, a 10- foot landscape strip is enough -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. SIMEON: -- for our landscape buffer. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're using floor area, and it's just confusing to me. Floor area with percentages. MS. SIMEON: Okay. On -- where, on page 57? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. MS. SIMEON: Okay. You're talking about the sentence, these Page 52 October 13,2004 areas must be landscaped with trees or palms in the amount of one tree equivalent per 250 square feet? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you've got -- MS. SIMEON: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you've got -- MS. SIMEON: It could be page 58. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh. Is it? MS. SIMEON: Yes. On page 58, the language reads, building foundation planting requirements for buildings 35 feet or more in height and buildings with a footprint greater than 20,000 square feet. That ties it into the big box. Big box is defined as something greater than 20,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's residential though. This is -- we're dealing with -- let's see. Perimeter landscaping requirement more -- it says, the change is -- the first change is related to reinstate the building perimeter landscape requirements and -- more clearly. Second -- the second change is adding language to accommodate waterfront buildings. So, I mean, it doesn't say commercial or big box. MS. SIMEON: It would apply -- actually the 20,000 square feet applies to all types of buildings. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't understand what we're -- MS. SIMEON: Well, the purpose -- when we get into a building that's large, you -- you know, the bigger the building, the taller the building, the more critical it is that we have some landscaping around the perimeter of the building, and so that's why we have that threshold. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, when we -- when we go into floor areas and then compare it to percentages of landscaping, it's just confusing to me. And if you say, all right, plant a tree every 30 feet, I understand that. I don't understand this. I don't know what the practical application is. Can't see it, can't feel it, type thing. MS. SIMEON : Yeah. I can tell you this, the professionals when Page 53 "..~.,""~.--- ... ~ -"--, October 13, 2004 they use this code, they seem to -- they seem to be okay with it. They just take that square footage of the ground floor, let's say it were 1,000 square feet, they take 10 percent, and they come up with 100 square feet of required landscaping. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The problem is, Ms. Simeon, you're asking me to do something that I don't understand. And I need -- in order to create law, I think I ought to understand what I'm doing, that's all. MS. SIMEON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe somebody can explain it to me on the board, how many trees that would be if you had a 20,000 square foot building or 1,500 square foot building, does that include the patio? MS. SIMEON: I can tell you this, it's been in the -- we've used this formula since 1991 and we haven't had any problems with it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You're right, it's new language. I mean, it's not new language. It's an existing language. I trust that it's okay. MS. SIMEON: It's been working. We haven't had any problems with it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. SIMEON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nancy? MS. SIMEON: Uh-huh? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I still have more questions. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, do you? COMMISSIONER HENNING: But go ahead. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, no, no, go ahead. Finish. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- there's an example -- it starts on page 65, and adding language, landscaping code specifying distance of large canopy trees in buildings and sidewalks. And then on the next page, on page 66, we have an example of a parking lot. Page 54 October 13,2004 What's -- I don't understand -- I don't see any sidewalks or buildings in the parking lot. MS. SIMEON: Yeah. The purpose of the graphic -- and I'm just going to guide you a little bit here. The underlying language is the change that we're making. It's the revision to the code. The graphic is a graphic that's been in this code for a few years now, and it relates to some other language that is not new language. It exists -- it's a graphic -- if you read it, it says that's compatible tree and lighting design, and it relates to that last sentence above it that says, tree and parking lot pole lighting and locations shall be designed, l>1(l11-l>1(l11-l>1(l11. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, so it has to do with -- MS. SIMEON: Yeah, this is not part of the change, part of the revision tl1at we're looking at right now. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it has nothing related to the changes though. MS. SIMEON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's just -- MS. SIMEON: It probably would have been a good idea-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- thrown in there for pictures for me, huh? MS. SIMEON: -- not to show it. Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The cultivating tree removal permit -- MS. SIMEON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- would it be applicable if we just say -- if tl1e vegetation was a part of the site plan instead of -- let me give you an example. MS. SIMEON: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You buy an existing housing and the guy loved plants. The family has -- the new family has a bunch of kids that would like a, you know, grassy area instead of Page 55 ,.-".__....._,--'-'~.~- October 13,2004 every -- all covered with all vegetation that somebody planted. You would have to get a permit to do that? MS. SIMEON: Okay. I can help you with that. This tree removal permit is not applicable to single-family lots. