Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/30/1996 S (LDC Amendments) SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 30, 1996 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:11 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie ABSENT: Bettye J. Matthews ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Harjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call this public hearing to order on the 30th of October 1996. Mr. Dotrill, if you could lead us in an invocation and a pledge to the flag, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this evening for this opportunity to conduct the business affairs of Collier County and its people in free and open democratic process. We give thanks this evening for those who have chosen to come out and contribute to opportunities to make this the best community that it can be. It's always our prayer that you guide the hand and deliberations of the county commission and give them the conviction to do what's right. We thank you for the efforts of those who are here, and we ask that you bless our time together this evening. We pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Hulhere, good evening. MR. HULHERE: Good evening. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're going to have a lot to do tonight. But I think because we have a few people here that may be on a specific item that -- that to accommodate those people, we'll go right to that item first. And that would be the -- the section of the ordinance that deals with parking of commercial vehicles in residentially zoned property. I think there may be some -- either representatives of the building trades -- or perhaps Commissioner Hancock has something to offer before we start on that as a proposed amendment to the ordinance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I copied all of you yesterday and proposed what I would call a middle-ground amendment between the position the board took a couple of weeks ago -- a majority of the board took -- and that that was originally proposed. I understand, however, there has been some lengthy discussion as -- as recently as last night between some of the organizations that really in -- initiated this and members of the -- the -- for lack of a better term -- the working community. And there has been some proposed language in that vein. I spoke to Butch Wiegold today about that. Butch, are you here? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, there he is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'd like to do is defer to -- to someone who is familiar with that language that has been proposed. And if that is not successful, I'll then be happy to -- to put on the floor what I've proposed. But I think if the groups have been working together, maybe they've come to a better solution than I can individually. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's a good suggestion. I got a call last night from one of the individuals who had brought the item forward originally. I talked to Gary Hayes earlier today, and it appears a compromise is in the works. And I think you're right; if we can get the word from them and it's something everybody can live with, it may save us some time and effort and make some people happy. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Who would be best to present that is really my question. MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Chairman, I -- I'd be glad to do that, if you'd like. It's -- Vince Cautero from community development environmental services division. The -- the document on page 38 is what you had directed staff to prepare. There were some changes that were submitted to us this morning from the American Subcontractor's Association, Collier County chapter. And I spoke with Mr. Hayes, their representative; and Mr. Wiegold, the representative of the Plumbing and Mechanical Contractor's Association; as well as Mr. Glenn Wilt, who was representing the Golden Gate Civic Association. And we have that language for you. I believe it was faxed to your office, but we have it also as well. We've -- we've typed it up for you. We can hand that out to you now. They've recommended that some language be added to the old revision to the -- No. 5, which dealt with the exemptions. This is the section that we talked about on October 9th which dealt with small commercial equipment. The language that has been proposed to us reads, "Exempted from this section is small commercial equipment such as ladders and pipes which cannot be contained within the vehicle. Said equipment shall be secured on racks atop the vehicle and shall not extend beyond the length, height, or width of the vehicle." I will tell you that I've discussed this item with those three individuals I just named. And while there may not be 100 percent agreement, I think there's substantial agreement on the content. And they're free to speak for themselves, but they're looking at this more of -- more as a starting point so that we may be able to -- to go from there. Mr. Hayes did recommend to us, as well as Mr. Wiegold, that this language be inserted in the Land Development Code and then a year from now the staff come back with a -- a follow-up report on that. That's, of course, a policy decision that you would have to make. So staff will be prepared to answer any questions. We've -- and we've reviewed the language. The -- the staff has no difficulty with that at -- at all. It's -- it's your decision, but I think you should hear from -- from at least those three organizations as well as other members of the -- of the public that wish to speak. But, again, this language was -- was crafted, I believe, by ASA, and it has been discussed by at least those three organizations, and I believe that there's a high comfort level with it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I see Mr. Hayes is here as well as Mr. Wiegold and Mr. Wilt. So let me ask the board members if any board member has any concern about this proposed language and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's good. I think -- I -- I spoke with Gary earlier today, and I think perhaps the best part -- everybody isn't happy, but everybody can live with it. And the per -- perhaps the best part is the opportunity to come back and visit it after one year. And it gives our staff what they've been looking for, and that is something they can put their hands into and to enforce. But it also gives us, at the end of 12 months, an opportunity to come back after there's a real track record and see how it's worked out and make any adjustments we need to. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have one -- I would have one minor revision. It's just a reference revision. It really doesn't affect it materially. But there are, in all likelihood, members of the public here who have not seen or heard this language. Can I ask for a reading of the proposed language so that everyone knows what we're dealing with. MR. CAUTERO: Certainly. I'll be glad to do that again. The -- the language would supplement page 38 of your executive summary, and it would add in Section 5. Section 5 would read, "Exempted from this section is small commercial equipment such as ladders and pipes which cannot be contained within the vehicle. Said equipment shall be secured on racks atop the vehicle and shall not extend beyond the length, height, or width of the vehicle." COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask for clarification. My concern with this was it, in essence, allows for storage of materials on top of the vehicle, but that is subject to the height requirement which I believe is 7 1/2 feet. MR. CAUTERO: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if they have a ladder on top -- most vans, if you put -- if you stack two ladders, you've exceeded 7 1/2 feet of most vans; is that correct? MR. CAUTERO: I would believe you would be. And in talking with representatives in the industry, they've told us that one ladder would not present a problem; but if you go with more than that, you probably are going to be over that height limit. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- I'd like to ask a question. And apologies, because I -- I don't think it will be a popular one. But I have had a lot of people who don't drive commercial vehicles but who do live in the affected areas talking to me today, and a sort of simple question is: If it's just a ladder, how hard is that just to take it off the top? Why should we be drafting an ord -- ordinance to allow just a ladder that's the size of a van to stay on top of the truck? Why is that worth the trouble? Let's just take the ladder off. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not everyone lives in a home with a garage. We have a lot of folks in the service industry that live in apartment complexes or duplexes that don't have a garage or storage area. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But leave the ladder at work or leave, you know -- (Applause) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen -- ladies and gentlemen, we're -- we're conducting a public hearing here. I understand that everybody's emotionally involved in this, but we -- we're going to need to keep a proper decorum. You know, we're going -- we're going to try to get through this as best we can. But if we have to clear the room, that's what we'll do. Okay. So let's hold it down. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can only speak for myself individually. My position is there are some industries that do make service calls beyond normal working hours. And, again, this is a situation that -- I think we were asked to fix an abusive situation where we had vehicles that were obviously not residential in character in any way, shape, or form that we're having difficulty enforcing. In doing that how far do we go, and how far is reasonable? You'll get every answer along that spectrum. There are people in this room that think if you have the name of your company on the side of your pickup truck, you should not be allowed to have it in your driveway. There are also people here -- people here that think you should be able to have your cube van or your box van -- you know, a step van -- in your driveway. Neither of those, I think, is -- is reasonable. So we're looking for something in between those two, and I think this is a fair step in that direction. And it is temporary to determine what the impact is in the first year and, in all likelihood, will be revised in some form after that year. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I think for me what makes it workable -- I -- I share your concern. I -- I think, Why do we do that? I think Commissioner Hancock's gone some of the way toward answering that. Is -- we had some specific homeowner groups who came forward who wanted to get some wording here. If those groups are satisfied that this is an appropriate first step, we may find at the end of a year's time that -- that we have a terrible problem with -- with ladders and pipe and whatever. I -- I suspect at the end of a year, we'll find that 95 percent of the violations were dump trucks, tow trucks, and so on anyway; and this will allow us to address that. But my point just being if -- if those groups which brought the issue forward can live with this for a 12-month period, I'm willing to do that as well and review it -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and I'm not -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- next year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not saying that that's impossible for me to agree to either. It's just that the same people who brought this to my attention originally are continuing to object to the compromise. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, once again, I don't think anybody's going to be 100 percent satisfied. But as long as everybody has some degree of satisfaction, we're probably on the right track. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Everybody's a little unhappy. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, does it -- do any board members have any other comments on any other section of this particular part of the ordinance before we continue here? Mr. Cautero, we had -- MR. CAUTERO: Sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- spoken for -- about whether this also includes commercial vehicles such as aircraft and boats that are used in a commercial operation. Is that contained within here, or would that be because of the definition of a commercial vehicle? MR. CAUTERO: It -- it could be under the new definition that we're proposing. I -- I would believe it -- it could be. I'd '- I'd like to consult with -- with legal staff on that. But the definition that we are recommending to you that is new says, "Any vehicle used in conjunction with a commercial or business activity." And the same is for equipment; any piece of equipment -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So -- so the -- the question then becomes what -- how do you define a vehicle, though. Is an aircraft a vehicle? Is a boat a vehicle under this definition -- this legal definition? MR. CAUTERO: I would say it would be, in my opinion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you concur, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I -- I think we'd be better served, quite frankly, if the definition of vehicle itself specifically referenced aircraft and boats or -- or vessels -- water vessels. There is a definition of -- of vehicle, and this def -- definition re -- refers -- of commercial vehicle refers to any vehicle. And I think that we'd be best served if the definition of vehicle were to be added to -- to provide an inclusion of boat and aircraft. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you help me with the application? I mean, I don't have a lot of planes parking on my street. I -- I'm just -- would -- I'm -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have had that -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- haven't we? COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Get that darn Viper out of here. Don't we have -- don't we address boats in a whole other section of the code as well? MR. WEIGEL: We do, but it's recreational equipment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: It provides -- it's the section just before this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The di -- the distinction here is purely commercial. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Purely commercial. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that -- would that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can the sheriff's department bring his helicopter home? Go ahead. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would -- wouldn't that be covered under equipment engaged in a construction or service operation? If it's an airplane or a boat and it is engaged in a construction or service operation, would it not be covered under No. 1 then on the proposed language? Number 1 says, "The vehicle and/or equipment is engaged in a construction or service operation on the site where" it's "parked." Oh, I see. Then the -- the following would apply individually, wouldn't it? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, then it would still require scween -- screening of that equipment. It doesn't sound to me like a -- an airplane or a boat is treated any differently than, let's say, a lawn maintenance trailer that must be screened and -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's right. And they're only saying that -- that -- or Mr. Weigel's only saying that we need to include specifically the words "boat" and "aircraft" in -- in the definition of a vehicle. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't let me belabor it. I have no problem including that. MR. CAUTERO: That -- that doesn't make a difference to the staff. But the generic definition of vehicle would include what you -- what you were asking about a moment go -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: -- in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Sounds like that's sol -- answered then. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. If nobody has any problem with that, then we'll go forward. Any other comments on this section? We're all in accord then that this section will go forward as -- as amended tonight? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, let's -- how many public speakers do we have, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Got twenty-five. Twenty-five. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Twenty-five. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's two hours. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, we're going to allow an hour to -- to have this public discussion period. So divide -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, and that is -- I'm going to guess -- I mean, this -- this resolution was brought forward by the trades and by the community groups. And I'm going to guess a number of those 25 are involved in one of those groups or the other. If you're in accord with the compromise that's been made -- and, obviously, you have the right to get up and speak. But just in a timely manner, I would think you might not want to try to talk us out of it. It -- it looks as though -- and maybe I didn't hear everybody, but it looks as though the board may have agreed on -- everybody may be in agreement that the compromise is an appropriate first step. Obviously, if you disagree with that, this is the time to get up and say that. But for those who are either in the civic groups that have come to this compromise or the trade groups, I don't know if they all -- all 25 may not need to get up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- and I'd like to hear from the homeowner groups who have participated and -- and signed off on this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not precluding that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, of course not. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what do they get? Two minutes each? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's fine. Well -- well, it will be a little more than 2 minutes. It will be 2 minutes and 30 seconds or 2 1/2 minutes apiece. And if you want to pass, that's fine. If you're in agreement, you don't have to come up here and speak. Mr. Dotrill, if you'd begin, please. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Miss -- I -- I'll call two names. And the second individual I call, if you'll come stand near one of the two podiums and be ready, that would help us as well. Mr. Ward. And, Mr. Pitkin, I need you to stand by in place, sir. MR. WARD: Commissioners, I'm Whit Ward, executive vice-president of the Collier Building Industry Association representing the Collier Building Industry Association. We would agree with the compromise language that has been proposed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pitkin and then Mr. Jones. MR. PITKIN: Commissioners, thank you. My name is Jerry Pitkin. I'm on the legis -- legal committee for the American Subcontractor's Association, and we would also agree with the proposed amendment. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Jones and then Mrs. Vecchia. MR. JONES: Did you say me too, Neil? MR. DORRILL: Yes. MR. JONES: My name is Redmond Jones. I'm from Naples Park. I had a brainstorm la -- the past week. I think a solution to the whole problem is that you make a rule that you ha -- must have a certain number of square feet in order to park a truck there. In other words -- I don't know whether you want to make it a quarter of a -- a acre, a half acre, an acre and a half. But if you're under -- over that -- if you're under that, you cannot park your truck there. I don't care what kind it is. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: And I would like to ask the truck drivers a question. I -- I -- I know Butch Wiegold -- Wiegold. Why do these guys have to take their truck home anyhow? Why? They're not their trucks; they're Butch's trucks. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, we'll let you ask him that sometime in the -- I mean, right now wewre trying -- MR. JONES: How about it, Butch? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- to conduct a public hearing so -- MR. JONES: Why? Why do you guys have to take your trucks home anyhow? We have enough cars parked in my neighborhood, Naples Park, to patch hell a mile. Really. Therews hardly a house in the whole neighborhood that hasnwt got four cars in a two-car driveway, on the lawns, all over, in the swales, everywhere. So Iwm not in fay -- I thought we abolished that Item 5 two weeks ago. We didnwt have that Item 5 in the final agreement, did we? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a new one, sir. MR. JONES: You have a new one? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two weeks ago we did strike that out; however, we have two public hearings as part of any Land Development Code. So -- MR. JONES: This is the second -- this is the second one? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is the second one. That was not final two weeks ago. MR. JONES: Oh. I thought that we had come to a conclusion two weeks ago. Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. JONES: My thoughts. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. JONES: Oh, listen. By the way, these thoughts are mine alone. I have a neighbor of mine who was in Vietnam; hews also a veteran of Vietnam. He also was at Kent State when that awful incident happened. Hews a graduate of Kent State. He used to teach here in Collier County, and he thought that my 86-year-old idea was a good one; so Iwm not too old yet. CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Oh, no. MR. JONES: Tim? MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Vecchia. MR. JONES: She left. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wiegold. Ms. Shaw, I need you to stand by. MR. WIEGOLD: Hi. Iim Butch Wiegold, and I do want to address Redls question to me directly. Red, one of the things that our vehicles are considered is a safe vehicle with the sheriffls department. So we are there to -- we can take care of emergencies. Welre there to help children if therels a stranger-danger problem. Welre there to help older folks that need air-conditioning service at different times of the night. So we respond quickly. Itls a very important thing. And I can show you many, many customer names that welve got in our files that -- they use our service at night. So -- MR. JONES: I know most of these air-conditioning customers who have to wait until the next day. MR. WIEGOLD: Not in my business. Call me. (Applause) MR. DORRILL: Ms. -- Ms. Shaw. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Couldnlt ask for a better commercial, Butch. MR. JONES: All right, Tim. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kipp. Bill Kipp, youill follow this lady. MS. SHAW: I am Melinda Shaw, and I represent the Collier County Pool and Spa Association as well as I'm executive director of the American Subcontractor's Association. Last week I attended a Golden Gate Civic Association meeting. And these are people who are very interested in cleaning up their neighborhood, and I think it's a wonderful idea. Cleaning up the Golden Gate neighborhood is good for Golden Gate, and it's good for Collier County. And I don't think, though, the trucks are the problem. And I brought just a few pictures; I've got a stack here. I took a few pictures last week of the Golden Gate area -- and I'll leave this with you -- showing where there are grocery carts out there; showing where there are cars up on blocks without bumpers out there; showing where there is residue of couches and things out there. And at the bottom you'll see a picture of a very nice, manicured lawn with a 1-ton pickup truck. And I certainly don't think that pickup truck is causing the valuation of that property to go down at all. (Applause) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen, I just heard one commissioner say that you're talking him out of it. So you can -- you can cheer and disrupt this meeting all you want, but it's not going to help you. MS. SHAW: I would emphasize that we're not talking about box vans. We're not talking about step vans. We are talking about small pickup trucks. A lot of the people that I represent, this is the only vehicle they have. They are working people; they are raising children. And the only vehicle they have is the one that they use for their work as well as bring it home and don't have a garage. And I'll leave with a final statement. It was interesting that one man at that particular civic association got up, and he said, I never thought I'd speak for the subcontractors and the contractors. But, you know, I have lived here for a number of years, and it used to just be normal cars on the street. And now there's a lot of vans in the -- and -- I -- I mean, a lot of the - the -- the pickups with the -- the -- with the company name. He said, That is like having a policeman next to me because I know that's a working man that has a family, and he's going to work every day, and he's not dealing in drugs, and he's not causing crime, and I welcome those vehicles there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kipp and then Mr. Faist. MR. KIPP: Yes. I agree with everything you're saying, but I also agree with this lady 100 percent. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Name for the record. You need to -- MR. KIPP: Oh, Bill Kipp. But I agree with the lady 100 percent. Let's clean up -- I live in Golden Gate City. Let's clean up the city before we worry about the working people. Yes, I am on service. Yes, that's what I do. I -- you know, that's what we're here for. We're here to serve people. The hou -- the house next to mine, one consideration: The house burnt down last October. I think Mr. Constantine might have got a call from my wife. Nine months later they condemn it. You tell me. An open pool in the back with water -- house people going -- kids are going into. You tell me that's not a mess. Let's clean up the place before we worry about stupid stuff like this. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Faist and Mr. Hudrak. MR. FAIST: Good evening, Commissioners. My name's Jeff Faist. I'm the president of the American Subcontractors' Association. I'm also the vice president of Cox Tile, Incorporated. We represent about 200 member companies, which turns out to be about 4,000 employees. And the only point I'd like to make is, you know, these people need a place to live. There are deed-restricted communities in the area. And I think by just a logical look at this whole situation, it's -- it's very easy to come -- come up with a solution. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hudrak. Then Mr. Kerrigan. MR. HUDRAK: How you doing? I'm Phil Hudrak. I'm a small-business owner; I have a lawn service. And I agree with some of the compromise that we have here. And, you know, myself, as a family man -- we're thinking about getting a second truck, maybe a four-door truck. And anybody who thinks that a truck is offensive, I think that's absurd. It's a vehicle just like a car. I try to do everything I can. And we just moved into the Golden Gate City area knowing that it was a working community, and we would feel comfortable there with other working -- you know, people in the same type of field. Now, I'll do everything I can to disguise or hide my vehicles and my trailers; park in back. I'm in the process of adding a driveway and moving everything to the back and putting a privacy hedge around my home. I agree with, you know, your compromise, and I think that's fair. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Kerrigan. MR. KERRIGAN: Uh-huh. MR. DORRILL: And then Mr. or Ms. Delaney. MR. KERRIGAN: My name is Bill Kerrigan. I'm president of the Poinciana Village Civic Association and treasurer of the Second District Association. I have to -- I guess, this was worthless to even write up since you're not going to let me speak. I was going to use the five minutes, but that's been cut out. I just have to say that I didn't know that deals cut by Mr. Wiegold would, you know, be brought up. No -- no public input and then you all decided. I don't like it. But I'd just like to say here's a reasonable compromise. Here's Poinciana Village, which you just lowered their low -- zoning standards. Here. Can I bring them up, or does anybody bring these up? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hand them to Mr. Weigel. MR. KERRIGAN: You'll see fencing where people have had cement mixers hid. It hides boats and whatever. I mean, why not put the stuff in the back yard? I mean, why, you -- you know, does it have to be in the front? It can be done. And, like, my lot's 75 by 100. It's not a big one. And, you know, I just feel that there's a lot of cai -- tails out there wagging the dog, and I just got mine lowered with no input, no nothing. I mean, I'm -- throw this away now. I mean, I really resent what just went on here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it hasn't gone on yet. You may not have the five minutes to talk, but we haven't voted. It's not decided. It takes four votes. MR. KERRIGAN: Well, if you want to, ask me some questions about those pictures. But I -- I think that, you know, people can put their commercial vehicles in the back yard. They're -- you know, it's out of sight, out of mind. And then nobody has a problem with it. And I think when you get the -- get a -- a reasonable barrier instead of this 20-foot vegetative barrier ones -- but I've been to all three of these meetings. Mr. Wiegold hasn't been to any of them, just -- just this one. And -- you know, and -- and now I hear he's worked out a compromise, and I'm not any part of it. I mean, there's -- there is something wrong here with this process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This -- this isn't about Mr. Wiegold, and it's not about -- how many of you own trucks here own a home? How many of you live in apartments? How many of you rent? You know, the homes in Naples Park only have 7 1/2-foot setbacks in the side yard. How are you going to get anything back there? MR. KERRIGAN: Well, maybe they don't want to be a -- a -- an industrial park, Tim. Have you considered that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I have, Bill. You and I disagree, but don't make it personal with either Butch or with me. MR. KERRIGAN: Well, you didn't disagree when we had a meeting with the Second District Association, and you told us at a luncheon at Merriman's Wharf that the only thing you'd do is vote to tighten them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not what I said, Bill, but thank you for mis -- MR. KERRIGAN: There were other people there, and it was not a mischaracterization. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Delaney and Mr. Wilson. MR. DELANEY: Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the council, I appreciate the offer to address you. I'm here on behalf of Vanderbilt Beach, my neighbors, friends, and associates. And we're adamantly opposed to any weakening and especially this Item 5 about leaving ladders out. Any of this is just an open -- open door to start a business at home, working-out-of-your-home-type of business. But I want to go on to bigger things. We've lived here for over 25 years, and Naples is a city that's known around the world of a city of dignity. It's here because people and board members prior to you have set standards. We have picked up garbage. We've adopted a highway. We've volunteered at nature -- nature's (sic) conservancy. We've picked up the beaches. And these are the standards that we have set, and they have been set by other members of the board who also had to make hard decisions. So I had a speech that I wanted to prepare, but what I really want to say is please accept the hard decisions that were made by members before you. This courthouse is one of them. There was a lot of flap. All the progress that has been made has had flap. But the standards, when they're made and they're made with the idea of contributing to the community, hold. Anytime -- and I am going to take a whack at somebody. Anytime you lower or let standards slide, you get repulsive buildings like Toys R Us. I'll take that or that Bath and Beyond sign that's out there. Please help us keep hard standards. It pays off. I understand that people move here. It's a growing community. But my right to live in a community without looking vehicles -- at commercial vehicles precedes the right of the tenant two doors down that came in from south Georgia in a battered pickup truck, in a van. And I think he does -- seals driveways out of his house. That's his means of -- of making a living. I've asked him if he knows who his city council is; he does not. I asked him if he knows who Guy Carlton is; he does not. I asked him if he knows who Neil Dotrill is; he does not. He is here to milk the system. This offends me. All of the people that wish to contribute to a community, I applaud you. I ask you whenever you write this to please take in the standards that, whatever you pass, are going to be here. And we -- I think our -- ladders on the top of pickups and this sort of thinc is not a contribution to the community. And if everyone will figure from that angle, I think we will have something. I appreciate your time and effort. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just in response I -- I want to take one second. And I know you guys hate it when I do this; so I'll promise to be really quick. But I think that there's a misimpression out there, based on what Mr. Kerrigan said, that we've already, you know, voted -- already decided and this compromise has been struck. I need for you to know, and -- and I, you know, may need an escort to my car. But -- but I'm -- I'm not supportive of these changes. I'm not supportive of the compromise. As -- as much of a problem as it is for -- for people to have to address what to do with their trucks and the investment that's important there, I think we have to look at the investment of somebody -- $100,000 in a house that's being diminished by trucks with ladders in front. So I -- I'm going to just tell you that that's where I'm standing on this. MR DORRILL: Mr. Wilson. MR WILSON: Who did you say? MR DORRILL: Maynard Wilson. MR WILSON: That's me. MR DORRILL: Mr. Wilt, you'll follow this gentleman. MR WILSON: Last time I was someplace where they called a Wilson, five of us stood up at the same time. I'm Maynard Wilson. I live in Golden Gate City, as a few of you know. I've been an opponent of this commercial vehicle parking for a long time, had a lot of problems with it. Parking of a passenger-type van or workingman's van, whatever you want to call it, has never bothered me. I realize that these people are working; they do have jobs to do; and they do contribute to the community. I get upset, though, when the guy goes from a pickup truck, a passenger-type van, into a cube van, into all of these big, humongous trucks with 100 square foot of billboard on the side of it. And that's what I've been opposed to, same way I've had people talk about septic tank wagons. You know, these are things that I think most people object to. Small pickup truck, a van, I have no objections to. I don't like the lettering on them, but that's acceptable. A ladder, a few pieces of pipe doesn't bother me. I think your compromise, in my opinion, would be acceptable to most of the residents. Now, some residents would say no because it will be human nature to start with an acceptable compromise, and then that will be added to and added to, and like you say, we will get out of control again. If we start getting out of control again, then is the time that we bring it back up again and do something drastic about it. But as it stands now, I think I could live with it. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wilt, then Ms. Barnett. MR. WILT: For the record, Glenn Wilt. Good evening, Commissioners. We've been on this thing for a year; and we went one step forward, two back, and one forward again. Just to clarify some of the points that were made by some of the people here, the -- the fact that -- this ordinance has been on the books for I don't know how many years. The problem is it has not been enforced, the original ordinance. The reason it was not enforced, because it could not be clarified to a certain point to certain people on the Code Enforcement Board. For the past year or 18 months, we've been trying to satisfy this problem -- to clarify it. We've got the height limitation, the width, length. I live in Golden Gate City, and the people here that spoke before me are absolutely correct. You have people out there that don't want a van in the driveway if it's got a logo on the side of it. Well, let's face facts. It's -- there are homes out there that you cannot get -- like was mentioned by Commissioner Hancock, there's setback requirements. You can't get the vehicle in the back yard to start off with. I don't have a problem with the van with the logo on the side of it. I've been working with these other groups for quite a period of time. I don't have a problem with this compromise that you were given a copy of the language this evening, with the stipulation that we have to get something on the book -- get -- get in this land development window at this opportunity, is the way I feel, so that we can go forward. And for the next year we'll have something we can use for enforcement. Right now we don't have anything we can enforce with to get some of these vehicles out of the areas. So if we can put this compromise on the books and then for the next year go through an enforcement period -- go through a study period, then at the end of next year if we find out the thing needs to be tweaked again or needs to be twisted this way or that, in a year's time we'll come back and review it at the next LDC go-around. I don't have a problem with that, and the people I've talked to don't have a problem with that. There's only one thing that I have in -- at any group or groups of people are trying to reach a compromise. You don't compromise and reach full agreement 100 percent. I would like to see a limitation on the number of ladders or the number of pipes on the top of that vehicle. This is not in agreement with the other parties that were in the discussion, but that's our position. I can live with the compromise as it's currently written for one year so we have something on the books to go out there and be able to enforce and put it to work and come back a year later. But, again, I have to throw in there -- I have to make a statement that I would like to see a limit on the ladders and the pipes. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Barnett and Mr. Phillips. MS. BARNETT: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Sheri Barnett. I've looked over the ordinance as it's changed, and I am representing the Golden Gate Area Civic Association, which I am president of. As far as our group is concerned, I believe that this is a compromise that -- there are portions of my group that are going to kill me for this -- that I think we can accept. I would like to make sure, though, in Section 5 where it states, "shall not extend beyond the length, height, and width of the vehicle," I would like to see that as proposed in No. 4, as the 7.5 feet, etc., because that is not clear. And then that way that would clarify that. The other thing is, as Glenn had stated, I would like to see a limitation put on the ladder and possibly on the pipe. And if you have a larger size pipe and you can contain that and put other piping inside of it and have it so that it is closed at both ends, I would think that that would make it a little bit neater, because I'm afraid if we just say piping, we're going to have 55 pipes across that are all different sizes and loose or somewhat loose, and that might get sloppy. And that's my only point. Otherwise, I think that the compromise is a good step forward. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Phillips and Mr. MacFarlane. MS. PHILLIPS: Commissioners, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. My name is Max Phillips. I am a Golden Gate resident. I work, and I don't have a truck. Yes, there are workers that do not have trucks. I live in a neighborhood, not a gated community, but a real-world neighborhood consisting of nine streets laid out in somewhat of a rectangular fashion. The residents of these nine streets consist of some senior citizens, some of which, but not all, are retired. Those that are retired are retired from their place of employment, not retired from life. Many of them are still very active in the community. There are many young peoples -- people, lots of families, young couples, and a great number of blue-collar workers in my neighborhood, many of which either own or have at their disposal commercial vehicles. I'm proud to say that you do not see commercial vehicles in my neighborhood. My neighbors have a great sense of pride about where they live. They set good examples for their children and others about living with rules and regulations even when it's not convenient or cost-effective for an individual but benefits the community as a whole. So who will speak for us? I hope it's this board. We do not have the numbers or the clout to circle the wagons and make a grandstand, but I am asking you to give us the tools that will ensure that my neighborhood is not degraded by those who might come along and, for self-serving reasons, do their own thing. It's not always convenient or cost-effective for my neighbors to house their commercial vehicles either in their garages or off site, but they do it because it's the right thing to do. Please make sure that people such as myself that live in residential neighborhoods are protected against those who are self-serving and place high community standards at the bottom of their priorities. You have generated much publicity with regard to your displeasure at the sight of the Toys R Us and Sports Authority buildings. Please relate that same level of -- of concern for the appearance of our residential neighborhoods. Please hear our concern. And I might say that the entire compromise as it's written is acceptable, except I would have to have that ladder limited to one and one pipe capped at each end, which could include other pipes, but visually you would only see one pipe. And I thank you for your time. MR. DORRILL: Mr. MacFarlane and then Ms. Mortensen. MR. MACFARLANE: I'm Stu MacFarlane, Coastland Auto Center and Towing. One -- before I get into my concerns, I would just like to make a -- a comment about the removal of the ladders. I think you -- Mr. Wiegold's employee was going out on an emergency call at three in the morning and put a ladder back up on the truck, I think he'd raise more concern with the noise he would make doing that. I think you ought to consider that very carefully. Don't do that. But my concern is tow trucks. We answer police calls in the middle of the night or at any given time. We have a 20-minute response time in the city. We have a 30-minute response time anywhere else in the county by the highway patrol or the sher -- sheriff's department. There's an element of safety here. We have to get the roads cleared in a timely manner, plus you may have a person trapped in a vehicle underneath another vehicle, and they need a tow truck to remove it. The jaws of life won't do that. There is a safety element here, and I -- I think an emergency -- the -- a tow truck could be designated as an emergency vehicle, if we have to get special permits to do it. I believe this was done in the City of Naples. There was a contractor -- a towing contractor that had a problem, and he addressed it, and he was designated as a -- as a emergency vehicle. I haven't heard this addressed anywhere, but I think it should be. My employees -- and I have several -- three employees that live in Golden Gate -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can tell you exactly where, because I see their trucks all the time -- MR. HACFARLANE: Well, I just -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- out there. MR. HACFARLANE: Okay. But their -- their trucks -- they're told to put them at one end of the condominiums where the -- they allow truck parking within the condominium complex. They're not shielded as -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- can I just ask you -- MR. MACFARLANE: Yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know that that's currently a violation of the ordinance? The current ordinance prohibits -- MR. MACFARLANE: Yes. I -- I understand that. I understand that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we're talking about weakening the ordinance tonight. MR. MACFARLANE: I -- yeah. This has happened -- I mean, this has been since -- well, I've been -- since 1980 out there. I've been in business since 1971, but since 1980 I've had employees parking their trucks in The Gate. It's been going on and on and on. But there is an emergency situation involved here. I would like it to be addressed. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Mortensen. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's be sure and refer code enforcement in that direction. MR. DORRILL: Then Mr. and Mrs. Hohrbacher. MS. HORTENSEN: Good evening. For the record my name is Flo Hortensen. I live in Naples Park. I'm a homeowner for more than 20 years. When we look out of our windows, we should be viewing a neighborhood that inspires pride and encourages us to maintain our property to the best of our abilities. Trucks stocked with ladders, hazardous waste, Lord only knows how many pieces of commercial equipment and supplies are out of place in a developed community, most especially when buzz words like "green space" and "street space" are presently dominating the media and gaining support as residents of Collier County look to the future. Protesters of the ordinance under consideration speak of convenience and service vehicles with one ladder and a pipe. That is hooey (phonetic). Who is going to monitor the contents of these vehicles? There's a homeowner who lives nearby, and he backs his truck into the garage, concealing his lawn maintenance equipment. The front of the truck doesn't fit, but it's not an eyesore. That's a citizen who cares about his neighborhood. The building industry argues that bringing a truck home prevents having to buy another vehicle. My argument, which I would urge you to seriously consider, concerns property values which most of us -- which most assuredly will decline if commercial vans and trucks filled with unsightly materials are permitted to park in adjacent driveways. Presently there is a catamaran parked on the front lawn of a house close to mine. If I were in the process of selling my home, I doubt a realtor would be able to get the fair market value for this senior citizen who cannot afford a loss depreciation so the truck drivers can save money. We all know the property taxes will continue to go up, but property values will go down unless a restrictive ordinance is -- is adopted. A compromise will not suffice, because it will be abused. Please don't mess up Naples Park. Adopt an ordinance that will protect the majority of homeowners who care and those of us who are subsisting on declining incomes. Thank you for listening. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hohrbacher and Ms. Fitz-Gerald. MR. HOHRBACHER: Hello. John Hohrbacher here. I appreciate -- if you guys are going to vote for a compromise, that's all I've been asking for the past year. I spoke at last spring's meeting, and fortunately, I didn't get thrown out. The -- the whole process -- all I asked is it become public and we get a chance to hear our side of the story, which obviously it has because there was only 12 people last time. As long as you guys are in the compromise position, I am too, and I appreciate that. As a homeowner I don't have a problem with what my neighbor drives home. That's his -- my -- it's none of my business what my neighbor does for a living, what kind of truck he drives as long as it's not a semi. So that's all I have to say, because I was going to pass. But as long as you guys are on our side, I appreciate that. Well, we're on both sides, but thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Fitz-Gerald, then Ms. Newman. MS. FITZ-GERALD: That was an interesting slip of the tongue: "As long as we know you're on our side," he said. Please remember that because that is the impression that's been being conveyed here tonight. And I -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Name, please. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Oh, sorry. I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald. And I'm just about as angry as Bill Kerrigan because no one consulted me. No one consulted the property owners of Naples Park. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Okay. That -- that's the second time it's come up. Let me just address that. We -- we have spoken to members of the civic association that originally brought this forward '- MS. FITZ-GERALD: Yes. I understand that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- as well as the members -- representatives of the -- the trades community. And this was done yesterday and today, and we are having a public meeting on it. I don't want you to say that we're trying to do something behind your back, Hiss Fitz-Gerald. MS. FITZ-GERALD: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's not the case. This is '- MS. FITZ-GERALD: Oh -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- a public hearing. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I understand that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We haven't voted on it yet. We're letting you have your time -- MS. FITZ-GERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- so please don't accuse us of doing something behind your back. MS. FITZ-GERALD: No. I wasn't accusing you of that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To the best of my knowledge, none of the commissioners were involved -- MS. FITZ-GERALD: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in any of those meetings. So, I mean -- I mean, that's -- those groups decided to try to get together and make something work. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Okay. But I was part of the original meeting. Mr. Chairman, as -- as Commissioner Constantine was there, and he will agree that I was part of the original group. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ms. Fitzgerald, it probably bears noting that I think -- I -- people keep talking about this like it's a done deal. It takes four votes, and there aren't four votes. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Okay. The -- I agree totally with what the man from Vanderbilt Beach said. It's interesting -- and, again, I'm going to bring this up, and you may jump on me, Mr. Chairman. But Mr. Wiegold lives down on Vanderbilt Lagoon. I would like to know if he takes his trucks home and parks them in his front yard like he seems to think it's okay to do in Naples Park where -- his old neighborhood. I take great exception to that. I -- I had something set. I wrote something based on 5 minutes. I put it in 20-point type so I could see it, but it -- I don't have enough time now. And, anyway, I lost some of my time; so I get another half a minute. I -- I can't understand what's wrong with these businesses having a place of business. They say they need these vehicles for emergency. Well, what's wrong with a person being on duty and going out from that place of business if they have to work all night? My husband was in the military, and he often spent all night on duty, and he didn't do it from his home. One of the things I've done this past two weeks is I have been asking people what makes a slum. Why do -- why do areas become slums? And I found this very interesting. Some of their responses, besides the cut-through traffic -- one of the major things that they all agreed causes slums is the failure of local government to take action to prevent -- to protect -- I get half a minute -- to protect the communities; the failure of local government to enact strict ordinances; and the failure of local government to insist their code enforcement people act on those strict ordinances. And it's interesting, if you look at some of the areas up north; and you say, Why did these places become slums. And that is exactly what happened. Now, if you drive down the street and you see these ugly trucks with things hanging off them -- ladders and pipes and what all -- what do you think that does to the value of that community? I think a potential buyer going down those roads is going to say, I don't want to live here. And I think that they say -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MS. FITZ-GERALD: -- they're going to save a bit of money, but we're going to lose it. MR. DORRILL: Cheryle Newman. MS. FITZ-GERALD: So I ask you not to weaken the ordinance, please. MR. DORRILL: Then Mr. Fuchs. Cheryle Newman. MS. NEWMAN: I pass. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fuchs. Mr. Pistori, you'll follow Mr. Fuchs. MR. FUCHS: Good evening. Ken Fuchs, district manager, Continental Cablevision. We are very concerned with the language that has been considered throughout the process; however, in a spirit of time and efficiency, we have taken a real hard look at the compromise language and believe that we can take the necessary operational modifications to our business to be in compliance with that which has been compromised. We roll trucks to -- 4700 times a month, and customer service is paramount in our business as well as safety. Again, we are supportive of the compromise language. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pistori. Lawrence Pistori. MR. PISTORI: Right here. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hayes, you'll follow this gentleman. Go right ahead. MR. PISTORI: My name is Lawrence Pistori. I'm from Naples Park. Commercial vehicles do not belong in a residential communities (sic). And I know that we're overwhelmed here. You have all the industry here, and we don't stand a chance against all this pressure. I can see -- is -- pressure's coming out. But I'm against any weakening. We don't want to turn Naples Park into -- let -- I've only been here six years, and this year I've seen such an increase of commercial vehicles that it's unbelievable. Now, you allow this to happen, it's going to inter -- they're going to interpret this: Oh, the county don't care; there's nobody there at night to check up on us. And they're just going to keep adding on the ladder. There's going to be some more equipment. There's going to be a pump. There's going to be this. There's going to be that. And who's going to control it? I don't want no runaway, uncontrolled commercial to come into a community residential and ruin it. A residential community's a place to go there to build a decent house, to go sleep and feel reasonably safe, plant flowers, bushes. That's what you come there for. You know, otherwise, I might as well go live in and move in Hiami. At least they got public transportation there. So, I mean, I don't -- you want to turn this into a slum. We got a slogan out: Keep Collier paradise. Well, what? Are you going to have this paradise lost? I mean, you know, if you're going to weaken, then the -- the next thing you're going to see in one year -- you -- you think you got something now? As the old saying goes, you ain't seen nothing yet. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hayes and then Mr. Perkins. MR. HAYES: Good evening, Commissioners. I was hoping that we wouldn't have to take all night with -- with everyone at five o'clock this evening, but apparently I wasn't quite in tune with all of the objections. This is -- this compromise is not satisfactory with everyone; it just isn't. But it is a step in the right direction toward some form of enforceable legislation that we can work with a little while, study it for a little while, find out what kind of an impact it is on the community, both directions. The existing ordinance has not been enforced, which means that the slums haven't been built yet without the enforcement. I don't think a year of studying and working on it is going to hurt it that bad. To enforce an absolute shutdown on commercial vehicles tonight is a radical step. I don't know if the individuals willing -- that are concerned over it are willing to pay the increase in the property taxes it's going to take to hire enough enforcement officers to run these highways all day long and stop this, because the majority of the individuals of this community seems to be related somewhat to the construction and service industry. Serving of the majority is by and large what we have to look at. We understand that there are only a few of us that would acomp -- who are accepting this compromise without question. Most of us all have objections to it. This is only a step in the right direction to allow enforcement of some format of limited commercial vehicles until we can study it, put it together, workshop it with all the communities and the construction industry instead of fighting among ourselves the way we're doing tonight. This community needs to work together, not oppose each other. And this compromise was only to -- an attempt at trying to work together. I've got all kinds of notes here. But, like I said, I'm -- I'm not going to mention them because I don't want to take any more time. If this issue is not settled tonight with some form of compromise like this, we don't have -- code enforcement has no enforceable ordinance in place. And if it gets radical tonight, then we're talking about a radical change in a lot of people's lives tonight. And I'm just saying that if we can move this thing along to some format of compromise, study it, work with it for the next year, bring it back up at the next -- in a year, and study it again, I think we might say, Well, this works with these exceptions and everybody work together, and it's over with. The big monster is put to bed. We just need to work together, and that's all I'm asking. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins. Mr. Wadsworth, we'll have you stand by, please. MR. PERKINS: Good evening, Commissioners. A1 Perkins, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights, gang. I got the biggest mouth in Collier County. Ask them. Mr. Hayes made us some very valid points. The Constitution goes on to say about liberty, pursuit of happiness, and equal opportunity. The compromise and the working together and the participating of all of the parties to continue this to where we can resolve the problem -- because whether you know it or not, I was -- I am one of you working stiffs. Now, I was just being nice. That's not what I'm usually called. The point is -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll vouch for that too. MR. PERKINS: Yes. The point is, you guys are out there working. Now, of course, you could be laying on the beach, or you could be playing tennis or golf. But instead you're in a stinking, hot attic with insulation, and your skin is crawling; or you're trying to build something for somebody who wants to take and pay less than what they're -- expect to get for it. Needless to say, you're being, in the word, used. And the point is, you're being used to the extent that you're (sic) let yourself be used. This is -- means that you work to take and support your family and to try to get along. And a big thing is -- is how you're being oppressed. I want to address a few things here. When you take and enforce the code, you have to walk a fine line of harassment. Be careful. I don't know whether the insurance end of this thing has been addressed or not. But when you add more trucks and more vehicles on the road, you have more accidents. You use more tires. You need more oil, gas, pollution, storage, security, extra ca -- cost, taxes. And when these people take these vehicles home -- and I hope you people are listening at home -- this is bonus money. This is -- they don't have to pay for the vehicle nor the insurance nor the tires nor the maintenance. And they eliminate other vehicles on the road. You people are constantly complaining about the traffic in the Naples area. Now you want to double it. Think. Try to think. One of the things that I'm very against is putting any more vehicles on, especially one -- buses, garbage trucks, and all the rest of them at working hours. Needless to say, this needs to be very well looked at, this thing, closely. Compromise is a very nice word. You have to keep the working slob who's out here paying the taxes to paying the taxes and paying the taxes and paying the taxes. By the way, a little commercial. You guys, Tuesday vote. For Christ's sake, vote. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wadsworth. (Applause) MR. WADSWORTH: Russ -- MR. DORRILL: Ms. Wiegold, you'll follow this gentleman. MR. WADSWORTH: Russ Wadsworth, sole proprietor of Word of Mouth Painting. Speaking with Mike Nees (sic), I was hoping there's a possibility that the commission could work with the tax collectors, code enforcement, and motor vehicle to let people know before they invest in a truck that can't be parked in their area -- whether it be a flashing red light on the computer -- that they know that they can't park that vehicle before they buy it. Maybe even before they take their test to become a contractor in Collier County, because I fell victim to that. And I can't legally park my truck in my driveway. In order to park -- many -- I -- I'm hoping that the commission, before they come to a decision, will take the personal aspect of this; and that's if it's done immediately without, maybe, further study -- I'm not sure, but there's a personal aspect here. And a lot of people rely on that second vehicle. And it will dis -- disrupt families, as -- as it could mine. I cannot afford a second vehicle and the insurance and all that. I -- as an individual -- I won't go far into it, but it would cost me anywhere from $2500 or more to get landscaping done to cover a 9-foot truck with foliage in the back of my -- in my Golden Gate house and over $9,000 to build a garage, not including permits. So there's a hardship we're going to have to work through. I hope there's -- there's a little -- a leeway of time to work with this. I know it's a code a lot of us didn't know about. Boy, we know about it now. I appreciate it. And I -- I -- I'm glad that we're working on a compromise, and I hope we can stay with what we have and continue to work on -- compromise more in the future. Thank you. (Applause) MR. DORRILL: Ms. Wiegold and then Ms. Walker. MS. WIEGOLD: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Mary Wiegold, and I'm here actually representing myself. The first thing I want to do is clarify a statement that Mr. Delaney made earlier. He said that he was representing Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association. I want you to realize that I am on the board of directors there, and we have never taken a stand, as he had said, against this. So please have an open mind to it. Some of what youwre hearing may be exaggerated. But I wanted to clarify that with you. In addition, I would like everyone who has spoken and those that are in this room to realize that our commissioners should be given the respect -- the due respect for the positions that they are in and that they are here to make a decision with open minds. And do not feel something has been predetermined, because it has not. And thatws what these public hearings are for. One other thing that I would like you to consider is real estate property values. I really would like someone to tell me that the property values in Naples in the concerned areas have gone down or are affected by the trucks in the driveways. Iwd have a problem being convinced of it without hard proof of it. I also do realize that the people who live next to each other in whatever community should be acting as neighbors. And I donwt feel or hear any kind of that respect for speaking with someone who lives next door to you as a neighbor. There are massive fences to whatws going on in the different subdivision areas. Those need to be addressed. They are addressed in the proposed ordinance thatws been brought to your attention. And I think that this is a good workable situation. It was brought up by the people who are concerned in here and that is government by the people. And, therefore, Commissioners, you also should be respectful of what is brought to your attention. One other thing I just want to clarify is we do have a facility to house our vehicles in our company. What this is is a benefit to our employees. It would be tremendous economical impact on every single individual. Our unemployment rate is at the lowest it has ever been. Skilled technicians and workers are extremely hard to find. One of the benefits that we provide in order to stay in the community and service the community is a vehicle to come to and from work. COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Can I ask you a question about that? MS. WIEGOLD: Surely. COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: It -- this compromise language that permits ladders and pipes on the vehicles would allow the Wiegold trucks -- that would satisfy your concerns? MS. WIEGOLD: Yes, it would. And it would also address the concerns -- because youwve got the limitations as to the size, the height, and the width. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: But -- but if you -- if we eliminated the ladders and pipes -- MS. WIEGOLD: Hmm. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: -- the Wiegold trucks donlt -- canlt work anymore? MS. WIEGOLD: The individual would still have to have that equipment in order to perform his job function. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: So then therels not some other -- he couldnlt take it off the truck or -- you know, I just donlt understand why this ladder and pipe is -- is worth these hours of discussions and why that is the critical factor here. MS. WIEGOLD: Okay. If we would do that, where would they store it? Now, we cannot assume everyone has a garage. We cannot assume everyone has an empty garage. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The back yard? MS. WIEGOLD: It would have to be protected, too, and shielded. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Leaned up against the back of the house? You know -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know how much those ladders cost? MS. WIEGOLD: Are we also making a problem there? You know -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you, Hiss Wiegold. MS. WIEGOLD: Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Walker. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Walker's the final speaker on the commercial vehicles. I've got two on -- under the landscape code and -- and then one under architectural. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, we're going to finish this particular section, and then we'll go on with the rest of the LDC later. We just wanted to accommodate the people that came here for this one, because I know there's -- there's probably several people out there that came for this one. MS. WALKER: Hi. My name is Theresa Walker. I had previously pared -- prepared something else, but at 5:05 I found out about the compromise language. Ideally, I wouldn't like to see any commercial vehicles in my neighborhood, but I've never really had a problem with the passenger-type vans. A ladder, a piece of pipe is not a problem for me. Be perfect if they weren't there, but my father used to drive a truck. My husband used to drive a truck. You know, I've been there. I'd like to see better enforcement. We have semi trucks still parking in our neighborhoods, step vans, flatbed trucks. There was a truck for three days parked in our area, just off Sun -- Sunshine, full of cinder block. It was there for three days. Why? There's no construction in the area. I'm -- I think if we can compromise on this, it would be great. But I'd like to see better enforcement. Get some more people out there. They can't -- they don't do it enough on the -- on the weekends. There's nobody there in the evenings. We had a -- recently had a dump truck around the corner from us. They're gone during the day. So if we can get some of that taken care of, I think that will eliminate the problems. Automobiles, passenger-type vans, and pickup trucks really aren't the problem. I -- I agree with the compromise. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if I can -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me go first. I think Mr. Hayes really iljustrated one of the points that needs to be talked about here and probably the best of any of the speakers. If we don't adopt some change to our code tonight and leave it the way it was before we -- we came up with a -- an amendment, then we're -- we're going to be left with a -- with a code that has generally been considered by our staff as somewhat unenforceable; therefore, we really don't have anything, which is worse than having something that not everybody may be happy with. If you don't have anything, that's -- that's going to be back where we were, which started this whole discussion in the first place. So, Hiss Hac'Kie, I'm -- I might ask you in the next few minutes before we take a vote on this to at least consider that -- that what we -- what we're trying to do here tonight is to start with this compromise proposal. And, you know, we may very well, a year from now, come up with something that's a little bit tighter or -- or maybe make no change or whatever. But I think that we -- that we couldn't go -- as Mr. Hayes said, go cold turkey tonight and eliminate and make a drastic life-style change with some of the people that are -- that are here in our community that -- that are at this point relying on these vehicles as second vehicles. But if we -- if we start with this proposal tonight with the understanding that we may very well take some further action next year, at least that will give the industry and the working people some time to accommodate this change and make the adjustments that they may need to or at least to consider it over the next year in working with our staff and -- and perhaps with other public hearings in the -- in the commission chambers here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me just be real clear about the part that I don't agree to. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The part that I -- I agree to every part of the proposed new ordinance. I agree we have to change the ordinance, but what I don't agree to is the weakening of the existing ordinance. The only part I don't agree to -- to in the change is No. 5. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try to answer that, because I -- I think Commissioner Norris makes some good points. But I -- I agree. I mean, Mr. Kerrigan and Mr. Pistori got up and said exactly what you just said, and that is we don't want to weaken the existing code. And -- and I -- I agree. Unfortunately, the existing code, at best, is ambiguous; at worst, is unenforceable. And -- and what I see happening with our new code is we are stricter in that this clarifies there's no cube trucks, no box vans. It sets specific size restrictions which didn't exist before. It is much clearer, much more enforceable. So in -- in that vein it is certainly stricter. I -- I agree with you that there are those who could interpret the ladder or the pipe portion -- because it wasn't mentioned, it was ignored in the old ordinance -- that you could interpret that as being more lenient. I guess I see it like Mr. Hayes or like Commissioner Norris did. Is -- I -- my personal preference would be not to have the ladder, not to have the pipes. But if we can get the remainder of this more strict by offering that compromise, we end up with a stricter ordinance that can be enforced and a mechanism to come back in 12 months if we find -- in six months for that matter if we choose, but we've -- we've set a goal of 12 months. If we find that half the violations out there are ladders and -- and pipes or if that's a terrible problem, we've got a mechanism to address that. But this allows us to take -- we've heard this -- the phrase over and over, "the first step," and I think it does. It -- it becomes more strict. It becomes enforceable. In a perfect world I wouldn't agree to that either, but I don't think we're going to get to a point tonight where we're in that perfect world. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you could if you would agree to adopt everything except No. 5, because you'd get those clarifications you desire appropriately. You'd get all of the improvements to the ordinance that -- that we've spent all these many, many months in workshops and meetings on without diminishing people's private property rights. And -- and as much as we have respect for somebody who invested the $30,000 in the vehicle that they can't -- or fifty; I don't know what they cost -- to -- to park a commercial vehicle, what about the person who spent $100,000 counting on us to enforce the ordinance that was in place at the time they bought their house? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- and that's a very good point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can't let them down. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's a very good point. But on the other hand, please take into consideration the fact that if you just -- if you just slam the door tonight, that tomorrow morning -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We are letting them down. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. We're -- we're letting some of our other citizens down. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But let's don't -- I -- I'm asking you look at it the other way. You're the one -- surely if I -- if I won't agree to No. 5, you guys aren't going to talk -- I -- I'm going to make a motion. If -- if -- if somebody makes a motion to approve the ordinance as it is now, I'm not going to vote for it. Then I'm going to make a motion that says I -- I support everything but No. 5. Is anybody going to second that? Couldn't we then vote on that? Couldn't we then solve this problem? And then we'll do what Commissioner Hancock is talking about on the architectural is maybe we're starting stricter and we back up, but let's start stricter. Let's at least don't weaken what we have. That -- the irony of having started this because of enforcement problems and -- and now to weaken the code -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You -- you've drawn an analogy, I think, that's valid; and I'll explain why. I have -- you know, you've used the word "weaken" several times. Okay. Two years ago when you and I came on this board, step vans were being parked in Golden Gate and not being red tagged. Mr. Cautero inherited language that was being interpreted in a manner that was not consistent with what the board may have intended. None of us know because we didn't put that language in there. We inherited a problem. The problem was the interpretation was so loose, and the language was not specific enough that specific enforcement actions would be challenged considerably. And Mr. Cautero recommended that we revise that language. And if I'm misstating that in any way, Vince, please interrupt me. So we were faced with tightening an existing condition. What we have done to date is to take the absurdities out of consideration. The step vans, the -- and -- and with all due deference to Mr. MacFarlane, that -- the tow trucks. You know, I -- I may be the only person up here that doesn't live in a deed-restricted community. I don't know. I'm in the same boat as Naples Park and Golden Gate. And, you know, I mean, I'm on a public street. We don't have an association that enforces deed restrictions. So I'm subject to this like everybody else. I'm talking about my neighbor and my house. And, you know, we have gone from that "loosy goosy" step van, box van, tow truck being allowed because we weren't sure we could enforce it to a position of saying those things clearly are not consistent. We're asked to make the next step which says a van with a ladder on the top diminishes property value. That's your argument, that the ladder on that van is bringing the property values in that neighborhood down. That really is what your argument is, as I -- as I understand it. With the lax manner in which we have enforced things -- I called three realtors that deal specifically in Naples Park property. The average value of homes in Naples Park has increased more than the average countywide. There are people in Naples Park that tell you that's not true. I only know what three realtors who sell in that area told me. That's without the enforcement. So I have a difficult time saying now that we will have the tools to enforce it in a stricter manner than has been in the past, we are weakening it. And that's where I take strong exception with Mr. Kerrigan's statement that I have not done as I said I would. I have. I have -- I have agreed to and am proposing something stricter than what was being enforced when the problem was brought to us. That's tightening. I have to agree with the comments made tonight and have to go one step further. Not only are we tightening and saying, Look, a compromise is necessary to avoid people who are taking these vehicles home who may live in areas in which they don't have a garage or can't store things from losing their job or having to go out and buy another car. You are asking us to take that step tonight and force that condition. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All I'm asking is to not allow the ladders and pipes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If -- if I am -- if I'm just simply swimming upstream, I'll save every -- everybody's time. But the point of my statement is that in architectural standards we started with nothing. There were none. What was proposed six weeks ago was a little tighter than what we have now, a little more stringent. Why did we loosen it? Because the application was seen not to make sense in some specific areas. Now, the board -- if the board had heard it six weeks ago yet we brought it back and -- and made it to a lesser degree and approved it, did we tighten architectural standards or loosen them? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. And -- and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is an analogy. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You make a good point that even though I think that the ordinance that we previously had was perfectly enforceable, we weren't enforcing it. So that -- that makes this somehow a tightening. In an effort to try to get off dead center here -- because I'd like for you guys to say you would agree to take out No. 5., but I -- I hear a lot of objection to that. What if we -- I '- I'm concerned about the potential abuse. What if we had one ladder -- this business about a pipe that's enclosed on the ends if there's more inside? I mean, there's just a potential for abuse here that's going to diminish property values. What if we added the -- the size limitation not to exceed the 7 1/2 -- so -- okay. Let me make a motion -- if a motion's appropriate -- that we adopt the -- the ordinance with the compromises proposed, but with this change: that exempted from this section is small commercial equipment not to exceed one ladder and one pipe capped on either -- on both ends. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With a maximum diameter of 12 inches? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want "and" or "or"? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know. I don't know. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: With a maximum diameter of 12 inches. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then it continues to read as is until the end of -- the end of the sentence where after the word vehicle we say, "not to exceed 7 1/2 feet in height nor 7 feet in width nor 25 feet in length." CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I don't -- with all due respect, I don't believe that's necessary. It's already covered in Section 4. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I think the point is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It couldn't hurt to restate it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, is it necessary? I mean, if it is, we will. And if it won't -- I -- I don't have -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- an objection, but I think it's al -- I think Commissioner Norris is right. It's already referenced. MR. WEIGEL: I -- I don't think it's necessary. I think the record you're creating tonight will be just fine if we have to go to court later on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The -- just so that it was understood with the restrictions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the understanding that -- that, Commissioner Mac'Kie, you're not comfortable with anything that's presented other than that change, I'll second the motion because we need to get something on the books tonight. That -- Mr. Cautero had that -- that arm wave of concern (indicating). MR. CAUTERO: No. Not -- not about that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: Just before you vote -- on some logistical changes that legal gave us before the hearing started tonight on No. 4, some minor changes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now would be the time. MR. CAUTERO: The -- they're -- they're punctuational (phonetic) -- to clarify No. 4, which talks about the height, length, and width requirements, the language reads, which do not exceed 7.5 feet in height, 7 feet in width, 7 (sic) feet in length. The words "all of" would be inserted before "which." So it would read "all of which do not exceed 7.5 feet in height nor 7 feet in width nor 25 feet in length," for clarification purposes. Also, the definition of passenger van -- in talking to some of the dealerships it just doesn't work. Commissioner Constantine brought that up at the last meeting. We -- we tried to define it. We have that definition for you in your original packet. It doesn't work. My recommendation is you -- you cross it out, not include it. With these dimensional requirements, I don't think it's needed, quite frankly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: True. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I would incorporate those changes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second amends. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Would you like to try to restate your -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- motion just so that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think I can. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- everyone's clear on what we're doing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That -- that the compromise position would be modified to limit commercial equipment to one ladder or one 12-inch pipe capped on both ends. (Audience response) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The first time was "and" and now it ' s "or." COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: "And" or "or"? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's "or." It's "or." COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Again, we've got four people here, and we need four votes to approve this thing. So I'd -- I'll -- I'll amend. I -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, we have a motion and a second then. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) That -- that ordinance then is adopted. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Going to have a hard time -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That section of the ordinance is adopted. We'll go off the record for a second while they're clearing the room. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene our public hearing tonight. Mr. Mulhere, what's our next -- how are we going to work this now? Is this -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You have some aliens here? MR. MULHERE: There are -- there are approximately four other issues that were left unresolved from your initial hearing of the Land Development Code amendments. One of those was -- was with regard to the -- to the landscape code. Those landscape code revisions dealt with the exotic plants, and our staff had contacted some experts who have voluntarily -- that is at no fee -- come over here to answer any questions that you might have. I have some information on them. There's Chris Lockhart, who has a master's degree from Florida Atlantic University, studied melaleuca with the literal zone of Lake Okeechobee, received her undergraduate degree from Perdue, and is currently involved in environmental research and owns her own business called Habitat -- Habitats R Us. Dr. Robert Reed, who we referred to at our initial meeting, has studied Florida -- south Florida for the last 35 years, received his degree in botany and horticulture from Cornell, and has worked at Fare -- Fairchild Tropical Gardens located in Coral Gables, and spent 25 years with the Smithsonian Institute studying palms and bromeliads. He's currently working with Florida National Wildlife Refuge. And Jim Birch is a local botanist employed by Rookery Bay National Estuary and Reserve. Those -- those experts are here. There are some other individuals in the audience, I think, who represent the -- maybe the Nurserymen's Association. I'm not really sure, but there's some other people on the other side of the issue as well. So with that, the -- the -- the list of exotic plants begins on page 23 of your executive packet. Excuse me -- yes, page 23 and page 24. And with that, if you have any specific questions that you might like to ask these experts, that was, I believe, the -- the -- the major issue left unresolved from the last meeting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can -- can we get some explanation on the carrotwood? Which -- I was the one -- you know, the question was -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And did we talk to the carrotwood? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: "Carrotwood Coalition's" here tonight, by the way. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Save the carrotwood. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By the way, who -- whomever -- and if you're still here, whomever left your cell phone, you're more than welcome to come back and get it. Finders, keepers otherwise. MS. LOCKHART: Okay. I'm pleased to be here. I'm Chris Lockhart. I came from Palm Beach County. Like many exotic pest plants -- or like many exotic plants, particularly -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Chris, I'm sorry. Can -- can I ask -- MS. LOCKHART: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- your background. MS. LOCKHART: I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I know. I -- MS. LOCKHART: I have my bachelor's from Perdue University. I have my master's from Florida Atlantic University in botany. And I've done research with other exotics, like melaleuca, in the Lake Okeechobee literal zone. I currently have my own company doing environmental resorch (phonetic) -- research called Habitats R Us. And so that's why I'm here tonight. I'm -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MS. LOCKHART: -- currently -- have some research that's being funded by the Department of Environmental Protection researching the carrotwood issue for the state on a -- as a statewide issue. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not a -- a done deal with the state yet, still under research? MS. LOCKHART: No. This was strictly to research the problem to determine what kind of problem there is, the extent of the problem, to define the problem, and to see how much of a problem is there, and then to take the steps from there as to what to do then about the situation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You haven't completed that study yet? MS. LOCKHART: No, I've not. I have a lot of my data. I'm in the process of analyzing that, and I have a little bit of preliminary information that I'm going to share with you tonight. Okay. As -- you may have already received some preliminary information on carrotwood. It has -- originated in Australia. And like many exotic plants from Australia, carrotwood is adapted to growing harsh -- to harsh growing conditions; for example, poor nu -- nutrients in the soil, salt spray, brackish water, and varying water availability. Unfortunately, what begins as a hardy landscape tree can turn into another invasion of alien species -- to fit in the Halloween theme here -- trying to take over our native habitats. It has also been observed to compete with Brazilian pepper and Australian pine, and not to many plants can emerge through the pine litter. Some people, even in Sarasota, have compared it with Brazilian pepper; and we certainly don't need another Brazilian pepper in the state. We have enough problem controlling the exotics that have already been identified until now. Carrotwood became popular as a landscape tree by developers and other landscapers beginning in the late 1970s, early 1980s, and it continues to the present. By 1990 reports began to surface of seedlings emerging on spoil islands and state parks, including Delnor-Wiggins State Preserve here in Collier County. And as part of my research, I surveyed in the past 12 months throughout the state making contact with field biologists, park managers, and naturalists. In the past 15 years -- or within 15 years -- which is rather short period of time for a tree being introduced -- it was observed as -- popping up in various places in the wild. I have a little map I'd like to share with you and I have for all of you. Carrotwood has -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Chris. You're going to have to talk on the microphone. MS. LOCKHART: All right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MS. LOCKHART: Let me just share these with you. I'll hold one of those up in case anyone in the audience is interested. This map represents information based on the over 70 reports that I've had -- oh, I'm sorry -- over 70 reports. The blackened areas are counties where carrotwood has been observed to escape into the wild. The white dots represent counties where nurseries have been growing it, and R represents where it has become reproductive in the wild. That is the major concern as to whether it really is a problem. If it doesn't reproduce in the wild, is it really a problem? Well, it has been observed to reproduce; so it looks like it has reached that stage. That has alarmed a number of people. The map goes from approximately Hillsborough County south on the gulf coast and from Brevard County south on the Atlantic coast. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I notice it doesn't seem to be in the central part of the state. MS. LOCKHART: This should not be taken as a complete analysis here. It has been used predominantly in the coastal counties. That's not to say that it isn't also being used to some degree internally. My study is the first, that I'm aware of, of its nature to try to study the full scope of its expanse. I don't have any reports, but it doesn't mean that it's not in those counties. It's most obvious in these counties. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MS. LOCKHART: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Hay I ask an informative question. MS. LOCKHART: Sure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If -- I have queen palms in my front yard. MS. LOCKHART: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if I don't clean up the seeds when they drop, I have 50 queen palms in my front yard six months later. I mean, they just -- they grow like crazy. The seeds sprout anywhere. Why is a queen palm then different than a carrotwood? I mean, why isn't a queen palm exotic, because it would take over what was -- it has taken over what's underneath it unless I pull them out all the time? Why -- MS. LOCKHART: Okay. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the difference between the two? MS. LOCKHART: That's a good point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why is one exotic and invasive and one's not? MS. LOCKHART: And you led me into my next topic, which is how it is dispersed. If it just drops under the tree and only just -- just pops up under the tree, it's usually not a problem. The homeowner can control it. The situation is that it is a very popular fruit for fish-eating crows and mocking birds. Hocking birds are generalists; they go just about anywhere. Fish-eating crows, of course, roost in our mangroves; and, consequently, we are seeing mangroves as one of the key habitats in which they have become a large problem. The highest density -- I've been looking at densities as well as other elements in my study. The highest density is in mangroves. It happens to be in Sarasota County where carrotwood was first introduced. And carrotwood -- Sarasota County -- you may have seen newspaper clippings from that area where it has become a tremendous problem. So I think it's to the dispersal mechanism, in answer to your question. That's the issue here. And I have some photos which -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Cute, cuddly little carrotwoods. MS. LOCKHART: -- shows the tree, how profusely it fruits. And it's the bright red and orange color that attracts a lot of birds and makes a good fruit -- food for them. Then they go out to wherever they roost; and, of course, they drop the seed. And it pops up frequently under trees. There's also one photograph here that I will be passing to you that is from a natural area in Longboat Key in Sarasota County. So it gives you a little bit of an idea that it's not just little seedlings. They are growing, and they do eventually become reproductive. Just pass those on for me. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's always the pretty ones they want to kill. MS. LOCKHART: Along with the bird situation, I have an interesting story. One of the professors in Palm Beach County said he's observed fish-eating crows and mocking birds fighting over the seed. So it is evidently a very popular food item for them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you think it will have a detrimental effect on the bird population if we cut out the carrotwood? MS. LOCKHART: Have a detrimental effect on the birds if we what? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the bird population if we cut out this popular food item for them. MS. LOCKHART: Oh, I'm sure they could find other things, yes. So far I've documented hab -- that wild populations have appeared in nine different habitat types including pine flatwoods, scrub, mangrove, cypress heads, coastal strand, coastal hammock. These are -- cover a large portion of south Florida. So I would say that these habitats are definitely at risk. Hangrove communities in particular at -- are at high risk, of which I understand here in Collier County you have a large area of -- of mangroves that you try to protect. And I -- I commend you for that. But this is an area that is at high risk. And, as I mentioned, the highest density I noted is in mangroves in Sarasota County where it has reached, in some spoil islands, up to 24 plants per meter squared. And this is averaging it over several -- you know, like, 50 to -- no. I guess there's a couple hundred meters. This is what the average was. So that's -- that's a pretty high density. Some of them have become even monocultures. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, when you -- when you say these have become a problem, is that -- the primary problem is they may strangle other -- or -- or push out other species? I mean, the -- these don't -- in and of themselves, they don't take a lot of water. They don't do anything. They -- they just cause problems for other species. Is that the primary problem? MS. LOCKHART: They upset the natural balance. If there are carrotwoods occupying certain space, then it makes it difficult for those plants that are adapted and conditioned to perform a certain function -- like the mangrove trees are limited. They are not highly competitive. They have a limited range in which they can survive. A lot of plants can't tolerate the brackish water, the fluctuating water levels, and so forth. They have adapted to that. But in freshwater conditions they can grow, but they don't survive well because of the competition with other plants which are -- have a broader range of -- of conditions. So by occupying some area that, for example, the mangroves could occupy, it's upsetting the balance in that plant community which could have some effect on the other elements that make use of that mangrove community, for example. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would -- would the -- would all other flowering plants whose fruit is their seed do the exact same thing? I mean, are -- I mean, there are a lot of flowering plants out there whose fruit is its seed that birds, I'm sure, eat. And are they all subject to the same -- should we eliminate all of them for the same purpose, that they can be carried elsewhere? MS. LOCKHART: Not all seed is going to be attractive to birds. Of the seed that does get attracted to birds, it depends on how viable the seed is. Some of them don't have a particularly high germination rate. Carrotwood seems to be particularly prolific. I don't have any data on -- percents -- germination rates; however, it does seem to be very prolific. And it is very tolerant to a wide range of soil conditions. So where there might be some limiting factors that would cause some seeds not to germinate in a certain area, that doesn't seem to be a problem for carrotwood. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we're going to outlaw this thing, I want to get a half dozen before we do, because it sounds like about the only thing I could grow. MS. LOCKHART: Well, my -- they're -- they're -- South Florida Water Management District, by the way, is trying to come up with a list of alternatives to plant for some of the exotics. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For people like me. MS. LOCKHART: And so I'm sure we could help you out there. In closing, I'd just like to say that what has happened in some of the other counties, particularly in Sarasota which is starting to try -- has spent a good deal of money trying to remove cart -- carrotwood from the area and replant with some other less invasive landscape items, that this should be a warning to other coastal counties. And I commend you here in Collier County for your foresight and efforts to prohibit carrotwood, to reduce it's exposure, and also to reduce what -- what could be a costly management problem. Thank you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Mulhere, when we spoke about this a couple of weeks ago, you indicated you'd try to have someone from the nursery community who might be a proponent of the carrotwood speak as well. MR. MULHERE: I -- I believe there are some people in attendance -- or, to my knowledge, there were some people in attendance. I don't -- I don't know if there still are. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The "Carrotwood Coalition"? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anyone from the "Save the Carrotwood Foundation" here tonight? MS. LOCKHART: Are my photos down here? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. They're over here. Let me -- let me suggest that -- I remember one of the -- the real complaints I heard that made sense is that there are a lot of local nurseries that have stocked this plant. It has a three-year growth rate from initiation to sale. If there is indeed -- I know there are other outside markets. But if we're going to make it a prohibited exotic species, I think we ought to phase it so that it's placed -- it's listed as an exotic species for total phase out in the year X, Y, Z; and then it's -- then it's gone. That's up to you whether you want to, you know, give that opportunity to the nurseries or not, but I think it's worth taking a look at. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the gentleman from the nursery have any prepared comments on it? I -- I'd just like to hear from the other side as well. And I appreciate the -- the explanation we just received, particularly with the research she's -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Come on forward, and let us -- let us hear from you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, I don't know how big an inventory there is in the county or if it's a substantive economic impact. I don't know. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: State your name for the record, please. MR. O'DONNELL: My name's Albert O'Donnell, and I have written a letter to the commissioners. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. MR. O'DONNELL: I don't know if you all have noticed that. And I talked about some of the various species that are considered for being outlawed. My points were much along the line of Mr. Hancock's, that all plants are invasive to a certain extent. And my problem with this whole discussion about the invasive plants is that the biologists come from a very specific point of view. They do not usually consider the economic or development or landscaping, buffering capabilities of the various trees. So in my letter I tried to discuss some of the various trees. Some of the trees that are up for being outlawed -- the Java plum, the earleaf acacia -- I have seen them in wild areas take over acreage and strangle out other trees. And I think that that's the biggest thing I think everyone is worried about. As you start to get down the list, I think the carrotwood is a fairly new plant, and there is some cause for concern. It does seed a lot. In my experience, I've not seen it grow well in low-fertility soil. So I don't think it's a big threat from what I've seen over the last six or eight years. In a development where the plant is irrigated and fertilized, it does well. Often in vacant lots or in -- in the land adjacent you tend to get seedlings come up, but they don't grow 20 feet tall and consume the acreage and choke out everything. On the other hand, carrotwood I don't think -- from the nursery industry or from the design industry, it's not a plant that can't be replaced in most of the landscapes we work on. So, again, it doesn't -- from my opinion, it doesn't have high economic value. The most of my letter was devoted to the ficus tree which fills a niche which I don't think any other trees can fill. A typical use -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- I'm sorry. I didn't see ficus natida on the list. MR. O'DONNELL: Okay. Well, it -- it was earlier. It Was '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh -- oh, ficus -- oh, I'm sorry. It's under -- MR. O'DONNELL: Micro -- microcarpa and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- microcarpa (phonetic) and it has the various -- MR. O'DONNELL: Has the various other names. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- watchamajiggers (phonetic) after it. MR. O'DONNELL: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are those the ones that people plant for the six-foot hedges we were just talking about to hide your tow truck? MR. O'DONNELL: Well, there's -- there's two types of ficuses people plant for hedges. Mostly bengeminas is planted, but nitida is also planted. It's more cold-hardy. But as a tree species, the nitidas are planted -- a typical use like -- a development we work on is Grey Oaks, and a typical use is when they have spoil rock from their excavations. They build a big 12-, 15-foot berm. They put a foot of soil over it, and then they want to grow a tree on it. And it's large-scale buffering. Sometimes, development to development, you have two-, three-story units, and you want to put a plant up there that doesn't use very much water, that will root into those situations and make a big, thick screen between the parcels. And this tree fills that. It doesn't freeze. So the bengemina, which is not up for being outlawed, which is another ficus that you could use, can be damaged if you get a frost. So in those conditions mahogany or live oak or some of the native trees that would be typical replacements are much slower growing, and they don't -- it -- it takes many, many years for them to produce as thick of a buffer. And that's why this plant has a -- has a role in the landscape nursery industry that we don't have another thing to replace it with. The plant does -- I have seen the plant grow in the wild, root in sabal palm boots. It is a nuisance plant, but it doesn't seem to grow and take over acreage. It was introduced into the U.S. in California and Florida. The first plant introductions were in the 1890s and the early 1900s. Now, Kimberly Polen from the staff faxed me over some -- some things. The people on the east coast are saying that the wasp which pollinates this plant in its native habitat has been introduced into Florida. So that even though the plant's been here for 60, 70 years, the claim is that this wasp -- now we're going to get a lot more seed. I have not seen that in my wanderings in the last couple years in Collier County. I see from several hundred to a thousand mature trees on the developments I go around to every year, and I've not seen a lot of seedlings coming up. So the plant has low seedling viability. You do get some live seedlings, and they are moved by birds. But it doesn't choke out acreage like Java plum, melaleuca, Australian pine, the plants that I think the nurserymen and everyone agrees are -- are not -- are not suitable for that use. So my problem -- the -- the other problem in general is that I -- the discussion with the biologists tends to do -- that they have seen seedlings here, and they have seen seedlings here. I don't -- I don't ever hear the other side of it: Is this a useful plant? There are plant lists developed of hundreds and hundreds of exotic species which are somewhat invasive, and at some point you have to draw the line. And as a group of commissioners, I'm concerned -- I mean, how far do you want to go? Do you see yourself deciding about hundreds and hundreds of plants? And as a nursery industry, we just see new lists coming down every year. And no one argued when you were banning melaleuca, Australian pine, and other things. But at some point -- and I think that point is now -- you're starting to get the plants that have useful -- understood? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, sir. MR. O'DONNELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Very clearly. Thank you. Could -- could somebody tell us the reasoning behind the prohibition on ficus? Anybody have that? Who's got that? DR. REED: I'm a little hard of hearing; so I'm very sorry I didn't hear that. I'm Dr. Reed. I'm -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Pull the microphone -- DR. REED: Oh. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There you go. DR. REED: I'm retired from the Smithsonian after fif -- twenty -- twenty-five years working there. I worked at Fairchild Garden back in the '50s and then '60s. I've had considerable experience with south Florida. I worked with Ira Condit (phonetic) back in the '50s when -- as a graduate -- as an undergraduate when he was working on ficus trees there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me -- let me repeat the question for you. The question is: Why is ficus on our list to be prohibited here? What -- what's bad about it? Can you tell us briefly what that -- DR. REED: Yes. Since the wasp has been introduced into Florida -- as the previous gentleman spoke, the trees have been here for 50 years. Some of them are immense, in front of Jungle Larry's, for example, and other areas. There's one tree on my street out at Sabal Palm Road which is quite large. These trees have always produced sterile fruits. The wasp was introduced in the last ten years perhaps, and now they produce millions of seeds. He may not have seen too many, but millions of seedlings come up under the trees at the subtrop -- at the tropical ex -- experiment station in Miami. On my street there are about a hundred trees coming up in palmettos. I agree that in a development where the conditions are quite different from in the wild -- where the humidity would be higher; where the trees are not trimmed. And in developments where they are trimmed, you have less chance of the seedlings coming up. Now, let me just say one thing in answer to the same question. The largest tree in south Florida at one time was ficus microcarpa which is retusa nitida. This was a tree that covered several acres of a parking lot at the Royal Palm Hotel or where the Royal Palm Ho -- Hotel used to be in Miami. The tree has since been removed. Also, Miami doesnwt have as many palmetto trees, and theywre not close to the Fakahatchee Swamp. And this ficus will not grow in the Everglades proper, the River of G1 -- Grass. It is a serious pest here because at The Conservancy I have already had to remove several hundred seedlings that have been taking over some of the trees that the -- at The Conservancy. What they do is produce a very dense cover. A very large tree, as you can tell from the one in front of Jungle Larryws, produce millions of fruit which are fed on by many, many different birds. And these birds donwt restrict themselves to development areas. They will go out into the Fakahatchee. They will go into the Big Cypress, and they will eventually produce trees as large as the one at the Royal Palm Hotel, crowding out acres and acres. I predict -- based on my experience with the tree at The Conservancy, at Cambier Park, and at -- on Sabal Palm Road -- that as these trees mature and they spread further and further into the Fakahatchee, we will have a disaster equal to the melaleuca problem. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. DR. REED: Is that -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. DR. REED: -- sufficient? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I donlt think so. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Public speakers? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, we do. Mr. Agoston. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is he our only public speaker? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. Iive got three more. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: National carrotwood farmer. MR. AGOSTON: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It appears to me, as Iive been listening to a number of your hearings, that the environmental industry happens to be a very rich and very powerful and a self-serving one. It seems that we are forever finding various -- further projects for them to do and enrich themselves. The landfill -- I understand we have already spent some -- near a million dollars, and we have yet to stick a shovel in the ground. And most, if not all, of that went to the environmental industry. I believe that -- and I applaud the gentleman here who at least give your people that youlre making the decision an opposite view. You know, this one-sided, continually promoting, and self-serving presentations I object to as a taxpayer. I think welre paying enough taxes. And I donlt think, without a dual presentation, we should listen to any of these proposals. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Botner, do you choose to speak on this? MR. BOTNER: Itls a whole different part. MR. MULHERE: If you -- if you wanted to speak on the landscape, this is it. This is the whole landscape code, Mr. Botner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You arenlt limited to just carrotwoods and ficus natidas. Itls -- MR. BOTNER: Oh. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speak now or forever hold your peace, George. Now's your chance. MR. BOTNER: Nancy says I shouldn't talk. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Did you two get married at some point? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Who's next? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fogg. MR. FOGG: George Fogg, landscape architect. Since there are no further issues come before the commission on the landscape ordinance, I will simply say that the comments I made last time still hold. And I look forward to your passage of the amendments as we have -- the committee has put together. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Goetz. MR. BOTNER: I rescind my reluctance to speak. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you don't speak -- MR. SAVAGE: Would I give it up, you mean? MR. BOTNER: Right. MR. SAVAGE: Uh-huh. Mr. Chairman, I'm Herb Savage, architect -- a Florida registered architect -- so that if anyone should challenge my expertise, it is on record that I am a registered architect. I'd like to -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, Herb. You need to talk on the microphone. MR. SAVAGE: Right. Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ah, those are carrotwood? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is beautiful. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking generally about the landscape code. And I respect Bob Hulhere, Wayne, and -- and our director of the community services division tremendous job in getting involved in -- at -- in improving this code. I will criticize the subcommittee because they didn't have one nurseryman there that I could tell. I didn't see you there. Why weren't you there? I didn't see other people who were on the contrary side of view so they could discuss it and resolve it in that subcommittee meeting, you see. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's -- MR. SAVAGE: And I think that's where you need to have that kind of discussion. Yes, Mr. -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It -- it may have been a conspiracy to keep the -- against the cottonwood. MR. SAVAGE: Well, that -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Carrotwood. COHMISSIONER: Carrotwood. Sorry. A government conspiracy. MR. SAVAGE: I'm -- I'm showing you photographs there that show you what I think is necessary in the landscape code, not all landscaping; not all architecture; not all drainage. You have to have the various disciplines. In that subcommittee meeting you talk about the best code for landscaping to complement the entire pro -- project, not just the landscaping. I show you pictures there that you don't even see the buildings because we have so many trees at the right height that you can't see the signs on the building. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's good. MR. SAVAGE: Those are things we should look at. And I tried to talk -- talk to some of the people in the subcommittee and, you know, their idea of having a tree every 10 feet; the idea of having a double hedge; the idea of having -- I was so impressed today when I went past Fiddler's Creek on 951. I've been raising so much cain about the fact that they have a magnificent, undulating lake there. And then they came along and planted royal palms or whatever they were. I don't know the botany name. But in any event, they have 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, just like little soldiers going down the street. And then all of a sudden today at five o'clock I drove up 951; they've taken them out. You think they got the message, Bob? I wonder because -- you know, landscape design is supposed to be something more than just mathematics, and that's what our landscape code is doing here. And the other thing is that landscape architects aren't the only ones who are allowed by state law to do landscape design. Registered architects, registered engineers are permitted to do landscape design. They cannot call themselves landscape architects, and I've asked the commission to ask the state attorney general for his opinion on that. And I just want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, we have to be a little bit more flexible about our code. You don't even need a landscape architect. All you need is a CAD machine to do the landscape design when I look at the code that we have. That's all I'm asking, flexibility. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Goetz, you're next. MR. BOTNER: Can I -- can I -- MR. DORRILL: Not yet, George. MR. BOTNER: I can't come back? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, George. You passed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The engineers I know, if they're doing landscaping, we're in big trouble. MS. GOETZ: I second the motion. I only wanted to say to you that I hope you support the code in its form as it is written. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Name, please. MS. GOETZ: Oh, I'm sorry. Ellin Goetz. I'm a landscape architect in Naples with the firm J. Roland Liebet Landscape Architects. I think I would have to agree that I'm glad that we -- we do, as landscape architects, sign and seal the drawings that are submitted in Collier County. And I would hope that you would not weaken that. And we have been trained, and we have the practice and experience to do that. And I think you see in the county a reflection of that, and you will see that in years to come. But that's -- that's -- I just wanted to support the code as it is proposed other than some of those species of plants. As Mr. O'Donnell pointed out, I think that is excessive in what you're doing. But thanks. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Goetz, I have a quick question for you, if I may. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you look at these? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have a minimum requirement in the code, but our code is read so that you can cjuster and -- and incorporate creatively. MS. GOETZ: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But what's happening is they're not doing it. If some guy's trying to do a minimum installation at minimum cost, they're plugging them in every 10 feet or whatever -- have you looked at the code in any way to change that to force them to do -- you know, to do something other than this minimum linear standard, because I -- I had the same problem with the way it looks, but I -- you know, I mean, how do you make them do something creative? I don't know. MS. GOETZ: You can't. I mean, a cord -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. MS. GOETZ: -- a code cannot do that. And there are those examples, I'm sure, that people find displeasing. But I think there are other examples of the same code being used by someone with more creativity and having a very pleasing result. So I just don't think -- I don't think a code can solve a problem like that, frankly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. GOETZ: I happen to have been involved with the firm that planted all those royal palms in a straight line. We love it. We love trees in straight lines, you know. It's just a matter of opinion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A royal palm -- MS. GOETZ: What you're really -- what you're really trying to do with the landscape code is -- is you're trying to provide shade to a parking lot, in many cases, and you're trying to provide a minimum spacing -- try to ensure that there will be some shade on that parking lot. Is really -- that's really what the code is trying to do. It's not trying to dictate landscape design. It's trying to dictate -- to provide certain minimum standards for environmental situations with landscaping. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks. MS. GOETZ: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, we'd be back to Mr. Botner. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Botner, would you like to have an opportunity to speak here tonight? MR. BOTNER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a question. Do you like queen palms in a straight line? MR. BOTNER: Sometimes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the time he used up declining before -- does that count against his five minutes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, aren't we still in the two-and-a-half-minute rule? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, yeah. MR. BOTNER: No. We can't be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We certainly are. MR. BOTNER: Oh, my name is George Botner, licensed landscape architect practicing in the state of Florida the last 22 years and throughout the southeast, same amount of time; certified nationally for the last 15 years, etc., etc.; and happy to have been practicing here in Collier County for the last 8 years. The only issue that I came to discuss with you all tonight was the -- was the issue that was brought up by Mr. "Architect" Savage. And -- and that's Item 2.4.3.1 and the suggested revisions to the landscape code where, after six months of review, the -- the committee that was impaneled to review and, hopefully, make improvements to our -- our landscape code did recommend that we clarify the code in that area to require that a licensed -- Florida licensed landscape architect be required to submit plans to government for any kind of development beyond the density -- above the density of duplexes. So in other words, you could still do single-family, and you could do duplex homes without requiring that licensure. We felt that that was an item that came out of a well-balanced group that reviewed the total code that did include, contrary to Mr. Savage's assertion, representatives from a broad spectrum of the landscape industry, including landscape maintenance people, landscape contractors, landscape architects, plus all of the people on your staff that deal with this code every day. So when we looked at the entire code, we think we came up with -- and we did have to compromise on a number of issues, but we came up with some revisions that we think actually help to strengthen our code. And I've heard several times tonight that that's what your interest is trying to do is to improve what we have to work with and make it more enforceable. As it relates to landscape architects being required to seal plans, Herb Savage does indicate a section in our state law about that. But let me just give you a little bit of historical perspective on that law, which was developed 30 years ago in this state. At first, when we developed the law -- and I wasn't a landscape architect at that time. I fought passively on the sidelines watching it develop. But when we developed the law, we also provided the opportunity for civil engineers and architects to seal landscape drawings. And that was for two reasons 30 years ago. One reason was political; we'd never get a law passed without their support and their protection. And, secondly, landscape architecture admittedly at that point in our history was in its infancy in this coun -- in this state. (Commissioner Hac'Kie exited the boardroom.) MR. BOTNER: We were perhaps 20 years behind the northeast United States, the Midwest, and California in terms of the adoption of controls and standards to practice our profession. And so we really needed to start out someplace with some regulation that could protect the public's health, safety, and welfare as it relates to landscape issues. But 20, 30 years have gone by, and we're not there anymore. Our profession has blossomed tremendously, and I think that what we want to try to do is to create the opportunity for -- and -- the betterment of landscape condition throughout our community, especially as it relates to projects that have to be approved and adopted by government. And that's what this does. We currently have in Collier County alone 33 Florida licensed landscape architects. We also have -- of those 33, 20 are members of the American So -- Society of Landscape Architects, ASLA, and have been further recognized in other areas. So it's not that we have a dearth of the professional talent that we need that we may have had years ago. You've got the professional support that you need to provide the backup to the ordinance. And so with that, I think there's two major issues that you night -- you might want to deal with from a policy perspective and that is that you think that civil engineers and architects make good landscape architects. You know, I would love to be able to go out and -- and design a building and -- and get that permitted and design a drainage canal and -- and measure pipes and all the other things civil engineers do; but I don't do it. I haven't been trained to do it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Time's up, George. MR. BOTNER: And, secondly, is that -- is that qualification level as an architect or landscape -- or a civil engineer practicing landscape architecture sufficient and adequate to what we want for ourselves here? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Botner. MR. DORRILL: He was your only other speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Okay. Then what we need to do is get a consensus on banning carrotwoods here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask a couple of questions on the architectural review part -- a couple of "for instances." Under lighting -- MR. HULHERE: That's with regard to the architectural? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We're not doing that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not doing that yet? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Huh-uh. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Never mind then. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He will have a question, though, on 2 point -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I might have a question. It depends on how late it is when we get to that part. I -- I'm not prepared -- I don't know about the other items that you mentioned. I'm not prepared to include 2.4.4.12.8. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Carrotwoods? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Carrotwood. I -- I certainly appreciate the comments and the fact you're here all the way from the other side; however, I th -- I think -- I -- I'd feel more comfortable, I guess -- she's in the midst of doing that for the state. I'd feel more comfortable when we had final conclusions on that. And, frankly, when -- when we hear about this non-native specie invading the current balance of existing species, it sounds like Pat Buchanan speaking to me. So I'd just as soon leave the carrotwood in there, and -- and -- and I -- I don't have any problem with any of the others on that list, though. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hmm. I would -- I would, maybe, like to see ficus stay in there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask somebody what the catclaw mimosa is. I fig -- I -- I have this picture of my cat hanging out with champagne and orange juice. DR. REED: The catclaw mimosa is the trees that grow in Cambier Park -- the big trees there that have all the ficus growing in them. It's -- it has little thorns at the base of the leaf; and so if you were to run your hand down the length of the leaf, you would get caught by these little cat claws. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. DR. REED: It's a big tree. Oh, do you want the Latin name? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. So we are -- I -- I prefer to leave carrotwood on the -- on the excluded list because it's another one of these Australian plants that we've had so much trouble with. It may not be as invasive as melaleucas or pepperhedge or Australian pines, but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you'd prefer to leave ficus, which we've been told on the record is predicted to be more invasive than the melaleuca. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But you want to get rid of the poor, fuzzy little carrotwoods. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's exactly right. It's exactly right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I can't agree with that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a dirty word. How about a compromise? (Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the boardroom.) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about we phase both plants out giving nurseries time to deplete stocks and kind of giving a warning to the industry that, you know, don't go out and buy more of these or cultivate more of these. And if during that time period the report comes back and they aren't seen to be as noxious as we are led to believe at this point, we can always, you know, leave them in. But rather than, you know -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And what sort of time frame would you propose? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would say January 1, 1999. That's two-plus -- two-plus years. I understand carrotwood has a three-year growing stock or -- or something close to that. I would say phased out by January 1, 1999. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we're premature. I think some of Ty Agoston's comments, that we have a self-perpetuating industry here, is true. And -- and I -- I'm not prepared in any time frame to eliminate the carrotwood right now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Since those are both additions, if there aren't four votes for it, then they're automatically removed; is that correct? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like you each control your own fate on that one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What do you say, Mr. "Ficus"e CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Actually, I'd like to leave ficus as a plant that we can use because we also heard that when it's cultivated as a plant that -- that we can trim, that it's not as apt to get out in the wild. MR. HULHERE: Mr. Chairman, the -- the experts have informed me that they have some economic impact information they'd like to share with you if you're inclined to hear it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We've already heard from the experts. MR. HULHERE: Economic impact information. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We've already heard from the experts. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I'll tell you what. Why don't I -- I'll just make a motion that we approve staff recommendation without including ficus nitida or carrotwood -- since the other words are far too difficult for me -- in the list of prohibited exotic species. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. You said without either ficus or carrotwood included -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. Correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as prohibited? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: "Ficus nitida," he said -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nitida. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- which is only one specie of the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're still leaving in mimosa pigua, though. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I -- I believe I am. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I'll second that then. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There weren't any opposed. Okay. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, just to -- just to be sure, on the ficus it was exclusively -- it was leaving the nitida in -- ficus nitida? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the most common -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's the only one. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The -- MR. MULHERE: As well as the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now, this is the entire landscape ordinance, by the way. MR. MULHERE: Correct. Correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. What's our next segment then? MR. MULHERE: The next item, which there was some recommended changes by the board at your initial LDC hearing, was that -- the transfer of development rights. I have handouts for you with revised language and drawings. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can -- can I ask, Mr. Chairman -- we probably don't ha -- have a heck of a lot of people here on TDRs, but we do have some on the architectural standards. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The TDR discussion's going real quick. I'd say -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's going to take a second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- no, there ain't no way, and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- let's be done with it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need four votes for it. MR. DORRILL: We don't have any speakers, Mr. Chairman, on that. We have one speaker, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I only have one speaker? MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, landscape services department. If I might just take you through a couple of the more significant changes that were made, one of the directions that I received a couple of weeks ago was to come back with some changes to this relative to the nonurban-to-urban transfers and the densities. And what you'll see before you now is a restriction of the use of transfer of development rights that will only apply to urban lands. Those lands that are within the urban-designated boundaries of the county may qualify -- they may or may not contain the sensitive treatment overlay which would make any property -- any residentially designated property or any property that is agriculture or estates within the urban-designated lands eligible for the transfer of development rights. All other aspects of that remain the same, including the density transfers, that is the -- the maximums you could achieve beyond the density of the receiving zoning district. There are some other changes that were made on -- I don't have the page number of your packet. I'm sorry. And I don't think that page is numbered, but it's Section 2.2.24.11. And on that -- at the bottom of page number 8 it talks about "the sending land shall provide a guarantee, agreeable to and approved by ordinance of the" county commission, "that the sending land will be utilized only for the purposes of increasing public recreational and/or educational opportunities, creation of linkages between public or private open space, protection of critical habitat, slash, ecosystems, or other public purpose as specified in the ordinance of adoption." There's also a clause that was inserted which went on to say that "Such restrictions may not be amended, deleted, or otherwise altered"; and then I added the language "except by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners." And I believe that those changes will restrict the transfers to only those urban lands. We don't have the issue now of bringing in nonurban densities into the urban district because you'll have to make your densities from within the urban boundary. I think one of the other important aspects here was the additional language that talked about not just utilizing the land for, I -- I guess, natural condition; but it now allows us to use it for other public recreational opportunities, and I think one of the things there -- including linkages. And -- and I think it's important to note that when you go back and look at our ST overlay, it really applies to lands that are wet, if you will, that have wetland issues on them and not other critical habitat-type issues. So the areas that we do -- and we do have certain areas within the urban area that are ST designated and are wet, but we find that other jurisdictional agencies do control wetland far beyond what we do at the county level and what our ST sensitive treatment requirements would be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have any problem with what's proposed, if we're seeking some level of direction. Hove approval. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know. We have public speakers. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The purpose of TDR is again? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It might be to obtain open space without costing half a cent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to our public speaker. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I -- I stole that from someone. I just wanted you to know. I can't claim ownership. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not an original thought. MR. SIMONIK: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Michael Simonik with The Conservancy. I'm the environmental policy coordinator. I guess I was blown away by this at 5:05 when the entire intent of the program was crossed out: to forever retain this land in its natural condition. We don't mind that you're transferring it only to urban -- urban-to-urban. That's no problem at all. That creates more green space in the urban area. But we wanted to see the green space retained in its natural condition forever, and now you can use it for any other public purpose. What does that mean? Schools? Buildings? Development? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You -- you mean something useless like beach parking? MR. SIMONIK: Well, I'm -- all I'm saying -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That -- that's -- MR. SIMONIK: -- is that the original intent of the entire TDR pro -- you've changed it. So you've not only eliminated the singular requirement to include only ST-designated lands, you've -- you've eliminated the original intent. So we just need to say that up front. It is a totally different program. It has nothing to do with what the entire intent of it was. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I wouldn't say it's -- it's changed. I wouldn't say it's a totally different program. MR. SIHONIK: Because now this land can be developed by a county, and you might as well cross off -- I mean, since the whole thing's been changed, you might as well cross off dedicated for not-for-profit and conservation-environmental organizations, because I can't imagine us accepting land that has a -- a parking lot on it or is not in its natural state or that we don't want to retain in its natural state, that -- that you all can change by a majority vote of the county commissioners. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're suggesting we should just strike that line. That shouldn't even be an option. MR. SIHONIK: Well, with the intent of the program -- I mean, I'm not suggesting that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. SIHONIK: -- because I'm -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what you just said a minute ago, and I wanted to clarify. Are you -- do you think that line should be in here or not? MR. SIHONIK: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You -- so we should -- MR. SIHONIK: Do you think it should be in there? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We should strike the line -- let me ask the question, and then you can answer my question. Okay. MR. SIHONIK: All right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You think we should strike the line that allows us to turn it over to an agency like that? MR. SIHONIK: No. I don't think you should strike the line, but I think it's lost the intent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's lost your intent, Mr. Simonik. There is another intent out there. There's someone here that's been working on something called the Gordon River Greenway for as long as anyone can remember. Well, the original intent wouldn't have allowed us to put a pedestrian path through that so people could enjoy it. This does. So there are public purpose uses out there that this board will have to determine if it's significant enough for public use to grant any transfer of development rights. MR. SIHONIK: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That doesn't mean it solely has to be left in its natural state without anyone touching it. MR. SIHONIK: No. I -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that -- and that is a different intent than what was originally put in the code, and I think it's a good change. MR. SIHONIK: Well, it was in there but was struck out, "minor nature-related improvements such as nature paths, boardwalks, outdoor educational learning areas." That was in there, and that's been struck. So we wanted it to be used for -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now we have the -- MR. SIHONIK: We wanted it to be used for -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- option of doing it either way, that's all. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just a second ago you said, Well, now just a majority of the board could do that. And -- and I think I heard you at several forums recently saying how much -- how -- faith you have in the board of commissioners to make good decisions in those areas. So are you -- have you changed your mind in that regard? You don't think the board has the community's best intent at mind or can -- can take care of green space? MR. SIMONIK: They do for a different intent -- for a different purpose now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What is our -- MR. SIMONIK: I'm just -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- intent and purpose? Maybe you can help me with that -- MR. SIMONIK: I don't know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because I obviously don't know it. MR. SIMONIK: I don't understand your -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just explained it to you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point, Mr. Simonik, is you can't pick and choose when you think the board has the intelligence to do what's in the best interest of the community. And at any number -- MR. SIMONIK: That's not what I said. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At any number of forums -- you just said we do; and just a minute ago you said, Well, on a whim any -- any number -- three commissioners can change this and could pave it. Well, either you -- you have some faith in your local government or you don't. MR. SIHONIK: Do you intend on paving these areas? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, yeah. That's the -- that's the sole purpose it's here, Hike, is we're going to pave it all. That -- yOU know, come on. MR. SIMONIK: But any of you -- I know. I know. I'm just asking. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's Chicken Little stuff. The sky is falling. The sky is falling. You're changing it. I don't like it. The truth is what's being proposed gives us greater flexibility to obtain lands for public use and public purpose than what was previously done. That's good government. MR. SIMONIK: Thank you. Then you've changed the intent of the original program. That's all I'm saying. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Yes. And it's good. Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Change -- MR. ARNOLD: If I might make one point of clarification, I think I misspoke a few moments ago when I said that agricultural lands were also included. I -- I meant to bring that to your attention. That's something we may want to consider isn't here. It currently talks about lands that are residentially zoned and -- and the residential components of PUDs. But some information that we've been working on is looking at the amount of agricultural land that is currently in the urban area, which may provide an opportunity for some larger portions of land to be utilized for the purpose of transfer of development rights. I -- I'm not sure they would be utilized, but certainly I would hate to preclude them from becoming that. I'd hate to see them have to be rezoned before we could consider them. So another addition that we might wish to make would be to insert that agricultural lands within the urban area might also be eligible. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any more public speakers? If not, we'll move forward. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I thought we had already said that at -- any land within the urban area would be eligible. I thought that was the point. MR. ARNOLD: It does say that, but it goes on to talk about -- I -- I'm just afraid that some language in here that talks about the sending-and-receiving issue may not make that clear and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, that -- I mean, if -- if the board has said it's our intent -- you -- you tell us if we need to make that language change or not, but I -- I understood the board to be talking about all land within the urban area whether -- you know, regardless of zoning. So somebody advise us. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. I think if you added the language that Mr. Arnold referenced, it would just make it clearer. But I think, you know, we have established a record; and if it's all the land in the urban area, it could suffice. It would just clear it up. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anyway -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move approval of -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a public speaker. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was closed. My apologies. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins is our only speaker. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. PERKINS: A1 Perkins, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights, Belle Meade Groups. I do have confidence in you, Commissioners, and I do trust you. And a lot of people in this community trust you because you -- I see that you're not working for any special-interest groups. Now, I am not a paid person here to speak. I'm a voter, a taxpayer, and I do care about this community. But I also care about the people's property rights, too, which I know you do. Now, to take and earmark -- or take and designate different areas and try to take and put restrictions on them to the point where the property values go down and no development rights involved and to do this on behalf of any private-interest group who get paid dog gone good to create a problem in this community, I hope that you take and keep your head on and do what's right for the people, which you have done in the past. I want to thank you people for being what you are and who you are on behalf of the people of the -- all the people, not just the spec -- special-interest groups. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Simonik made a -- a point that -- that -- that I find myself in partial agreement with. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not really? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, really. It's a strange situation. But while I'm sure that Mr. Simonik trusts this particular board, who has proven itself over and over and over to be beyond reproach, there may come a time in upcoming election seasons where there could be a return to boards like we were in the past -- what we had in the past or -- or even boards that -- that have less community-spirited interest than some of the prior boards had. So what I would like to suggest and ask you board members to support is that any transfer of development rights would have to be contingent upon a super-majority vote of the county commission, because I think this is a program -- I don't like TDRs at all. And I'm really reluctant to support any kind of TDR program, and I've -- I've been real consistent on that. I don't like them. I think there's -- there's too much opportunity for mischief here -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- even though the intent may be honorable. So I would like to have the -- the board help me to -- to get a super-majority language built into it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I don't have a problem with that, because the reason I see these being used are for specific public purposes where you'd have a tough time arguing that it's a bad idea. I don't see it being used just as a -- an open-door option. So I don't have a problem with a super-majority. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I -- I don't -- I don't see it will be an option of save it or pave it. So I have absolutely no trouble with that -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- suggestion whatsoever. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that makes sense. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Okay. Now, your motion was again? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I will move approval as presented with the one amendment that the minimum vote required for completion of -- of transfer of development rights be a super-majority of the board. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And did you want to incorporate the language that Mr. Arnold suggested? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I started to do -- yes. The additional language cited by Mr. Arnold is also included in the motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Second amend? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That is adopted. Now -- MR. MULHERE: There -- there are -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- we are down to the architectural review standards? MR. MULHERE: Actually, yeah. There's -- there's two items left. One is the architectural review standards. The second for -- the board had some questions and asked us to re -- reword some language in the proposed subdivision amendments, which I think would take about, maybe, 10 minutes. I have Anita here. It's certainly at your discretion, Mr. Chairman, as to whether or not you want to -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we -- why don't we do that, and our court reporter will probably want a break after that for a short period of time, and then we go -- go forward with the architectural review standards. MS. JENKINS: Good evening. Anita Jenkins, for the record, from your MPO staff. We'll begin on page 85 of your packet. That's where, actually, the amendments begin. The first issues start on page 87. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I'm sure they do. MS. JENKINS: The board asked us to discuss again -- and "us" is the traffic management task force that was put together by the MPO staff to help us -- guide us through these changes, and that was regarding the access points to subdivisions. And the language stated that "access points to public roads shall ensure that there are no more than 400 dwelling units per access point." The traffic management task force suggested, at the board's discretion, that it could be measured by 4,000 ADT rather than 400 dwelling units, if the board so desires. And that would be measured on average daily traffic rather than the number of dwelling units. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And -- and what was their recommendation to -- that we just consider it or that we adopt it as the 4,000 ADTs? MS. JENKINS: That you consider it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just consider it. Ah, so now we need pros and cons so we can consider it. MS. JENKINS: Well, the traffic management task force felt that since it is traffic related and this -- the -- the dwelling units is not defined whether it's multifamily or single-family, then it could be better measured by average daily traffic. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the dwelling units don't take into account cut-through traffic -- MS. JENKINS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- or traffic outside of the street, which it -- it sounds like the -- you know, the -- if you use units, then longer roads that have more units on them are taken into account. But it doesn't -- it eliminates the cut-through traffic, which really seems to be the predominant reason for a lot of these applications. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I'm more comfortable with the ADT. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, let me ask one more question on that then. If we go ADTs, it will say no -- no more than 4,000 -- was that the -- the number? Four thousand even ADTs -- MS. JENKINS: Yes. Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- per access point? Then it says, "the total number of access points need not exceed six." Does that mean that it -- no matter how many units you get, you're -- six is the maximum you'll ever need? MS. JENKINS: Yes. MS. STUDENT: Can you hold on? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: "Need" to "shall," Miss Student? MS. STUDENT: It needs some clarification. It will read "shall not exceed six." CHAIRMAN NORRIS: "Shall not exceed six." Instead of "need not exceed" '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- it should be "shall not exceed six." COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's a significant difference. "Shall not" means you can't have seven. "Need not" '- that -- that's a -- I -- I don't like that clarification. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That wasn't the -- MS. JENKINS: Okay. That's not the intent. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The intent is to remain -- it -- remain as need -- to say that, you know -- MS. JENKINS: It still can exceed -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. MS. JENKINS: -- six. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't want to limit it so that you can't have more than six access points. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well -- well, then in -- instead of "shall," it has to be "may" even though that's going to be sort of confusing language. "The total number of access points may not exceed six." But that doesn't sound right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about just "the maximum required by this provision sha -- shall be six"? Does that say the same thing? It doesn't preclude more, but the -- it says the maximum required by this section shall be six, something to that effect. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That -- that covers it, doesn't it, Ms. Student? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As you -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you think that covers it? The -- the maximum number -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of access -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- required by this section -- MS. STUDENT: If you say the maximum is six, you can't -- you -- then you can't have any more than six. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I'm saying the maximum number required by this section shall be six. You can have more. MS. STUDENT: Okay. But just for this section? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MS. STUDENT: Okay. That would -- that would take care of it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: "Maximum number of accesses required by this section shall be six." CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anyone have any objection to that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- language change? Please go forward, Miss Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: The next issue was regarding the buffers between land uses, and that's Footnote No. 2. The language was added "commercial land uses" per the board's direction. So the language now reads, "buffers shall not inhibit pedestrian circulation between adjacent commercial land uses." COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm fine with that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. JENKINS: The next issue is on page 90. And this was the issue that was suggested by Mich -- Mr. Archibald, your transportation services director, regarding sidewalk easements through impact free -- fee credits. And his clarification was that these impact-fee credits for sidewalk easements would be valued at the prezoning cost or the developer's costs. And the examples that he cited were along Golden Gate Parkway, Livingston Road, and Vanderbilt Beach Road where these major arterials are going through, and the developers are -- have limited 100-foot right-of-way already dedicated. And now through impact-fee credits they would be able to give -- get sidewalks in there when they build the road through, because right now if -- if we want to put the -- the necessary sidewalks on the new Livingston Road, we're limited to 100-foot right-of-way, we have to purchase additional right-of-way if it's not all going to fit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is limiting that purchase cost to predevelopment -- MS. JENKINS: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- costs? Sounds good to me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to a -- and I understand the point. Can you just give me a for example what the cost -- what the value of impact-fee credits are versus buying? I -- I -- I know it's going to be a big difference, but what the value of impact fee credits versus trying to buy extra right-of-way would be. MS. JENKINS: Well -- a -- again, it would be prezoning costs or predevelopment costs. So af -- after they have rezoned their property, then the cost of that goes up; and the costs to the county, that is enhanced. The number -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if we go get an -- a -- maybe I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I -- I'm with you. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Next. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who ordered the pizzas? MS. JENKINS: The next one is on page 91 and also 92, and those are just diagrams that were added for clarification. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. JENKINS: Next -- next one, on 93, again, clarifying language by Mr. Archibald. And we might have -- have to ask Mr. Jarvi to explain this one to you. It was clarified to say, "where access locations are not consistent with the county's access management policy, a separate access capacity analysis shall be required to identify capacity impacts and appropriate mitigation." CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That seems clear enough. MS. JENKINS: Clear enough? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds fine to me. MS. JENKINS: Great. The next one was the deleted sentence, and that was at your direction, Footnote No. 6, "All lots and parcels created within a subdivision, whether residential or nonresidential, must have direct frontage on public or private right-of-way." That sentence was deleted. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. JENKINS: The next one is on page 94. It has to do with the alleys. And this was, again, a -- a clarification. It now reads "industrial, commercial, and residential alleys along the rear lot lines shall have an alley easement at least 24 feet wide containing a vehicular pavement width of at least 10 feet." CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Move along. MS. JENKINS: The next one's on page 97, sentence deleted per your direction, "all lots must front on right-of-way." COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What page is that on? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Ninety-seven. MS. JENKINS: Page -- it's at the very top of the page. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. JENKINS: Page 99, a diagram was added for your clarification. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I thought it was a light bulb. MS. JENKINS: It's a diagram of a light bulb. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's what it looks like. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a light bulb. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No filament. Okay. MS. JENKINS: There were no board directions on the second section for staff. The last one is the -- at the very back of the packet. MR. HULHERE: Page 145, last page. MS. JENKINS: This is Appendage B. The -- the cul-de-sac typical section is removed because the cul-de-sac is now equal to a local street in design. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. MS. JENKINS: And also the traffic management task force removed the typical section showing without trees, because with the utilities subcommittee's review of this saying that you can put the pipes now under the sidewalks, they're both the same. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. JENKINS: And that's all. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions for Hiss Jenkins? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One quick question. It's kind of been a -- a project of mine to look at potentially, in a right-of-way acquisition, acquiring additional right-of-way to leave, like, a strip of native vegetation on each side. Is it currently policy in our -- and when we build within the right-of-way to just clear everything out to the edge whether we need to or not? I -- I guess what I'm asking is, if we were to put a statement in here that said to leave existing native vegetation to the greatest extent possible, would we be causing ourselves a long-term problem in the construction of these roadways -- or, you know, I'm just afraid we just go in and clear cut it whether we need to or not, and I'm -- if we can leave some native vegetation in these corridors, I'd like to do it. I just don't know if that's a practical suggestion. MS. JENKINS: I'd have to defer to Mr. Jarvi to probably answer that question about construction of -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Am I being clear enough to at least frame the question, Mr. Jarvi? MR. JARVI: For the record, Reed Jarvi, civil engineer. I think in a local street, which is what we've addressed, the pieces add up such that you couldn't do what you're asking. When you add the sidewalk in there and you got a water main and this -- you're going to basically do right-of-way to right-of-way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, I'm talking arterial and collector. MR. JARVI: Okay. Now, we did not -- we were not addressing arterial collectors. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. JARVI: The polic -- I don't believe the policy is stated one way or another in arterial and collector. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll work on that then individually with you maybe for the next amendment cycle. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. If there's no further questions, do we have a public speaker on this particular segment? MR. DORRILL: No, sir, not this one. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We'll -- we'll adopt this section then with the entire ordinance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fine. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Why don't we -- why don't we give our court reporter a very short break, and then we'll come back and do the architectural standards. (A short break was held.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's reconvene our public hearing, and we'll start on the architectural standards review. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it -- if it will please the board, I've discussed this with Mr. Hulhere. We've all had these. They've -- they -- we've gone through some changes as recently as yesterday, but I hope that everyone's had a chance to review it. It's kind of lengthy. Rather than going page by page -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great idea. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- maybe we could ask Mr. Hulhere to hit on the points that were changed specifically this morning and then go to board questions, if that's okay with everybody. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. HULHERE: I -- I also have several -- several handouts. I do have the most recent revised copy, which was done at 5:03 this afternoon. So -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ooh. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank God, you got it done before the meeting. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's pretty recent. MR. MULHERE: Well, close -- close anyway. Joe's going to hand those out, and I just want to let you know a couple of -- couple of issues regarding this. This document that -- that we're handing out now reflects the development services advisory committee land use subcommittee's consensus. It reflects the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission -- it -- and -- which was approved by the Planning Commission. We have a letter on file from AIA supporting these architectural and site design guidelines. They -- they had some issues and some concerns which we -- or Joe has met with representatives, and that -- that document reflects our addressing of those concerns. We employed a commercial contractor to take a look at two projects -- one over 20,000, one under 20,000 -- in Collier County, which Joe will get into in a little more detail, and -- to apply these standards and to determine what the cost would be of applying those standards. And we do have -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that this? MR. MULHERE: That's a separate sheet. The -- there's a -- just a single sheet with the costs comparison to the right. The separate sheet that you have there deals with some of the existing shopping centers and commercial developments in the county and how these standards would impact -- how -- how they adhere to these standards, where they do, and where they don't. I want to let you know that within your document that you have before you, we were not able to get to revise some of the iljustrations. As an example, the Planning Commission's recommendation on height for lights was 30 feet; the -- the drawing reflects 35 feet. We will be changing those. We simply could not get to those before this meeting. I also want to let you know that the document contains a section towards the end -- but I just want to let you know up front -- that provides for a variance mechanism as well as provides a mechanism for interpretation -- administrative interpretation. And should a -- a issue -- an in -- an interpretive issue not be able to be resolved between an applicant and the staff, the document calls for a -- a final determination by the community development services advisory administrator, which is then appealed directly to the board. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there a time frame on that, because one of the key issues I had was not to hold the project hostage while a lengthy appeal process occurred. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Fifteen days. Fifteen days from the -- the -- the request of an interpretation to the administrator -- he would render his -- his opinion. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Good. If he disagrees with the administrator, does he automatically go to the next BCC meeting without advertisement? MR. MULHERE: There is no requirement in the code to advertise it. It's just -- it would be placed on the next available agenda at the convenience of the applicant. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Worst-case scenario, we're talking 22 days. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Two or three weeks; right. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So that's one of the -- the points that I'm particularly interested in at this stage of the -- the process. Could you just go through it one more time? An applicant comes in -- MR. MULHERE: I guess I can -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- he's not happy. So what does he do? MR. MULHERE: Well, procedurally -- just -- let me just let you know, procedurally, the staff envisions that the -- this review will take place during the site development plan process. There -- we do not see this review impacting in any way the time frame to review an STP. There is time within that process to review this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now, that's not my -- my concern. My concern is what if he's not -- an applicant is not, at that point, satisfied? MR. MULHERE: Right. If there's an issue of interpretation and disagreement, the applicant can request that the administrator review the staff's position. And within 15 days the administrator will respond that he supports the staff's position or does not, which then the applicant can appeal. There's no requirement to advertise that appeal other than the normal advertising for an agenda item as -- only the entire agenda is advertised. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So it -- it may be two or three weeks. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So there's two steps -- MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- that he goes -- if he's not happy with staff's interpretation, then he goes to the administrator. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And after that he goes to the board of commissioners. MR. MULHERE: Right. And our purpose -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But -- but he -- is there any way that he can be excluded from going to the board of commissioners? This was a concern that was raised. MR. MULHERE: No, sir. No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Because the -- one of the -- the people that contacted me was concerned that some of the language on the process that determines how you get to the Board of County Commissioners would be restrictive and not allow them, under certain conditions, to get to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. MULHERE: We can -- I can -- I can direct you to that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Page 51 of the packet that we just handed out talks about interpretations, and I'll -- I'll read it for you. It says, "During the course of review of an STP or SIP, site improvement plan, as the case may be, should an applicant and staff be unable to concur on the application of a specific provision or provisions of division, the community development and envir -- environmental services administrator shall be authorized to make a final determination. The community development and environmental services administrator shall render his finding in writing within 15 days of receipt of a written request from the applicant. The applicant may appeal the determination of the community development and environmental services administrator to the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the procedures set forth in 1.6.6." CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And what is that procedure? MR. MULHERE: That is your standard interpretation -- or appeals process. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Just like anything else? MR. MULHERE: Correct. It's the standard appeals process. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So no difference. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. So we're not -- we're not restricting them under the architectural standards any more than they would be anywhere else. MR. MULHERE: An -- any appeal -- it would be handled exactly the same as any other appeal. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to say that sounds just like a final STP appeal. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly -- MR. MULHERE: An -- any appeal. And I don't -- I said on the record that we are not requiring advertising. And I -- I want to be 100 percent honest. I'm not -- I'm not certain. I haven't looked at 1.6.6 recently as to whether or not there is a requirement for advertising. There is, I'm being told. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There is a requirement for advertising. Is there a fee for the appeal? MR. MULHERE: One hundred dollar appeal fee. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Okay. MR. MULHERE: And -- and the reason we put the -- the initial step to the administrator is that we feel confident that -- you know, it's our desire to work with the applicant so that we can resolve those issues at a staff level. So -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: There are -- quite a bit of -- of work went in, through workshops, in -- in developing this document. And I believe that the document does generally represent the consent -- the consensus of -- of the -- those people that were involved. We believe that the document provides a great deal of flexibility and is aimed towards the small percentage of commercial development that might occur -- occur or that has occurred that wouldn't adhere to these standards. The great majority, in the opinion of staff as we drove around, do meet these requirements already. And I asked that -- for -- that's something to be considered as we look at these. Starting on page -- page 5, we've made a change here. Originally -- and on the top of the page, we're talking parking for single-use projects. These are basically your big-box commercial projects because we're talking over 20,000 square feet. Originally we had put language in the -- in -- in the draft that said "a minimum of 10 percent and no more than 50 percent of off-street parking for the entire commercial building or project be located between any primary facade." A primary facade is such that it's adjacent to the right-of-way -- a public parking area, not an area that's restricted for loading or employee vehicles -- and a navigable waterway. We've change that based on some fairly lengthy discussions with commercial developers and with commercial property owners and -- and with the development services advisory committee. And the Planning Commission recommended that we change -- to take out the minimum 10 percent to allow flexibility. Should a person or a developer choose not to put parking between a -- an adjacent right-of-way, for example, they're not going to be required to; however, if they choose not to, we are asking for a larger setback. Toys R Us is the one example. It appears to be very close to the road; however, they do meet the setback. The maximum setback in any of the commercial districts is 25 feet; however, in C-4 and C-5 you're required to set back an additional 1 foot for each foot of building height above 50 feet. There are relatively few commercial buildings that exceed 50 feet that don't -- don't already set back. And what we've established here is a -- a minimum 40-foot setback if you choose not to put any parking between your building and the right-of-way. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. HULHERE: We believe that will achieve -- to provide greater flexibility and still achieve what we were looking for. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Makes sense. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Except that if you were to put a single row of parking and an aisle-way in, that's 42 additional feet. MR. MULHERE: It's -- it is more. It is more. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what I'm saying is there -- there -- it's the lesser of the two. I would li -- you know, see what I'm saying? If -- if you were to -- if you had a 20-foot setback and you wanted -- you didn't want to put parking in on that side, that would be an additional 42 feet. You're now reducing that to an additional 20 feet. You -- you -- you're getting a net gain of another 22 feet. Now, I'm not sure that's all bad because I haven't really mulled this over, but -- MR. MULHERE: I looked at 50 foot as a minimum. But when I went to the commercial districts and saw that they were 25 feet maximum except for the a -- additional -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- foot for height, I thought that 40 foot was a -- was a sufficient compromise if someone chose not to put parking there in -- adjacent to that right-of-way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it may very well be. I just -- I wanted to put that on the table. I -- I don't have a suggestion at this point. I just -- I -- I'm sorry. I'm thinking aloud. MR. HULHERE: I -- I -- you know, that brings up a good point. I think the staff feels that the document is -- feel that it is very good, but we don't feel it's perfect. And we know that we're going to have to look at these issues as we go forward. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good point. MR. HULHERE: Same thing for corner lots, we had a minimum, and the -- the iljustrations do not reflect -- and I have them circled here. We will change those iljustrations to reflect that not a minimum of 10 percent is required. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Got you. MR. HULHERE: On corner lots, the same thing; we took out those minimums as a required setback. In terms of lighting -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought it was -- MR. HULHERE: -- the staff's original recommendation -- Commission -- Commissioner Constantine, you had, maybe, some questions on the lighting. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How do we define that? That seems kind of vague. As I read -- MR. HULHERE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the first couple are a good example -- the first couple parts of that. MR. HULHERE: With regard to the height or with regard to what we want to achieve? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well -- and I understand we're trying to achieve safety and so on and so forth, but how do you define that? I mean, that just seems very vague, very -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Safe. Convenient -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and much -- much like our discussion earlier that -- Commissioner Norris thought this -- this board -- I -- I know you. I know Vince. I know you all will treat that well. I don't know five years down the road how that's interpreted. MR. HULHERE: Well, part of the reason for the -- the reason that we put some of what you might want to refer to as -- as kind of the -- the warm and fuzzy language, we -- we tried to keep all of that in the purpose and intent sections because we wanted to provide the reader -- the user of this document with some indication of what -- what our intent was, obviously. And -- however, when we get to the specifics of the document, I think we do provide measurable standards. Some things are certainly more difficult to measure. As far as lighting goes, traditionally, we have not at -- in this county, gotten to measuring luminescence or spillage or -- or those types of things. We've left that up to the commercial developers and the architects to -- to the design of their building. We do feel that in driving around the community, noticing that the tel -- relatively older shopping centers have higher lights and the newer ones have taken advantage of the newer technology and reduced the -- the -- the lighting fixtures. Our original recommendation was 20 feet, and the development services advisory committee had a recommendation of 35 feet. The Planning Commission supported a height of 30. I -- I -- I didn't -- I probably didn't do a good job of answering your question. I think we have provided measurable standards, and I do agree with you that sometimes in the purpose and intent section it may not appear. Our -- our desire there was to give someone the -- the objective of that section. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask a specific question on lighting. Sports Authority, for example, has their five or six beacons on their side wall that have no shield. It's a light stuck on the side of a wall. The -- the glare of that light is clearly visible from not just the street, but the shopping center across the street. MR. MULHERE: Absolutely prohibited. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is currently prohibited? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Currently prohibited? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I take it we're doing something about that. MR. MULHERE: Yes. Well, let me go get my pen so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that if that -- if that's what we're talking about in this section, we need to make sure we revise the section. If that's prohibited by this section or currently prohibited -- MR. MULHERE: It is. COMMISSIONER: -- then we need -- MR. MULHERE: And the whole purpose is because lighting is required to be shielded to prevent glare on neighboring or adjacent property. So -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That -- those don't even have shields. So -- okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They will. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They will soon. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I just hate picking on them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: Moving on, on page 9 -- on page 9, drive-through window standards, we worked -- we had several -- as many as probably eight or ten meetings with some of the major fast food -- national fast food chains' representative in Collier County, specifically McDonald's and Burger King. You know, what you have in front of you is palatable to them. I -- I wouldn't go so far as to say that they -- that they liked the standards, but I believe it is palatable to at least those two fast food chains that were present in our workshops. What we're doing here is -- at first we wanted to prohibit a drive-through from being located between an arterial or a collector street and the building, which you have at Arby's across the street. And, also, I believe there is one at the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Carillon. MR. MULHERE: Across the street also. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. MR. MULHERE: I can't think of the name. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where the Target is. MR. MULHERE: It's -- it's -- right. In the -- in the -- in that shopping center. And there is a -- first of all a safety issue. At night the lights -- because no -- there's nothing to prevent the glare of those -- those headlights coming straight to the drive-through and the on -- and the traffic coming -- coming down Airport Road. So there is a safety issue, but more importantly -- or as importantly, I should say, there's an aesthetic issue there. And what we've suggested here is that -- and this was a compromise position that was brought up by the development services advisory committee that we not totally prohibit it, that we allow a drive-through if one of two situations occurs: one, a type B, opaque landscape buffer is provided between the drive-through lanes and the right-of-way, which -- which would be 6 foot high and opaque, for the length of the drive-through lane; or, two, a structurally and architecturally integrated portecochere-type structure is constructed to come out over the drive-through lanes. And we have some examples in the county where that's been done and done very well. We saw one recently on a small scale at the new DiVosta project. They have a -- they have a commercial -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. MULHERE: -- internal commercial pot -- portion there. And they have a gas station that has a tiled roof portecochere coming out and -- I mean, it's just that -- just looks very good, and so we wanted to provide that option in here. If someone was willing to go to that expense to do that, we shouldn't be prohibiting it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is -- is the hedge enough, though? I mean, is the landscape buffer enough? MR. MULHERE: I think it -- it can be enough. It will reduce the -- the conflict between the glare of automobiles and the adjacent right-of-way. And I think it will provide -- if it's 6 foot high and opaque, you -- you will -- but in addition, I should mention they are -- they're also being required to apply to that primary facade architectural design and trim features as part of this. So you're not going to see the long, blank wall that you see today. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Which Arby's has. MR. MULHERE: Right. Once these are applied -- so with the combination we feel we'll get to the issue. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Pedestrian walkways, there really were no changes to that. We require a single pedestrian walkway from your public right-of-way -- from your sidewalks to -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: What page? MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. We're still on page -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Still nine. MR. MULHERE: Eight, nine, and page ten, bottom of page nine and onto page ten. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Confused from the two versions. MR. MULHERE: That is an ADA requirement today. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's why I wrote notes. MR. MULHERE: And so we're simply requiring a single pedestrian walkway for each primary vehicular entrance. And, again, these are on the larger -- the 20,000 square foot and above. So, you know, a hundred- or hundred-and-fifty-thousand-square-foot shopping center may have two or three primary vehicular entrances. We'd be looking for some pedestrian access from the sidewalk to the building. The -- the recent example which adhered to this is the -- the home goods -- the -- the store that we've been working with. I'm sorry. It's been a long day. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Home Depot. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Home Depot. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Home Depot. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Home Depot. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Toys R Us. MR. MULHERE: The -- they -- they did provide for that, now, on their site plan, and they will provide from the exterior sidewalk and -- and in connection with the adjacent property. I think that will work very well. Moving along. On page 13 -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sorry. Before getting to 13 -- MR. HULHERE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- there was a concern about -- and you and I discussed individually -- clarifying the fact that these diagrams don't mean you have to build it to look like this. MR. HULHERE: I'm glad you brought that up. Thank you for reminding me. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No offense, Joe. MR. HULHERE: These are intended to be examples. All of these examples meet the restrictions, but they're not the only way that you can adhere to these guidelines. And I added a statement because there was some concern. I added a statement called iljustrations, and I said, "Iljustrations provided in Division 2.8 are intended to provide a graphic example of specific provisions set forth herein. Variations from these iljustrations which nonetheless adhere to the provision are encouraged." COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And where is that located? MR. HULHERE: That's on page 2 -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: -- under applicability. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. I'm sorry. Please proceed. You were on 137 MR. HULHERE: Page 13, this -- this iljustration, probably more than any other portion of this document, caused a great deal of concern. And part of the concern was related to the additional costs that might be required for those jogs, turns, recesses, pro -- pro -- projections. The second part was the question, if somebody wanted to maximize their site, they might be effected because they couldn't meet their setbacks. We're not aware of -- on the larger -- 20,000 square foot and -- and up, we're not aware of very many, if any, sites that couldn't be redesigned to still meet their setbacks before they have maximized the site to that extent that this would be an issue. But it was brought up at the CBIA meeting, and I -- I -- I neglected to mention CBIA. Whit Ward's in -- is in the audience and I'm sure will speak to this. We met with them for a few hours this week, and there are some concerns on the part of the Commercial Builder's Industry Association -- sorry -- Collier Buil -- Building Industry Association; however, there is consensus or an agreement that architectural guidelines -- there is support for architectural guidelines. There may be some specifics, and -- and I'll let Mr. Ward speak to those issues. But I -- I -- I do want to -- I didn't -- didn't want to neglect mentioning that we did meet with them and that they -- they do support the concept. This was a -- a concern, and one of the suggestions of your staff is that we simplify that diagram. There probably are more jogs -- there are more jogs than are necessary. It isn't -- it isn't dimensioned; therefore, really -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. HULHERE: -- the words require a -- some treatment for every 100 linear feet of wall space. As an example, the Sports Authority, to my knowledge, is -- at its longest is 286 feet long. It would require two such treatments along that length. So we probably have a diagram that caused some concern that didn't have to had it been a little simpler. And we will go ahead and simplify that diagram. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the flip side is if maximization of a site is the sole focus, then we're going to have buildings shaped exactly like the site. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Square sites. Square buildings. So maximization, for me, is not a valid argument. MR. HULHERE: I think -- I -- I -- I agree. And I would add that, obviously, if you look at this picture, what we're talking about here, since a -- a very high percentage of the commercial buildings out there meet or exceed these requirements -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MR. HULHERE: -- we're talking about the big-box retails. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. That's why I'm anxious when we get to some of that comparison. MR. HULHERE: And Joe is here and -- and -- HcHarris -- and he has some information he does want to present to you. I'll just finish highlighting these issues, and then he can talk about the comparison that we -- we had. And I'll tell you the two -- the two examples we used were the Sports Authority and the Discount Auto Parts across from the government center. See, there was an issue on page 23 regarding materials and colors. And with regard to prohibited -- on page 23 about -- a little more than halfway down, 2.8.3.5.12.2.2. Sorry. "Predominant exterior building material that are prohibited." There was a little bit of concern. We had simply stated metal, and we've changed that to say "corrugated or reflective metal panels." A -- a coup -- one -- one location was brought to my attention, for example -- I believe it's the Hercedes-Benz building which has brushed aluminum or brushed steel panels which are not reflective in nature and which are very attractive -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did -- MR. HULHERE: -- and, I think, very costly. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did former Councilman Pennington put this one in? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was the glare option that was not exercised. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sun roofs. MR. HULHERE: There are a couple of concerns with that, and one is Mr. Peirsons brought up the -- the issue of marinas which are predominantly constructed of -- of metal, although some are constructed of metal and faced or treated with some other material such as stucco or wood or other types of things. I believe we have developed some -- or have been working on some compromise language; is that correct? Okay. And we'll -- we'll address that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point being we're not prohibiting metal construction. We're prohibiting facing what looks like a warehouse exterior onto the roadways of this community. MR. HULHERE: The predominant exterior buildings. You are correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. MR. HULHERE: An -- another example is, I believe, that the -- the Shoe Warehouse, which was recently redeveloped on Airport Road, like, maybe a year or two ago, is a -- is a metal building that has a stucco face and looks very nice redeveloped. I believe that was __ COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's also a shopping center on 41 on the east side. It's, like, nor -- it's right next to Hel's. It's a metal building; you can't tell. So it can be done. MR. HULHERE: Um -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- I don't know what "applied stone" and -- and "ashlar look" is . CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Prohibited. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's prohibited, other than that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Don't worry about it. You won't see anymore of it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ashlar. MR. McHARRIS: Ashlar or rubble construction is a-- oh, Joe McHarris, county staff. Ashlar and rubble construction is basically an applied stone that's typically used in residential construction. And, again, it's a predominant material, and it's -- it's a -- it's -- it's very hard to maintain. And it's -- it's typically used for accents; and that's where we'd like to keep it, although there are a couple buildings in town that have it all over the face. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you -- can you tell me where those are. I mean -- MR. McHARRIS: There's one on Goodlette Road going towards -- between -- it's between -- or just north of the school, and it's on the left-hand side and -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that the bank that -- MR. McHARRIS: No. It's not a bank. It's a -- it's a -- it's -- it looks like a construction building or something like that. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: This is the exterior that looks like you piled limerock on top of a building? MR. HcHARRIS: Limerock on top of each other there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And what happens is it starts getting gray and black within months of application -- MR. HcHARRIS: Moldy. Yup. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and moldy and starts to look like an old castle. MR. HcHARRIS: Exactly. MR. DORRILL: Would it also include, though, slabbed keystone or what is now -- MR. HcHARRIS: No. MR. DORRILL: Okay. MR. HcHARRIS: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's why the -- the rubble -- what they're talking about is that rough exterior. It looks like a rock was just stuck on the wall one after the other. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: My house. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Your house. His house would not be allowed to be a commercial -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tacky, tacky, tacky. MR. HcHARRIS: And it's uncut stone is -- is a good way to say it too. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. HULHERE: And -- and these -- these don't apply, anyway, to any residential. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Nor will they. MR. HULHERE: No. The other -- the other issue was there was some concern regarding the tile. And, you know, staff felt that certainly as an accent that's appropriate. If you use tile on a large structure, you're going to have a maintenance nightmare. It will fall off and need to be replaced, and that was why -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I think we're all in agreement on that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. No more -- no more Juicy Lucy's. MR. HULHERE: Moving on to page 25 -- I should say starting on 24, signage. And we had -- again, had a lot of discussion and a lot of help from the industry. The -- what we've asked for here is -- you know, signage is -- is -- is such a critical factor in terms of the appearance of the community, and we've dealt with it many times in front of the board in various ways. We're moving to something -- or that's proposed here that many other municipalities and -- and -- and counties have used, and that is a unified sign plan which will require someone to look at the signage at the time they develop the site and to tell us how -- well, you can see the list of issues that we would like for them to deal with for that unified sign plan. One of the other issues that we've dealt with is, again, as far as pole signs go, requiring a -- a pole cover. We started just requiring this for outparcels, and one of the examples is -- is Carillon, which is a -- is a -- really a fine shopping center in many respects and well designed; but it appears as though towards the end of the development of that, the ourparcels came in and -- and there was a proliferation of pole signs there. And -- and certainly along -- along Pine Ridge and Airport you can see many, many pole signs. While -- while I drove around and other staff drove around, we -- and we looked around -- actually, this -- this idea -- I don't -- I don't mean to take credit for it because, actually, the idea, I believe, was proposed by Mr. Davis, Mike Davis, from Signcraft while we looked at -- at the issue from Marco Island -- working on their zoning guidelines. And we then brought it over to here. As a means of -- of enhancing the appearance of pole signs, we're going to require a pole cover. We started out saying -- when working on Marco Island guidelines we started out saying that that pole cover should be in some way architecturally designed to -- to enhance the building, whether through colors or materials using that -- that you've used on your -- on your building. But in addition, we also said that the -- the signs should equal the width and the depth -- the sign covers should equal the width and the depth of the sign. And as we began to work through the process, we realized that we might unnecessarily be creating a -- a -- sort of a monolith out there which could be 10 foot wide and 15 foot high or 20 foot high and -- and be very solid. There are many signs out there like that; and if they're perpendicular to the right-of-way, they are not objectionable. However, when -- when I drove around and looked around, I found that -- that -- to me the majority -- maybe 50 or 60 percent, 65 percent of the pole signs out there already employ a pole cover, and it doesn't necessarily have to be the width of the sign to -- to achieve the purpose. So what we said is a minimum of 20 percent and a maximum not greater than the width of the sign. Up to you to design it; you employ some -- some color or some materials. And your iljustration does not reflect that minimum 20 percent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I was leaning towards 50 percent because my -- my preference on signs was to go with strictly ground signs. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd love that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I'd want to -- I personally would like to eliminate pole signs -- be -- you know. I know they're cheaper, but aesthetically they are probably the least attractive signs in the community. Now, again, I don't know much about signs, and I understand there's got to be some give and take. But, you know, my -- my feeling was if it's too bulky with -- with the width of the sign, then make the hi -- sign 10 feet high instead of 15. MR. HULHERE: No. We started out -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So -- MR. HULHERE: -- with the recommendation, at least with regards to outparcels, of no signage and then working through the process. The -- the compromise was -- in doing that -- and on page -- page 20 -- 26 we have suggested that we reduce the height and the size of pole signs related to outparcels. The height -- we're at 20 foot for pole signs right now. We're -- we're suggesting that that be reduced -- and this was palatable to the -- to the industry -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MR. HULHERE: -- to 15 feet maximum height and maximum size of 60 square feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I guess I'll wait to see the scale of the first project come through, but just -- anyone who cares make a note. If these things don't start looking more like ground signs and less like pole signs, I'll probably want to get stricter when it comes to signs. That's just one person up here, but that's something I -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That will be two because I'm '- I'm -- I had wanted to get away from pole signage too. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let -- let's see how this hits on the lay of the land, but I really want to see a -- a visual reduction in those signs. If it doesn't occur when this is utilized, then I'm probably going to want to get tougher in that area. MR. HULHERE: Another issue that I -- I read your intention -- is we're requiring a -- around any pole sign 100-foot planting area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. HULHERE: We don't -- we're not suggesting what type of vegetation go in there. It could be, you know, flowers for color, annuals. It could be -- you know, we don't want exotics in there, obviously, but we're not -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like carrotwoods? MR. HULHERE: You can plant what you want but -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah. And when you said 100 feet, you meant 100 square feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Square feet. MR. HULHERE: Square feet. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. HULHERE: That's correct. And the last issue regarding signs -- I apologize. This is kind of an important issue, and I wanted to just spend a few minutes on it -- is how do we deal with all those existing out there -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. HULHERE: -- and what happens when they come in. And we've -- we've placed a section in the code that says "building permitted requests." And when you come in to request a new sign for an existing structure, you have to also supply a unified sign plan. You do not have to change the existing signs. We'll change those out as you apply for new signs or as you redevelop, and then you can adhere to that unified sign plan. But for a new sign, the first one that comes in for a center, we'll keep that on file and we'll go from there. This is how it's done in other municipalities, and I -- I personally do not know of any other way, nor the -- the staff that I've been working with have any other easy option to controlling the signs issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, let me get that -- they -- they get to keep -- give me a scenario. I -- I'd like to get rid of MR. MULHERE: I can do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- nonconforming signs as soon as possible. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Give two scenarios, shopping center or -- and strip center versus single use -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and how that's -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. The -- a -- a good example -- well, maybe a bad example -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Single use. MR. MULHERE: -- an example. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gi -- give me single use first because that one -- I don't see why they're going to need a plan. Why can't we just make them conform the first time in? MR. MULHERE: We -- we can -- I think the issue -- in seeing the plan what happens is that even on a single use occupancy building, you can have several signs. You can have two wall signs and a pole sign, or two ground signs and a pole. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But they're coming in for a building permit for a structure. MR. MULHERE: They -- well, that -- that's on a new building. On an existing building they may want to change out one sign. It may have been damaged. There may have been some reason for them to change that one sign, and they do not have a unified sign plan on file because it's existing. It's been out there. What we're asking is that they come in with -- tell us what kind of colors, tell us what kind of locations, how do they want their signs to look on the site. We'll take a look at it, make sure it adheres in -- in terms of the size and the type to our code. And then we'll keep that on file, and then six months later or a year later or a year and a half later when they come in for another sign to replace another sign, then we're going to make sure that that adheres to that unified sign plan. They can change that unified sign plan at any time. We have to -- you know, it has to be submitted so that we can -- we can have some control. There are -- I don't -- I don't have a number, but literally thousands of sign permits that come through and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if I have a pole sign that's at 25 feet -- I don't have any other signs, and I want to replace it MR. MULHERE: That has to meet the code. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- come in, then it's got to meet code, which means it's got to get chopped down to 20 feet. It's got to get a pole cover. It can't be more than 60 square feet -- oh, that's an outparcel. I'm sorry. MR. HULHERE: That's an outparcel; right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But the same -- the same approach is taken. It's going to have to be brought into compliance. MR. HULHERE: Yes. At least -- I -- I believe that the code currently says at least one aspect of the nonconformity for an -- an existing sign -- either height or size, for example, must be brought into compliance. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about pole cover, now? If we adopt this, can they just put a pole cover on it and meet that same language? MR. HULHERE: That's an issue that we -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why wouldn't we -- why -- why wouldn't they have to, if they come in for a new sign, have to comply with everything? MR. HULHERE: During the sign -- the -- the last amendment cycle -- during the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. MULHERE: -- the sign code, we approved a -- a gra -- a gradient of bringing signs into conformance. The issue is one of there being so many noncon -- nonconforming signs. These are signs -- let me clar -- just clarify, these are signs which would otherwise be permitted by the code. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. MR. MULHERE: It -- it's not the type of the sign. It's not like they -- they couldn't have a pole sign because they don't have the width and now they want -- these are signs that would otherwise be permitted by the code that don't conform for either setback, height, size. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they're coming in to replace a sign. MR. MULHERE: They come in to do some structural changes to the sign. If they're going to replace the sign to a value greater than 50 percent, okay, then it's a new sign -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- based on our standards. But let's just say that the sign face was damaged. I -- I don't -- I don't mean to complicate it, but let's just say that the sign face was damaged, and they were coming in to replace that. We would still require that at least one aspect of that sign be brought into compliance. It's how it's done in Fort Myers, and -- I -- I'm not -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's so slow. MR. MULHERE: It's a little bit slower, but it -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the idea there was to make it incrementally better, because in some situations it may not be -- and you may not be able to -- I mean, to replace the whole sign may be too burdensome. MR. MULHERE: And so it -- and what happens -- you're right. So what happens is people don't come in to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. MULHERE: So then you have the sign -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- sitting out there for years and years and years because they know if they come in -- so we get something. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- I -- I -- I see where you're coming from. I just -- we kind of already decided this, and I think it's a -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. I did. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a good step right now, and maybe we'll change that later. But -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So slow. MR. HULHERE: And that's it on -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In the end they have to change anyway. MR. HULHERE: -- on signs. Landscaping -- the -- there are relatively few changes related to landscaping. I think you have a very strong landscaping code. We are -- one of the things that we heard the most out there is that on the larger developments -- commercial developments the trees -- and not -- certainly not on all, but on many the trees look like twigs. They're not large enough, and they take a long time to grow. We've increased the minimum tree size for vehicular use areas to 12 to 14 feet in height with a 6-foot spread. We're also -- now, let's -- just ask -- just some -- some other minor issues that -- tree and lighting locations that they be designed so as not to conflict with common-sense site design. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is parking design also included in landscape? Same section? MR. HULHERE: Uh -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Design where they talked about two way -- MR. HULHERE: No. That's in -- in the beginning in -- and that -- we -- we didn't really spend much time on that, but that -- that is in there. Yeah. On page -- we'll flip back to that -- on page -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And that's good. Not to drag things out, on our laundry list for the next revision, I want to look at internal flow and reducing the pedestrian-vehicle conflict in front of the shopping centers. That's something that we need to set some site standards on. MR. HULHERE: We do reference it in here. We may not have the specific parameters we're looking for, but we talked about reducing the conflict and designing it so that that happens. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We just need to offer some solutions to that probably in a drawing form. But let's put it on a laundry list for the next revision if we could, if the -- no one on the board objects. I'm sorry. MR. HULHERE: Let's see. Moving along. Building perimeter plantings on page 32; this was an issue with some discussion. Also, this is your -- the iljustration depicts a -- either a -- well, either na -- a manmade lake or a -- a -- a retention area -- a lake or retention area. What we're asking here is that when those are designed, that they be designed to be undulating and natural looking and not square or triangular or at right angles. In addition, we're proposing that where a water feature including a retention pond such as -- what is the name of that shopping center -- Pine -- by Pine Ridge Crossing, the lake in the front there, that -- that -- as an example, that is a retention -- it serves two purposes: one is aesthetic, presumably; and the second -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: -- and the second is -- is water retention. And, you know, what we're saying is embrace that design. If you put it in the front yard between your building and a public right-of-way where we all have to look at it, then do something to it and try to incorporate that into your design. And we provide some examples of -- of which you can choose. And, by the way, all through this document we have lists of things; and we suggest choose one, choose three, choose two, choose four, you know, to cr -- create flexibility. This -- there was quite a bit of discussion. One of the issues was, as I understood it, that the -- you know, that there's a liability factor. I -- I wonder -- I -- the only reason I bring that up is there's the same liability if you're on the gulf, and you would em -- embrace your relationship to that water body or a lake or anything else. So -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think there's one difference here. I want to make sure we're not putting something in here that requires them to go through an additional expense to put a little pavilion there that never gets used. I'll give you an example. Eagle Creek Shopping Center on 951, there's this really neat gazebo and great benches. And there's -- I've never seen a soul sitting there because it's 92 degrees outside. And who's going to park it there when it's -- it's 200 feet from the shopping center? So, you know, I -- I don't want to remove this, but let's monitor it carefully. And if all we're doing is creating ghost lands by the lakes, then we may want to remove that later. MR. MULHERE: An -- another factor here, obviously, that I think we need to address and I bring to your attention is it may be desirable to put a minimum size on this. We certainly don't intend that to -- to apply to a very small water retention area or -- and I think we do need to put a minimum size on there. And so we would like to -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- place something on there in -- in terms of minimum size. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine. MR. MULHERE: We are talking about generally pretty large because we're talking 20,000 square feet or greater but -- MR. DORRILL: Do we have something in mind for that this evening? MR. MULHERE: Do you -- do you have any idea about minimum size? MR. McHARRIS: Joe McHarris. I think a 5-foot distance would be -- would be good, a 1-to-5 ratio for over the curb, that it swings in. MR. DORRILL: Surface area. MR. McHARRIS: Oh, the total size of the lake? MR. MULHERE: Two thousand square feet -- MR. McHARRIS: No. It would be for any retention area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have to -- MR. McHARRIS: Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. Probably 2,000 square feet, approximately, the size. MR. DORRILL: This room is approximately 3,000. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which one? The one -- Crossings is about 3,0007 MR. DORRILL: This room is approximately 3,000. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This -- yeah. The -- 2,000 square feet's pretty small. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That -- actually, that lake in front of The Crossings is -- MR. MULHERE: Big. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- big. MR. MULHERE: It's big. And -- and I think, probably, the minimum is five or ten thousand square feet. MR. HcHARRIS: The other thing is that the code allows for them to give options of what -- what they want to do to that if it's in the front of the building. So they don't have to put a pavilion out there, but they can do many other treatments to it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I hear someone say The Crossings is about an acre? MR. CAUTERO: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I -- I'm visualizing half that size. And that starts to look, with the required slopes, like a pit. And anything smaller than that I'd have a tough time -- which I'm thinking of more like 20,000 square feet. It -- it's got to be big enough to be a feature. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that's half an acre. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. HULHERE: Twenty thousand square feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that acceptable or is that -- I mean, I'm -- I'm looking for some interaction here. MR. HULHERE: All right. If -- if you're asking, then -- then I think that the intent wasn't for this not to apply to a small -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. HULHERE: -- retention area. We really -- you know, it's -- it's where someone is choosing, on a fairly large scale, to place a water feature out there -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. HULHERE: -- and telling the staff during the review process that this is going to be an amenity -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then make it one. MR. HULHERE: -- then let's make it one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- I'm going to say 20,000 and if -- Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: If I might -- Wayne Arnold. I'd just like to clarify again that we are talking about here water features, wet retention areas. These are not dry retention areas that are dry most of the time, but would be retaining water at all times. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just referring to the slope. When it gets small enough, the -- just the 4-to-1 required slope on the banks and so forth, you know, it starts to look like a -- you -- you can't see the water unless you're standing on top of it. Why don't we start at 20,000 and -- I don't think that's overly restrictive -- and see where we go. MR. HULHERE: And we'll clarify wet retention. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. Moving right along. MR. HULHERE: On -- on page 33 we start the architectural and site design standards and guidelines -- excuse me -- and guidelines for buildings and projects under 20,000 square feet. Many of these are the same. Let me start out by saying we don't touch at all parking lot design on structures under 20,000 square feet. We don't touch at all landscaping because we believe that the existing codes are sufficient to deal with those on the smaller sites, plus the smaller sites are a lot tighter, and we'll leave it up to the design professionals. The language on loading, storage, mechanical equipment is exactly the same as in -- for the -- the -- the larger. Pedestrian walkways is the same. Building design is the same, except that we require fewer choices. Where you have to choose three or four, you may only have to choose two or three. There is a -- a correction on page 39 or an addendum to page 39 I -- I want to bring to your attention. And here's where we have some changes, and it's massing standards. Obviously, since the mass of the building is much smaller, we -- we've -- we've reduced those res -- those requirements respectively in scale. Number 3 under massing standards reads, "Primary facades in the ground floor shall have arcades a minimum 6 feet clear and with display windows, entry areas, or other such features along no less than 33 percent of the horizontal length for each side." That's primary facades, which we've defined for you. The -- the proposed amendment is to change that to say for building .... for buildings between 5,000 and 19,999 .... which we've used elsewhere -- so the larger end of those under 20,000 square foot and to allow for buildings with less than 5,000 square feet of building area a minimum -- that -- this applies on -- only on -- to a maximum of two primary facades. Now, the reason for that is that outparcels are considered to have four primary facades. And so they have to do the -- the design treatment to all of the facades and the -- and the detail treatment to all of the facades. But it would be unreasonable to require them to have entrances, arcades, or glass on all four of those facades. McDonald's, as an example, generally only has glass in their dining area. They don't have it in their kitchen area. They don't have it in -- in the other areas. And as long as they do the detail and architectural features, we think -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't want to see inside that kitchen. MR. MULHERE: Right. So that would be our recommendation there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Put -- put a window in the freezer to comply. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't want to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree. That's a good change. MR. MULHERE: And moving along, the -- the growth are pretty much -- they are the same. Administration -- prohibited types and materials are the same. Miscellaneous structures on page 48, at this point we only have one miscellaneous structure in that, and that is outside play structures. We met with, again, the representatives of the fast food industry, and what you have before you reflects language that they -- they can live with. It's -- it's not their language; it's ours. But it -- through some consensus we've come up with this, and -- and -- and what we've said is that the outside play structure shall not exceed 50 percent of the coverage along any effected facade. Can't cover the whole front with the play structure, you can only cover 50 percent. "No portion of any play structure located between the front building line and any adjacent right-of-way shall exceed a height of 12 feet." COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How high is the one on -- out in front of Wal-Mart on 41 North? MR. MULHERE: It's higher than 12 feet. It's, I believe, 17, if I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's wrong with that? MR. MULHERE: -- if I recall correctly. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: What's wrong with that is they light it up at night; and you have a red, blue, green, yellow, and neon plastic structure presenting the -- the roadway. MR. HULHERE: Well, we haven't said that they couldn't go higher. What we've said is that in all other cases that's where -- it's between the prim -- the front facade and the adjacent right-of-way 12 feet. If you want to angle it around the corner, which is what they will do, you can go to 16 feet in height. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or like they do up north, put it inside. MR. HULHERE: Or -- or put it inside; right. MR. DORRILL: My 2-year-old can spot one of those from 5 miles away. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know. They have radar. MR. HULHERE: I spent a lot of time in them myself. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Me too. MR. HULHERE: The on -- only other thing that's not there is something that was agreed upon for your consideration, and that is an issue with colors here. And the industry -- the representatives of the industry that were present -- and they are represented by Mr. Pickworth, who I think is here; yes, he is -- agreed to the following language: Play structures shall utilize a maximum of three colors of -- of three -- three colors earth tone in nature or something along those effect. No more than three colors and that they should be earth tone. Now, I -- I can only tell you that what we hear is that the colors are an issue to at least some aspect or some portion of this community. And so we brought up the subject and the limiting to earth -- three earth tone colors is what was agreed upon by the representatives. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's because most of the HcDonald's are kind of earth tone in color. What I'm thinking is it should be integrated just like every other accessory into the color scheme of the building so that it doesn't stick out. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, HcDonald's got a lot of yellow and red. Frankly, I don't mind bright, primary colors on children's playgrounds and play areas. So, you know, I'm not interested in restricting the colors. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You want to see them integrated into the -- you want, like, mauve and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're going to use them like a magnet to draw kids from -- you know, or draw parents whose kids are clamoring. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. But that -- okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: From all over the place, they're using them as a dominant visual feature. That's exactly what we're trying to address is making sure the visual features integrate. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can stand coordinating with -- MR. HULHERE: They -- part of the reason, maybe, that there was agreement to this is this is something that they have done in other communities. And so they have a prototype of the three or -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So they're used to this. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess, you know, what -- what are we looking for there? I guess -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Quack. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- by just requiring they integrate into the color scheme of the building, is that acceptable, Mr. Pickworth? If I can get a nod or no, or am I going to cause you to actually speak? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're going to cause him to come up here. MR. PICKWORTH: I -- I think we -- we fought for the earth tones. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You fought for the earth tones, and you want to leave it there? MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah. Because the company that makes these uses either the bright colors or the earth tones. And, you know, they have the colors you suggest. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll stay with the earth tones. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Let's see. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Quack. Quack. Quack. MR. MULHERE: On page 49 -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ducks quack. The City of Naples is quacking. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Just because you like flashy -- MR. MULHERE: I apologize. Forty-nine is the same. Your definitions are -- start on page 51. There is one other issue I -- I forgot to mention, and that -- that since we were just talking about colors, if I recall, I'll go to that page. Colors -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let us out of here. MR. MULHERE: I -- I neglected to mention this. On page 23 under materials and color, the staff is recommending that predominant exterior colors that .... as far as predominant exterior colors, though, the use of black as a predominant exterior color .... COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Black? MR. MULHERE: .... fluorescent colors or .... and we've tried to word this -- it took a lot of effort, and I hope we've succeeded .... or pure primary and secondary colors unless mixed in combinations of .... COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At least three. MR. MULHERE: .... three or more or mixed with white." And if you mix it with white, it mutes the color, and it's not bright red, and it's acceptable. So we don't want to tell people -- we're not trying to tell people, I should say, what color. But they're -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Quack. MR. MULHERE: I think certain limitations are appropriate. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was all right with the bl -- with the -- prohibiting black and fluorescent colors, but the other wording there -- why don't we table that for the next round because it just doesn't sound clear to me. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. MR. MULHERE: It was a struggle. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we limit that if the board agrees -- limit that to use of black or fluorescent colors? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm all for not adding more limitations to colors. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we would only go with a black or fluorescent. MR. MULHERE: Got it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Quack. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That did it? MR. HULHERE: Yes, that's all. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Public speakers? MR. HULHERE: I believe that it's just the definitions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. I've got about 9 or 10. Mr. Ward. Miss Krier, if I could have you stand by, please. MR. WARD: Thank you, Commissioners. And I think that I'm going to have to compliment your staff on the job that they've done. I'm sorry. Yes. My name is Whit Ward, and I represent the Collier Building Industry Association. We -- we had a lot of concerns with this -- the architectural site and standard -- design standards and guidelines. Even most of the ones that we brought up at our last meeting -- which was, I guess, Monday -- have been addressed in here, and so that's going to shorten my talk considerably. I -- there are only about three things that I would like to point out to you. The first one is on page 10 -- excuse me -- under shade. We had a question there. The last part of the sentence says, "100 linear feet in length and a ratio of 100 square feet of shaded area per every 100 linear feet of walkway." And we -- we reference "100 feet of shaded area" several times. And our question was, Does it take 100 feet of actual shade, or does it take some trees that we're going to plant? As an example, if we put a -- a 12- or 14-foot tree in there and it's properly taken care of, it isn't going to be very long -- hell, it already has a 6-foot canopy, and it isn't going to be very long before it's going to have that 10-foot -- that -- that 100-square-foot coverage. And so I -- I would like -- would like to take a look at that. These are for -- fortunately -- or at this point very minor adjustments. On -- the next one is on page 14 at the top of the page, No. 3. This requires, as I understand it, 50 percent of the front of the building -- and if it's a large outparcel, it could be 50 percent all the way around -- be glass. We had a -- a lot of concern over energy-efficient design in those cases. That's an awful lot of glass to try to air condition and -- and try to build energy-efficient buildings here in south Florida. So if we could take a look at that, we would appreciate it. Might not do anything about it tonight, but maybe we look at it for the next -- next round. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might want to focus on expanding that list outside of just display areas. MR. HULHERE: Right. I -- I think -- MR. WARD: Okay. MR. HULHERE: -- it's not intended to be restricted to glass, although -- MR. WARD: Right. MR. HULHERE: -- one possibly could construe it that way. We're talking about other design features or arcades. But, you know, it's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WARD: That -- that would be fine. The next one is on page 33, and we're back to the retention ponds again. Our concern there is -- is pure -- liability pure and simple. If you build anything next to a retention pond -- hey, thatls why the county puts 6- or 8-foot chain-link fences all around their retention ponds is because of the liability thatls created with retention ponds. If we have a shopping center or a -- a commercial building where there are children and itls open to the public, itls open even at night after the buildings are closed, and we put a pier or a dock out there with seating on it, therels a -- it -- it -- it is a -- considerable liability possible in that situation. Even -- even if we put, like, picnic tables and benches down by the -- the -- by the bank of the pond, weld need to be pretty careful about it. So thatls another one that we might want to take a look at. Maybe we can replace that with some landscaping or appropriate something or other, you -- you -- a walkway or, you know, something like that that would -- that would maybe take care of the liability. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Just let me ask something. Would that apply to county projects then in the future instead of those big square lakes with fences around them? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Next time we build a McDonaldls it would. MR. MULHERE: Right. It only applies to commercial -- COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Oh, yeah. MR. MULHERE: -- commercial buildings. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Too bad. MR. DORRILL: But his -- his point is a good one. And, frankly, welre a little schizophrenic that way. We will enclose the new retention area on Golden Gate Parkway directly across from the entrance to Bearls Paw with an 8-foot high -- COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Itls ugly. MR. DORRILL: -- cheap, chain-link fence and -- but with the same county that will spend $2 million buying Lake Avalon in the same year and encourage people to go to Lakes Park. And so -- COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Yeah. MR. DORRILL: -- we -- we donlt make a lot of sense that way. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: A little schizophrenic. MR. DORRILL: We have talked about perhaps therels a fourth alternative there allowing a developer to incorporate certain unique water-oriented landscaping like cypress trees as a feature would not encourage people to come walk on a pier or sit on a dock or something like that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we have to remember there are some other things here. The benches and tables and so forth could be separated from the lake the same way you physically separate them now, which is with a hedge. MR. DORRILL: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Almost every lake near a pedestrian way is separated with a hedge now, and that seems to meet the liability considerations. So until this can be maybe made more palatable, I assume something like benches with hedges near them would be the -- the -- the approach. So, again -- MR. WARD: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- letls laundry list it for the next time. I donlt think we have anything specific enough to implement tonight. MR. WARD: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Ward, you've brought up a couple of good points, and I'm sure there's going to be more. And I think the important thing for -- for everyone to realize is that we're -- we want to go ahead and get this enacted tonight. And we understand that there's probably going to be situations come up that won't fit what we have on paper here, but we're certainly going to be reasonable about working with you to make sure that -- that we're not going to -- to put some undue sort of hardship on somebody that's trying to build a building. At the same time, you know, we're -- we're just asking that -- that we have some sort of -- of direction that we're headed here for our community, and everybody agrees with that. MR. WARD: And -- and we certainly concur with that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're going to be reasonable, though. MR. WARD: Thank you. The -- the only other comment that I have, and I -- is on page 52 under the definition of navigable waterway. Navigable waterway always gets us excited because of the Corps -- Army Corps of Engineers' definition is st -- almost anything that will float a boat, you know, is a navigable waterway. And -- and that makes us nervous. And -- and we'd even talked about taking navigable waterway out and replacing that with something else like, maybe, saltwater or some -- just something that -- that -- that didn't strike fear in the hearts of developers, engineers, and people of that -- of that nature. Other than -- and it -- and it looks like this -- this particular definition and -- and the way your staff has explained it to us, it would -- pretty much meets our needs. So I -- I guess with that, again, I would like to commend your staff and -- and yourselves. I think this is a -- a good step forward. We certainly have -- have enjoyed working with you and look forward to working with you to make this even more workable in the future. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Hiss Krier and then Mr. French. MS. KRIER: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record I'm Ellie Krier with the Chamber EDC Coalition. The Chamber EDC Coalition supports the concept of architectural and site design guidelines. We've been working hard in the last weeks and months to ensure input from the business community. And I will join Mr. Ward in expressing our thanks for the extraordinary effort of your staff, in particular Mr. Hulhere, in providing draft documents, accepting comments, incorporating the comments, and, in particular, providing and encouraging a cooperative process for the development of this document as it's gone forward. While we've acknowledged the speed with which we have managed to drag this document wholesale out of -- out of the ground, we would like to suggest that these guidelines be viewed as a needed beginning to a process and not an end product, that this -- we're -- we're going to need to go forward. And as you go forward with the implementation of these guidelines, we would like to offer our services and look forward to working with both you and staff to continue to improve and refine them as we find out what the applic -- the practical applications are going to be as -- as we move forward. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MS. KRIER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many public speakers do we have, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: There's about six more, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll be very short after that. Just -- that's probably 5 minutes, 10 minutes after the public speakers are done. MR. DORRILL: Mr. French and then Mr. Pickworth. MR. FRENCH: I'm Alfred French. I'm a local architect, and I also am, this year, vice president of the local AIA chapter, the American Institute of Architects, Florida association, southwest chapter. I personally -- I'm speaking personally, but I personally endorse the standards and compliment the county in taking this important step forward in ensuring that we plan three-dimensionally and not just two-dimensionally. We have polled a good many of our members, and the executive committee of the local AIA chapter has agreed, I'm happy to report to you, that we support this -- these proposed design standards. So we think this is an important step for the county to take, and we're very pleased to see this happen. And I certainly agree with Mrs. Krier and Mr. Ward that these have evolved in a very constructive and positive way. And your staff and all of you -- especially the staff deserves real commendation. That's not an easy process. And -- and I don't think these are perfect, but they're a major step forward. I would also -- I -- we did write a letter to you endorsing our position. The staff has accommodated and accepted many of the suggestions we made. One I think is still missing that is extremely important. As architects it's important that you not limit creativity. And people who have exceptional design skills and come in with unusual points of view that intend to meet the spirit and the intent of the code but come up with a different kind of solution, that should be given serious consideration and approval without stretching them out into some elaborate appeal process that they may be -- the architect may be willing to undergo, but the owner may not because it delays the process and creates a lot of expense and generates all kinds of public controversies and public meetings. So we would recommend adding language to page 1, and this language may need to be fine-tuned. But at the bottom of the second paragraph on page 1, which is Article 2.8.1, we would recommend you add language to the effect that -- that this code will allow design solutions which, in the opinion of a professional architectural advisor or a design review committee or -- there's been language put in -- in -- the community development administrator meets the intent and spirit of this code. So if there are projects that can reasonably argue -- argue -- that meet the intent and spirit of the code, they may not have to meet every letter of the -- of the code. We think that's an -- desirable statement to add, and that would be under des -- purpose and intent would be the place to put it. MS. STUDENT: I -- I hate to be a sort -- a rain on the parade here, but I don't think that will fly legally. One of the major legal hurdles -- I've read several law-review articles in the past several years on this type of thing -- is to, you know, allow discretion without standards in a code such as this. We have an individual or individuals utilizing their taste or their opinion as to what would fly. So with all due respect, I'm afraid that would not fly legally. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. FRENCH: There are legal concerns with this, but I think it's important that creative solutions be given an opportunity, that we don't nitpick. I would have to tell you that I've had an ex -- experience probably about 10 years as a professional architectural adviser to both state groups, business groups, and residential groups. My experience is that we find the most creative aspects of the architectural profession respond very well and are not limited by this creativity. It brings up the level of -- and makes the people who don't have any intention of being responsible citizens and -- and have no concern about the impact of what they're doing on everybody else -- it brings that level up to a minimum, and that's desirable. And you cannot be arbitrary about this. I agree with the legal opinion about that, but it's -- it's important to -- to have -- it -- it's important to -- to allow creativity. One of the big pitfalls as you go forward is, Who is going to do the reviewing? And what is their training? And the county's staff is now fortunate by having some good people on staff that -- but it's going to be important that -- over the years -- that be architecturally trained or land -- people are trained in three-dimensional design on the county staff. And I would recommend to you that you consider a professional architectural advisor that -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not a chance. MR. FRENCH: -- that -- that ad -- advise on projects of major significant (sic) and impacts. Not on projects in general, but only on projects which become controversial or need interpretation, because there are design standards which are hysterically -- his -- historically -- historically -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You were right the first time. MR. FRENCH: No. I'm sorry. I'm not -- that are historically been proven over many centuries and -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your time's expired. MR. FRENCH: This is not an arbitrary process. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Your time's expired, sir. MR. FRENCH: Okay. So thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pickworth and Mr. Barker. MR. PICKWORTH: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth representing McDonald's. Let me add my voice to those who've complimented the staff on their willingness to listen and -- and allow us to participate in this discussion and also your development services advisory subcommittee. We were -- we were welcomed at those -- at those meetings and -- and -- with the staff present and -- and had a -- a pretty good interchange of ideas. And -- and really from a -- a long list of concerns, we -- we started out, just about all of it's been addressed at this point. Let me just mention a couple things that maybe -- and I know Mr. -- I talked to Mr. Mulhere briefly, and -- and he said maybe some of these things just slipped through the cracks. So let me just mention a couple -- on page 35, the Type-B landscape buffer. It's in paragraph 2.8.4.2.4. I think one of the concerns of the -- of the operators was because of the sizing on outparcels they buy. There's no problem with the Type-B buffer as far as the opacity and the height. It's the width. Ten feet and st -- the fifteen is what's in your code -- just a Type-B buffer except 10 feet wide. And, obviously, if they've got a wider outparcel, they'll do a wider buffer but -- MR. MULHERE: We -- MR. PICKWORTH: -- sometimes -- MR. MULHERE: We did discuss that. And the proposed language -- and thank you for reminding me -- was to add language that said, you know, vegetation required for a Type B opaque buffer provided within the required buffer width. MR. PICKWORTH: Right. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. MR. PICKWORTH: And the only other one was over on page -- starting on page 37 at the bottom it -- it says that -- that elevations -- facades adjacent to an arterial or collector shall have either windows along no less than 50 percent of their length or a primary customer entrance along said facades. I -- I -- I thought we were going to put a -- a -- a -- an exception for smaller buildings like a -- a -- a HcDonald's or Burger King or something because I -- my recollection is that would be difficult for a typical building. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Didn't we exempt or change it for them? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We talked about this theory. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-huh. I thought we did. MR. HULHERE: We did. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Everything below 5,000 square feet was only required to have it on two sides. MR. HULHERE: Anything under 5,000 square feet was only required to have it on 33 percent of the horizontal length of any facade -- MR. PICKWORTH: Right. MR. HULHERE: -- and -- and only on two sides. And I have that language written down here. So -- MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah. No. I -- I have that one there. We -- we've got that one. I -- I was concerned with whether this -- where you have -- in a -- in an outparcel situation, where you would have your drive-in window. A good example would be up there at the corner of 41 and -- and Parkshore Plaza there. The drive-in window is on a street side. Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. PICKWORTH: And that's the kitchen side of the building. You would -- you wouldn't be able to meet this standard and -- and -- and that -- MR. MULHERE: We -- we'll go ahead and revise that language to make it consistent -- PICKWORTH: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- with the exact same language you proposed. MR. PICKWORTH: Okay. No problem. Those -- those are our comments, and we -- again, we thank you for -- for all the help that we -- we've -- we've received on this. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Barker and then Mr. Weaver. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sally's question is, Where was this five years ago; right? MS. BARKER: Well, not quite, but close. For the record my name is Sally Barker, and in -- in consideration of the lateness of the hour and my brain fatigue, I'll keep this pretty short. When we in the Second District Association sponsored the town-hall meeting in August on these guidelines, we did so out of a growing concern over the quality of the projects that were being built around the county these days and particularly in North Naples. North Naples seems to have become the testing grounds lately for the good, the bad, and the ugly. We have projects that are wonderful like Waterside, and we also have the Sports Authority and Toys R Us and Juicy Lucy's. As I said, all you really need to do is -- is look around, and you'll see why we so badly need these guidelines that staff has worked so hard and diligently to put together. And I would just urge you to put them, pass them, approve them, whatever you do tonight so we can all go home. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Weaver and then Mr. Davis. MR. WEAVER: Thank you. I'm Ron Weaver with Barany, Schmitt, Weaver architects. And I would too like to commend you for your efforts and -- and the time and effort that's been put in, and also working with Joe McHarris. There -- there's one issue that I would like to talk about, and it relates to one specific functional use as it would be affected by the code you're proposing. And it's basically dry-storage boat facilities. Typically, they're -- they're in a -- a commercial use and -- and by their very nature are not designed for pedestrian access and -- and pedestrian use. They're -- they're of a very simple functional building type. One thing I would -- I would like to say and it -- it's really based on our experience -- the -- the -- the building standards that you're establishing specifically for that specific function I think can be met in another way. Specifically, I would encourage you to keep the standards and not change them for boat dry-storage facilities, but that you offer -- or allow an alternative; and -- and that would be a landscape alternative. And I could give you an example that we've been involved with because we've been involved with a number of marinas. At -- at Bonita Bay, which is a -- a neighbor to the north, we have a facility that's -- there are three separate boat facility -- storage facilities that are put together. They probably exceed a little over 60,000 square feet in size. And through heavy landscaping and selective choice of metal -- the -- the exterior metal that's on about two-thirds of that structure, the buildings virtually disappear. And if you've been up there to the marina site, within a few hundred yards of that total facility there are homes being built now and have been built that are -- that are in the, oh, million-and-a-half to -- to three-million-dollar range. So what I would suggest and -- and I -- and I suggest it because I think if the intent is to make that building type and the objections of the size of that building type be more compatible, I think the landscape option is one that -- that should be offered as an alternative and -- and can be extremely effective. Other than that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I think at -- at this hour to make that kind of wholesale change is probably more than difficult. But knowing that the next revision cycle is six months away after tonight, I would ask you to work with our staff to see if that's a possibility on certain areas. I just -- we've already heard that we can't just kind of open something up saying, We're not sure how we want to deal with this; so we'll just leave discretion with the development services administrator. MR. WEAVER: I would -- I would propose that it not be in -- in lieu of, but it would be an alternative and that there -- the standards for the landscaping would be extremely specific and that they would be in relationship to size, height, and even color and texture. So -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The point is those standards aren't in front of us right now. MR. WEAVER: That's true. That's true. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have no idea what they are. They have to be developed. And unless they can be developed in the next 5 minutes, the chances of it happening tonight are -- are slim and none. MR. WEAVER: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we -- it's probably going to have to wait for the next cycle. I think it's a good idea. I just don't think we have enough in front of us to give direction to staff to include it. MR. WEAVER: Okay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Davis. MR. DAVIS: For the record, Mike Davis. And I -- and I know with this board that brevity is always rewarded; so I'll try to be brief. I echo -- I ocho -- I echo the "at-a-boys." It's been a great, great process. I've -- I've enjoyed being a part of it. The apples and oranges discussion that occurred earlier, Commissioner Mac'Kie and Commissioner Hancock, talking about wall signs and not being able to clean up the old ones. There is the aspect of the uniform sign plan in a new shopping center when it's built, that it's developed; and then you see uniform signs, as you would at Riverchase or Carillon, separating the outparcels out for a moment. What happens in the existing buildings -- and this is what the City of Naples has been doing the last three or four years. And I think as you've seen the redevelopment, you've seen it change much for the better. Where a -- let's say it's a 10-unit rental facility, retail. One of the tenants wants to move into a vacant space. They come in to apply for a permit. At that point in time, county requires a uniform sign plan for the entire project so that that one permit can be issued. The other -- the other tenants are not required at that time to change their signs until such time as there a -- there's a tenant change or what we've seen in the Na -- City of Naples happen; they see what can look better, and very often existing tenants go ahead and make changes so that there is that uniformity. And in some cases I know the building owner and the city has encouraged these changes; so that I think it will get you where you want to be a lot quicker than you think. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that's a wonderful idea, and it's -- it's not too complicated to incorporate tonight. MR. DAVIS: It's -- it's already in there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I thought that was only for CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Makes it simple. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That makes it real simple, but I thought that was only for single use. MR. DAVIS: No. It -- on -- it -- it -- that -- that part, I believe -- I'll check with Mr. Hulhere -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. DAVIS: -- but I'm pretty sure that aspect as I just described is -- is already in the architectural -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Man -- MR. HULHERE: I'm sorry. I missed that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Man -- MR. DAVIS: Where -- where the exist -- an existing shopping center, at such time that a tenant would be requesting a permit to put a sign up, that existing center would be required to submit a uniform sign plan. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. That's right. MR. HULHERE: That's right. MR. DAVIS: Okay. On a single occupancy parcel what you'll find, Commissioner Hac'Kie, is really the only thing that's going to happen here is their wall sign or their pole or ground sign are going to be architecturally hat -- harmonious with the building. Itls important for the overall look. The outparcel discussion about wanting to see more on outparcels, I -- I feel confident that -- that youill probably go ahead with whatls on the sheet tonight, but -- but -- but bear in mind that therels a reduction -- whatls being talked about here tonight is a reduction from the current 100 square feet on that freestanding sign all the way down to 60. We recently dropped the height from 25 to 20, and now welre talking about dropping it to 15. Welre adding a pole cover, and welre also requiring architectural harmony with the building. Thatls a -- thatls a very big step for that ot -- outparcel and I think will hold us for a while, and I think youill be very pleased with what you see. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Savage. MR. SAVAGE: Iill pass. MR. DORRILL: Mr. McGuire. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He left. MR. DORRILL: Unless the citizen for constitutional property rights wants to speak -- COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Donlt encourage him. MR. DORRILL: -- on the architectural codes, thatls all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He -- hels given out. We wore him out. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Therels something here Iid like the board to take a close look at that Mr. McHarris on our staff presented. This is the physical presentation of what the cost analysis and changes would be to two structures that currently do not conform. Onels the Discount Auto Parts on the top, and the bottom is the Sports Authority. Now, look at that and tell me thatls not exactly what welre trying to do, and Iill let Bob -- I -- Iid like Bob to tell you what the total percentage of the construction cost would be to -- to make this, then I want everyone here to take a look at this because this is a perfect example of what welre trying to accomplish. MR. MULHERE: I think -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And where -- and wherels the Naples Daily News to photograph this? MR. MULHERE: I -- I think itls important that we took the Sports Authority -- by the way, thatls 185 by 216. Itls 43,000 square feet. Their estimated construction cost was 1,300,000. Using SPCCI national standards, which we use -- the -- we estimate the construction cost at slightly over 2,000,000, but therels was 1,300,000. That was the estimate, and we used that for the comparison since that was their estimate. And using their estimate the -- it would be $1.51 more per square foot, or $65,000 more, which is slightly under 5 percent construction cost for the addition. For Discount Auto Parts, that is a 65 by 100 foot building. It is 6500 square feet. Their estimate of construction cost was 240,000. Ours using SPC -- SPCCI national standards was 290,000. We used their estimate, again, and with their estimate the additional cost was $5,000 or approximately 2 percent. CHAIRNLAN NORRIS: Five thousand dollars to make it look that much nicer. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: To make it look that much better. MR. MULHERE: And, by the way, we didnlt -- we didnlt estimate that. We hired a commercial licensed contractor to estimate that for us. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Kind of pathetic. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And make that not $5,000, but 21 cents a square foot. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Well. MR. HULHERE: It -- it's certain -- it's less expense -- it's less expensive in the case of -- let me just clarify. It's less expensive it the case of the smaller building because it's -- it's only 65 by 100 so you do not end up having to place in any of the recess or projections to meet our code. You can use arcades and other types of things and that in itself is -- is less costly. On the bigger buildings it's slightly more because you do have to use the recesses and -- and the projections that we require. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, it's very good. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to turn that so everyone except A1 can see it. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hulhere, let's flip that around so -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We can ask A1 to leave the room while it's turned around. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Cover your eyes, A1. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Joe, did you -- did you do that work? MR. HcHARRIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Very good. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's very good. Everyone has been heaping accolades upon your staff, and it's deserving -- well deserving. And Wayne and Bob and -- and Joe, specifically, have been great to work with. And, Joe, your talents came into play as if you were sent here for this purpose. So thank you to all of you. MR. HULHERE: Thank you. We appreciate it. One last thing that's very, very important which I neglected to mention is the Planning Commission also recommended that the Immokalee area Planning Commission be excluded from these standards and that any other area which has within it's master plan architectural standards be excluded. And one example that I can cite is the Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Overlay District. It's already covered in the code. There are -- are very -- various tight architectural standards there, and -- and -- and I guess with respect to Immokalee, the consensus of the Planning Commission was that they were concerned with the economic impact possibly and -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Could we -- if you're through with this easel here -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do have a question on that -- that one thing there and that is they said, How about Marco. We're going to have Marco. We're going to have North Naples. Immokalee's are merely guideline. But my worry is, do we get to a point where we have different rules everywhere different in the county? Should there be some basic level we expect everywhere and then if Golden Gate or Marco or others take it the next notch above, that's great. But I -- I want to be careful that just because there's a master plan, they may not be below or I -- I -- MR. HULHERE: I -- I -- I understand, and I guess the concept from the Planning Commission was that these would apply to all those areas in the county where the master -- where a master plan is not in effect or does not have architectural standards. And they would not also apply to Immokalee. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would -- would there be -- see, I -- I don't like either one of those. I'd like to see them apply everywhere. I'd like to see them apply in Immokalee because we -- we went through this conversation a few weeks ago, and that was, yes, it -- it's a different situation there, but do we set the hurdle lower? Do we have lower expectations? Do we have lower desires for that community? And -- and one of the ways to assure they are continually below is to set a lower hurdle and have lower requirements, and they will never get -- even with development of the airport and industry, it will never get to this point. And I don't know how you balance that out, but -- the other comment is -- is how we address that. I'm not sure I want to have the master plan area just exempt from this. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before hearing an -- an answer, there are two issues that I consider there. One is I understand the argument for economic disincentive. In an area that is striving to create jobs, if there's a 5,000 or 10,000 dollar item that -- that -- it may mean the difference between someone opening a business there or not, I can understand that. But as I looked at the one shopping center, the donut shopping center in Immokalee with the Winn Dixie, and that Winn Dixie has the highest retail prices of any Winn Dixie in the national chain in Immokalee. Why? Because it's the only one. So the argument that all the businesses are not necessarily in a disadvantaged position I think is valid. So -- ha -- I think their main street has some things they're trying to do. We don't want to conflict with that. MR. HULHERE: The -- and the thought from the staff was that if within the proposal of -- of any master plan -- in other words, in -- in the adoption of the Immokalee master plan, if the main street architectural design were to supersede this, then so -- then that could come forward for your consideration when that happened. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Case by case. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Case by case. MR. MULHERE: Right. Same thing with Marco. If -- if the Marco community supports these guidelines and they're sufficient and meet the needs of the Marco