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. SIMEON: Okay? So it has nothing to do with a single- family home. We rely on the honor system. If a single-family homeowner chooses to remove a tree, we expect that they will maintain that minimum code required -- it's minimum of anywhere from two to 15 trees, depending on the size of their lot. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you get somebody that -- in a homeowners' association, they have a -- 10 years from now they have a different viewpoint about what the old board did about plantings. You know, my perspective is, if it's on a site development plan, they ought to deviate from the site development plan. But if they add it to the site development plan, it's going to box -- box us in a particular area that -- and I've already gotten phone calls on this. Heritage Green, they were -- they had some plants that were planted, and I guess we were applying this new code stating they had to get a permit to remove what somebody has planted in there. The developer overplanted and they didn't like it, didn't work. And they had to -- were asked to replant on site. MR. SCHMITT: Well, again, are we talking single-family residence? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, this is a multi-family. MR. SCHMITT: Multi-family? MS. SIMEON: Okay. MS. SCHMITT: I'd turn to Nancy, because a multi-family, basically it's common property. It's with a site development plan and an accompanying landscape plan, and then you would have to apply it, because you're protecting the interest of the entire condominium or the entire complex rather than the individual who simply wants to have Page 56 ...._.,_...._""'""....._,u·""" October 13,2004 the tree removed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, it wasn't an individual. It was a homeowners' association wanted to remove it, but it wasn't a part of the site plan, the original site plan. It was extra vegetation -- MS. SIMEON: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that was -- MR. SCHMITT: Because I'd -- that's Nancy's call. And, frankly, you do not have to replant. You can take it down. And if you want to highlight. MS. SIMEON: Yeah. I did not review that particular application, so I don't know the specifics. But I can talk in general terms. This particular amendment addresses only code minimum required landscaping. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it has -- it's part of the site plan. Can we say that? MS. SIMEON: Sometimes site plans show a little more code minimum, okay, so that's why I have to be real careful about how I -- I don't want to gear this answer towards that particular application because I'm just not familiar with it. But this code is geared towards just protecting the minimum code landscaping. Anything above and beyond that is not -- is not protected. MR. SCHMITT: But if it's not on the original landscape plan, if it's in addition to it, they do -- they can remove it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. SCHMITT: If it's -- if it's part of the landscape plan, then the applicant would have to submit an amendment to the landscape plan or -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Minimum code, that's what you're saying? MR. SCHMITT: Meet the minimum code. MS. SIMEON: Yes. Minimum code is what we're protecting. Page 57 October 13, 2004 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that clear to everybody? MS. SIMEON: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. In this language, is it clear? MS. SIMEON: Yes. It says here, cultivated tree removal permits are required for the removal or relocation of any tree, palm, or minimum code landscaping. So it's minimum code landscaping. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or any of the other ones? MS. SIMEON: It doesn't say that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It can be read that way. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MS. SIMEON: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It might be better if you say, relocation of -- MS. SIMEON: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- palm that constitutes minimum code landscaping would be clearer. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. SIMEON: Yeah. Part of the reason we review the entire landscape design, the landscape plan, is because it's difficult for people to discern what is minimum code landscaping, and we're able to help the homeowner or the property owner with that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So can we make that one change to make it clearer? MS. SIMEON: The problem is, if we were to say that, then we leave it up to somebody else to determine what is minimum code required landscaping. COMMISSION HENNING: I thought that's what we were doing, to make -- MS. SIMEON: I think what -- I think what you're trying to do is say to them that they don't have to replace a tree that's above and beyond minimum code landscaping. Page 58 October 13, 2004 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But the way it reads now IS any -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Relocation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- yeah, relocation. MS. SIMEON: The permit would still be required. The relocation or -- I'm sorry -- the replacement of it would not be required. So are you suggesting that maybe we should try to get that into this more clearly? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think you ought to suggest -- the emphasis is on minimum code. MS. SIMEON: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The language is -- to me, is not clear. MS. SIMEON: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And when we talk about minimum code, are we talking about the minimum code that was adopted when the plan was -- site plan was submitted or the new minimum code? MS. SIMEON: That's a good question. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yeah. MS. SIMEON: That's a good question. I would think that we'd probably want to maintain the current standard. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We'll put that in there? MS. SIMEON: Okay. We could do that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wonder why we're not going in accordance with the site development plan rather than minimum code. MR. SCHMITT: And I was going to ask to clarify that, because it should be minimum code or the currently applied or approved site development plan, which includes -- Page 59 October 13, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or current -- current minimum code or site development plan, but whichever -- which one are you going to apply? One can be more stringent than the other, right? MR. SCHMITT: Oh, absolutely. The site development plan can include the buffer and all the buffer requirements and landscaping requirements. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why wouldn't you want to have this applied to the site development plan requirements rather than to minimum code? MR. SCHMITT: The landscaping plan and the site development plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: With-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You remember when the people from Village Walk petitioned us -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The developer overplanted it, and it was -- some of that was a part of the site development plan, but it wasn't part of the code, minimum code at that time, so that can be problematic. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand. MR. SCHMITT: Well, in that case -- and I ask, would you prefer that -- well, in that case they would have had to -- if we do have site development plan in here, they would require an amendment to the site development plan to remove those trees from the SDP. So if that's not a step you want, then -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this language is to correct some of that that happened in Village Walk. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what I understand from Page 60 October 13,2004 Nancy is, it's minimum code, we just need to clarify it. And what Commissioner Coyle stated was, site plan. And, you know, what I stated in this case, it was overdone. So the bottom line is, when Ms. Simeon's crew gets in there, they're going to go by minimum code instead of an overplanted community, and I think that's the original intent of the board is the -- MS. SIMEON: I think if -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You get a speaker slip. MR. SCHMITT: We have Mr. Fogg as a speaker, so-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's current minimum fog -- minimum code, right? MS. SIMEON: Can I offer a suggestion? I think if we go with the current minimum code, that will even take care of those overplanted sites, because the overplanted sites obviously will need to be thinned out. But by the time they get to that point, the tree canopies are quite large, and they can qualify for tree credits, which would help them, you know, get to that point of current minimum code, and that way -- I'm just concerned because some of the sites out there, if it was an older plan and we were holding them to a lesser standard, that -- I don't think that's what we're trying to achieve. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. MS. SIMEON: We're just trying to hold the standard. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think the more lush, the more beautiful. I wouldn't want to hold them to a reduced standard. MS. SIMEON: Because they could easily meet -- on an older site that's lushly planted, they could easily meet the current minimum code standard and still be able to remove those trees that are annoyances or just overplanted. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, then in that case, I believe the problem here -- and I would agree with Commissioner Henning -- is that first sentence under -- Page 61 October 13,2004 MS. SIMEON: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- cultivated tree removal permit is confusing and it can be read in a way that is not intended. And if we can clarify that and make sure that it is the minimum code standard, current minimum code standard that we're dealing with, I think that would help. MS. SIMEON: Okay. We can do that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now I have a question. MS. SIMEON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. But I don't know -- let me tell you two examples, and then I'll explain my question. I went out to view somebody's issue one day, and I was -- I was out -- actually I was out at the Vishnich property, and the people across the street caught me over there that were in the nursing home, and they said, look at this landscaping. COMMISSIONER COYLE: They wanted you to join them. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I almost did. He's awful. And the -- it was true, they had whatever was basic or minimum landscaping there. I guess it was supposed to be a nice, thick hedge. The place had been open for years. There were spots, dead things. I swear it couldn't have been any taller than a foot and a half. MS. SIMEON: Goodness. CHAIRMAN FIALA: It was ugly looking, and they said, what can I do about this? We've been asking them and they won't plant it. Jumping to another -- I was talking about that CVS property. I would guess they planted to minimum standard, and only the minimum standard, and there's probably nothing we can do. But interestingly enough, the plans that were submitted to us, just as you said before, looked wonderful. I mean, we had nice, thick bushes. In looking at those plans that were submitted, the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle gave them $25,000, this very wealthy chain of stores, gave them $25,000 as an impact fee credit because Page 62 October 13, 2004 they were so delighted to see them coming to the neighborhood, and now they're just appalled at the appearance of it, at the appearance. I would not shop there just because that's what they think of the neighborhood around them, to plant like that. And so I was wondering, what can we do? Is there something in here that we can do to prevent stuff like that, where they give you one picture and they produce something else? MS. SIMEON: Well, the first property that you were describing sounds like it's probably out of compliance with minimum code. After something's been around for a year or so, those hedges you see adjacent to the right-of-way should be at least three feet tall, they should be full, they should be grown in. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh. MS. SIMEON: So that sounds like it's probably -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Scraggly isn't one of the words that we meet, right? MS. SIMEON: No. And we do have a Florida number one standard, and sometimes plants -- it might be neglect, lack of maintenance. They fall below our standards, and we can have code enforcement go out there and investigate~ And typically w~at they'll do is have them bring it back up to minimum code. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But is there something that we can do to -- when they open a place like that, is that minimum that they have there really acceptable? Can they use like the poorest of plantings, the cheapest that they can find? There's nothing we can do about that? MS. SIMEON: Well, I feel like I need to go visit that site. I'm hearing an awful lot about it tonight. Something's unusual about it, because we have sites all over town that are minimum code that I don't hear about. So something's not right, I would have to go -- Jeff, have you seen that proj ect? COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can and do require the -- MS. SIMEON: JeffSami (sic) -- he's familiar with that-- Page 63 October 13, 2004 COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- require that they upgrade landscaping. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can we? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, yes. We can and do that. As a matter of fact, there is a commercial activity near the intersection of Radio Road and Livingston that was having the same problem with the buffer between them and the residential area, and the residents complained. And we were able to -- our people inspected it, found it was not in accordance with code, some of the plantings had died, and they were required to replace it and bring it up to code. So we have done that, and I hope we will continue to do that. MS. SIMEON: And it's already in the code that they have to maintain minimum standards. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I'd love it if you'd -- you know, if there was something in here to protect that, but if it's already in the code, that's great. I just wanted to make sure that other people aren't duped like, you know, we paid $25,000 out of the CRA to get a very poor -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Product. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- product, thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Ma'am, really what we need to do is have you notify us or the property owner, code enforcement, we'll send one of the investigators out for -- the landscape investigators, and we'll open a case. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's great. We'll do that. MR. SCHMITT: Michelle, I don't know if you want to go any further. I mean, we do this all the time throughout the county. Go ahead. MS. ARNOLD: Michelle Arnold, for the record. The only issue that's in -- that is of a concern, we can require them to do -- bring their property up to code minimum, is some of the older developments that were in -- developed prior to the code requiring them to have very -- Page 64 _._,- October 13, 2004 you know, the landscaping requirements that we have today aren't required to bring it up to today's code minimum. So I don't know how old the property is that you're talking about. CHAIRMAN FIALA: It just opened. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. All right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. But is there anything now -- now you got on to another thing there, is there -- with an older property -- now, we were talking just before about -- about renovations, redevelopment and so forth. If there is redevelopment taking place, do, then, they have to meet the new code? MS. SIMEON: They -- yes, they do. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MS. SIMEON: They do, to the greatest extent possible. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MS. SIMEON: And that's currently the language in our code. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. MS. SIMEON: You're welcome. MR. SCHMITT: Any questions on this section? (No response.) MR. WEBB: Madam Chair, we have a public speaker on all of the landscape issues, I believe. George F ogg. MR. FOGG: Good evening. My name is George Fogg. I think most of you know who I am. I'm a landscape architect who has been practicing in Collier County for 16 years. Done a few parks that most of you have used. And I want -- the address is 628 W oodshire Lane, Naples, 34105. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. As I've said, I've been working in this area for 15 years. I've been involved very deeply with the landscape code during that entire time. This particular cycle I was not involved in the code revisions, but prior to that I've been involved with every revision in the Collier County landscape code for the last 14 years. Page 65 October 13, 2004 I have reviewed all of the current proposed changes for this cycle, and I believe that they all can be easily carried out by the landscape architects and the developers. It is unlikely that these changes will adversely affect my practice or the cost of my clients. I believe there is, however, a need to upgrade the entire landscape code similar to what has been done for the architecture code, to look at it from top to bottom, and I will give you several suggestions that I think need to be looked at. One of them is street tree planting. We sort of do street tree planting, kind of like, maybe, but we don't have any code-requirement that says any subdivision or condo plan or whatever has to have a street tree planting plan. It's one of the things that shapes the conditions that we see most frequently as we use an area. I believe that all code plans -- plants and other conditions involved in a code required landscape plan should be approved by the design professional who designed them to make sure that we don't end up with something that was put in incorrectly. We want to make sure that it is properly installed as per the approved plans. I believe this would take some of the pressure off of the county staff that has to go out and try to interpret what the designer had in mind, the client had in mind, what Nancy had in mind. It doesn't work. It's too many steps removed. Lee County, by the way, now has that condition. I believe that we should look at our utility lines and what we permit to be planted on top of them. As a perfect example, the utility lines during these last hurricanes were badly beaten up by wind-driven plant material against the utility lines, i.e., we planted too big a trees under the utility lines, and that flat-out shouldn't be done, and there's nothing in this code to actually prohibit us from doing that. Another thing that you brought up earlier tonight, and I believe very strongly, is that creativity should be encouraged and promoted in the landscape planning process, not only for the designers but for the Page 66 .<- October 13, 2004 developers themselves. I -- in relationship to this item, I've personally found no problem in the 15 years that I've been working to create whatever I felt was most creative, but I did it in relationship to the constraints of the code. And I think a perfect example might be Max Hasse. We met the codes, and it's pretty nicely done, or Sugden Park, which is rather nicely done. I know a lot of you people know those places. There's another thing that has come up recently, or come up frequently, and that is, water management requirements are quite significant, especially as the building lots seem to get smaller and the buildings seem to get bigger and the water retention requirements seem to get larger. We need to look carefully at that to make sure that there's adequate space for horticulturally appropriate growth or plant material, and that should include the planting of those swales and retention areas. We sometimes get told, you can't do it, it's not possible. And all of you know that that's a desirable thing to do from an aesthetics standpoint. You don't want these great huge spaces with no plants in them. I mean, it just looks like hell. Excuse me, I shouldn't say that, and then -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I said it. MR. FOGG: -- there is another point that again was brought up tonight, I think very appropriately by the board, and that is, there should be a requirement as part of the county code plan that a management plan, or a landscape maintenance plan, be prepared so that it can be properly enforced by the enforcement staff. If you just put a little circle on a plan and say, that's a tree, that's fine, but sometimes those trees don't grow or the shrubs don't grow, or the hedge is not right, and we need to have something in there that says, this is what it's supposed to be and how you're supposed to take care of it. Just a very general plan. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to the board again, and I Page 67 October 13,2004 think that Nancy and the committees that have worked on these plan revisions have done a very fine job. I hope that, perhaps, during our next cycle some of these things that I've just mentioned to you can be considered in the next cycle of plan reviews. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Is that our only speaker? MR. WEBB: Yes, Madam Chair, it is. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I'd love to see something put into our next cycle that says no trees planted under utility lines. I think that's a great idea. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Some trees can be planted under utility lines, others cannot. What you want to make sure of is you don't plant trees under the utility lines that get up to the height of utilities. MR. FOGG: And that's exactly correct. Donna, the -- there are small trees that can be planted under utility lines that will not cause damage to those utility lines. There are big trees that can be planted under utility lines that will do like they did in our development and knock our power line out, I think it was five times during the last series of storms. We really didn't like that too well. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have anything like that in the code now, Nancy? MS. SIMEON: We have language in the code that discourages the planting of large plant material under the overhead power lines. And during the -- and during the review process, if we see somebody putting big trees under a power line, we'll reject the plans. And there also is a reference, and I believe it's in our landscape code, it's FPL Right Tree, Right Place, and they -- a very good document, and it specifically says what kind of plants can be planted what distance from what depending on the height of the overhead Page 68 October 13,2004 power line. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But it just discourages. It doesn't tell them don't do this, right? MS. SIMEON: No. So probably -- I believe George is correct, we should tighten up that language. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think that would be a good idea for all of the neighborhoods. And then the second thing is, he was talking about planting of the swales. Do we have anything in there to encourage that? MS. SIMEON: I'm reluctant to talk about that area because -- I know from a landscape perspective we support it, but sometimes the engineer -- our civil engineers have difficulty with it. And it's really important that they have -- what they're telling me is that if it's swale being used for conveyance of water, they don't want anything blocking it. So I kind of defer to their lead. If they say, it's okay, we'll allow it. If they don't, then we go with their professional opinion not to plant it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MS. SIMEON: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Anything else, Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thanks, Nancy. A great presentation. MR. WEBB: Moving on to Tab D, the environmental provisions. The first is on page 8 of your summary sheet, section 3.05.10 C, which is on page 71 of the packet, and the second is directly below that, section 4.06.04 A.1 on page 73 of your LDC packet. MS. BURGESON: For the record, Barbara Burgeson with environmental services. I'm not sure if you would like presentations on these two or whether you'd just like me to just answer questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I would like to, sorry. Page 69 October 13,2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, that's all right. Go ahead. Could you -- would you explain it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to take a break. MS. BURGESON: Sure. The first one, which is to the littoral planting, is actually an amendment that was presented to this board several months ago requesting your support for that change. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was the one I had a problem with personally. MS. BURGESON: Okay. This was presented to the board about three months ago and identified that under certain circumstances, littoral plantings have failed. We're looking at a method for code development to be able to bring those back into compliance. The language, as it was originally written, said that they may have to. We meant that to be definitive, that whenever they were insufficient, they may have to plant -- replant those littoral plantings. But it was brought to our attention that the -- through the reviews and some code enforcement issues, that that needed to be more definitive, so we needed to change that. And as it was brought back to this board, we had support to bring that back as a "shall" in place of "may. " But as we brought this to you through the other boards and they all approved it, we did have some recommended changed language. Just to clarify, it really doesn't make any changes to that. It's still -- the intent of it is still to just require that those failed planting areas be brought into compliance, and that's only if they're failing and that's brought to our attention. And the additional language at the end of that is new language, and that states, a written assessment and site plan shall be required if it is determined by the assessment of the lakes that the new littoral shelf planting area will differ from the approved plan of record. That's to keep the property owner safe so that we have a plan of record, so that in the future, if they say, well, you're not planted in Page 70 October 13,2004 accordance with what we have on record, we know that they made those changes and that needs to go on file with us. But they only need to provide that written if we make the assessment and determine that it's different than what we have in the office. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And DSAC recommended approval of that modified language? MS. BURGESON: DSAC recommended approval of the initial language, but it did not include that last sentence. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did they disapprove of that last sentence? MS. BURGESON: The last sentence was only prepared during the CCPC meetings, or meeting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, when this item was on our regular agenda for discussion, I know that Commissioner Halas had a problem with it. My understanding was a code enforcement problem. I asked the code enforcement director to assist me to show me where the problem is so I can understand it, and my understanding, there is no problem out there with the code enforcement director, so I don't know why we're doing this if it's not a problem. MS. BURGESON: I don't know the number of cases, but I knew that -- I know that there are a fair number of cases as a result of the PUD monitoring reports that we've been preparing and presenting to you through the workshops and the annual PUD monitoring reports that we've been doing more consistently in the past couple of years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think I even brought it up to Mr. Schmitt. So if -- I thought somebody would-- MS. BURGESON: It may be that these have not been brought to the attention of the -- all of those have not been brought to the attention of the code enforcement staff. Page 71 October 13, 2004 But at a meeting that we had just this week, one of those environmental staff members said that they were going to start processing all of those code enforcement case violations. So they will be on record very soon, if they're not already, written formal reports or COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was my understanding that we have an existing problem, and I wanted to try to understand the problem, and there was no examples out there. MS. BURGESON: We'd be happy to give you a list of those. We can talk with the code enforcement staff person that will be citing those. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And we had it on our agenda and -- for, to give guidance, but I'm just saying, there was no problem. And the issue was with the littoral, or littoral, however you want to say it, is on existing stormwater. There was discussion about suggestion and making sure that they replant, and some of this was to actually reform the stormwater retention, and that's when Commissioner Halas had a problem. MS. BURGESON: No. The language specifically states -- and that was something that we put in, that regrading existing slopes will not be required. If during the assessment, that the property owners understand that by regrading, it will facilitate that those -- those plantings will survive, a greater possibility of survival in the future, that would be completely their choice to do that. There's no obligation for them to do any regrading. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the discussion as I remember was giving examples about in the lake, not on the slopes, in the lake, for plantings. So I'm kind of reluctant to pass something when we don't have a problem. MS. BURGESON: I'd be happy to give you a list of problems at Page 72 October 13,2004 the next meeting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I tried to seek them out. MS. BURGESON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: This was three months ago, and we're kind of at the end of this, so -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Michelle, do you have any words on this? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nothing? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: We'll come back if you choose not to follow this, but what this was simply doing was giving the violator the opportunity to take corrective action so we would not tell them to replant something that we knew failed in the first place, and that's all this does is -- we go out there, we cite them failure to meet the littoral plantings, or littoral plantings, and their plan says, okay, I failed. I'll replant, and they replant. And this -- what the current code says now, they replant and they replant when we know it's going to fail again. What this does is allow them to redesign or help -- provides our staff to assist them in saying, okay, I know that failed, but now we can help you, and here's what you can do to make this work this time, and this provides the latitude to do that. So if we don't change it, then we're just forced to cite them and say, understand, but you need to comply with the original design, and that -- it's just kind of -- I've got to be frank, it's kind of dumb. We're out there giving them a notice of violation. They've got to do a cure, and the cure, we know, isn't going to work. So that's all this really does. MS. BURGESON: Would you like staff to prepare some slides of some failing examples for the next meeting? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I guess I just have a Page 73 October 13,2004 problem when I asked the administrator, where's the problem, he says -- I don't get an answer. MS. BURGESON: Would you like us to prepare that and send that to you between now and the next meeting? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, three months ago I asked, just show me examples where the problem is so I can understand it. So I guess my request wasn't valid. MR. SCHMITT: It was. And, Commissioner, I didn't -- frankly, I really didn't understand what you were asking. Now I do. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Why don't you -- why don't you bring something back to us. We understand Joe Schmitt's explanation. We surely wouldn't want to just have somebody keep planting the same thing that, then they get cited for, so then they have to dig it out and plant the same thing to get cited for. I mean, that's a vicious circle. Why don't we -- would it be all right with you if we left it here until she showed us some slides or something to kind of carry the case forward? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't we have a proposed second hearing on this? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we just carry it forward in the second hearing, you can provide that information at the second hearing -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That will work. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and then we can deal with it. MR. SCHMITT: November 10th. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would -- I would be willing to approve it subject to that being presented at the second hearing, and then if it is presented, we can take final action on it at the second hearing. MS. BURGESON: Okay. We'll work with environmental Page 74 October 13,2004 services staff and code enforcement staff to prepare a presentation for you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. The rest of this is okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's okay with me. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right, fine. Let's go on to E. MR. WEBB: Tab E relates to the vested rights provisions. The first one is section 9.02.00, on page 79 of your packet. The next is definitions and abbreviations, which appears on page 90 of your packet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good job. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions on any of these, Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's all come approved to us from all of the other committees, DSAC, EAC, CCPC. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I need Marjorie to answer a question for me. MR. WEBB: Actually, Patrick is the author of the amendment, so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I know. That's why I didn't want Marjorie. MR. WHITE: I'm certain the commissioner knew who he wanted to answer the question, Mr. Webb. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you come up and answer a question for me? I have to have opposing counsel here so that we can -- we can sort this through. MR. WHITE: The truth be told, while Marjorie comes up, I'd say that 99.99 percent of our legal opinions in our mutual four years have been identical, so -- Page 75 -'-.-. -_.---~'~ October 13,2004 MS. STUDENT: Yes. It's been a little while since I read over the provision since Mr. White's the author. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, let me ask my question. MS. STUDENT: Certainly. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think maybe you can deal with it real quickly . You know, we've been talking about the issues of getting some of this approved but unbuilt density off the books. MS. STUDENT: And I am working on writing an ordinance as we speak. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. There's nothing here that would conflict with what you're doing with respect to that, is there? MS. STUDENT: I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's really all I wanted to -- I just wanted to make sure that we weren't approving something here that was going to complicate the thing that you're working on. MS. STUDENT: I don't believe it will, because in what I'm drafting, one of the concerns that will be dealt with is the issue of vested rights. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. MS. STUDENT: So-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. MR. WHITE: And I don't mean to presume to speak for Marjorie, but I think, in fact, they probably would dovetail together -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. MR. WHITE: -- and provide an opportunity for this board to make reasoned determinations, either in the context of a vested rights request or the potential for some type of a takings claim -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. WHITE: -- and give the opportunity to balance the equities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Shall we move on to F? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Page 76 October 13,2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you. MR. WEBB: Tab F is nonresidential recycling. That's on page 92 of your packet, page 10 of the summary sheet. And you also should have in front of you the adopted ordinance relating to nonresidential recycling. Denise passed that out to you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions, Commissioners? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. On to G. MR. WEBB: Tab G is all of the other sequentially numbered provisions, and we can just proceed numerically. Section 2.01.03 on page 97. This is adding language to reference the urban rural fringe transition zone overlay map; section 2.03.03 on page 100. This is a clean-up from the third cycle, adding ancillary plants to educational facilities; section 2.03.05 on page 102, also a clean-up referencing the urban rural transition zone overlay map; section 2.03.07 G on page 104; section 2.03.08 A on page 106; section 2.03.08 A.1 on page 108; section 2.03.08 A.3 on page 110; section 2.03.08 D on page 112; section 2.04.03 on page 114. Also section 2.04.03 on page 118; again, section 2.04.03 on page 123; section 2.04.03 on page 127. The final one in that section, 2.04.03 on page 134. Moving on to page 14 of the summary sheet, section 2.06.04 on page 139; section 4.02.01 A on page 147; section 4.05.02 K.3 on page 150; page 15 of the summary sheet, section 4.07.01 B on page 152; section 5.06.00 on page 154; section 6.01.01 on page 184; section 8.06.03 on page 186. Page 16 of the summary sheet. Section 9.03.01 E on page 188; section 10.02.02 A.9 and section 10.02.13 E on page 189; section 10.02.02 F.5, excuse me, on page 191; section 10.02.04 A.1 on page 193. Page 17 of the summary sheet. Section 10.02.04 B.3.E. on page 195; section 10.02.05 B on page 197; section 10.02.05 C on page 201; Page 77 ^.~-~.,,"-,-_.,--- ., October 13,2004 section 10.02.05 F on page 203. Page 18 of the summary sheet. Section 10.02.13 J through Lon page 208; section 10.03.05 B on page 212; Appendix A on page 219, Appendix C on page 241; and finally, the last one on page 19 of the summary sheet, Appendix H on page 251. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No questions from me. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have -- I have one question, and that is on the requirements for site improvement plan requirements for the nonconforming mobile home park overlay subdistrict, those are -- I would guess there are a lot of those things that are nonconforming even though they're very nice mobile home parks. Is this going to present a problem for not only the retirees that live in them, but also those that are just workforce housing or affordable housing? MR. WEBB: The amendment that you are referring to, is that 10.02.05 on page 203; is that correct? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. MR. WEBB: This is language that existed in the LDC prior to the recodification, if I'm not mistaken, and they were just mistakenly omitted. We're bringing them over to answer your questions specifically. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, thank you. Thank you. That's all I have. Anybody have any questions? Anybody want to make comment on anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Madam Chair, that concludes our rundown of the cycle 2, 2004 amendments. We have our second hearing scheduled in this chamber at 5:05 on November 10th. And based on that, we have guidance to bring back the modifications and -- that you cited in regards to -- or the board cited in Page 78 October 13,2004 regards to the architectural standards. We will bring back some corrections in regards to the one issue for the landscape standards and also for the issue in regards to littorals. So with that, we'll hear of our second hearing on the 10th. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. MR. WHITE: And before you adjourn, if I could get in a PSA. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. MR. WHITE: Just to let folks know that the land development code does go into effect, the new code, Monday, 12:01 a.m., October 18th. We did receive today -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not this code, folks. That's the last code we voted on. MR. WHITE: Yes. The one we adopted back in July. And, in fact, I do have the first of the hard copies here with me. And I'm going to show you by comparison, that it definitely is thinner than what we had before. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yeah. MR. WHITE: There aren't necessarily overall less words, but we kept our commitment to the board to make sure that we were going to make this a little bit more lean and efficient. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not less words -- MR. WHITE: There's still a lot more to do, but-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- but smaller printing; is that what it is, Patrick? MR. WHITE: No, we didn't cheat that way or make the margins wider, but -- I just wanted to kind of put that on the record for folks and to let the board know that we did make the deadline with municipal codes' help and your giving us the extra time because of the hurricanes. Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thank you all. MR. WHITE: Thank you. Page 79 October 13, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Have a good night. Go home and have dinner. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:45 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAr~=<:if3ER ITS CONTROL DONNA '~IALA, Chairman \,': '-;1 ,~ c A 'FTEST:/ '~, . i· C. . ... '?..;:- :.' -~.. . , ,-'.J .O.L. ,CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ,\ - I LP - bY, as presented / or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 80 ""-'-""--"'"~---~~-_.~'-'--"" ---..---.----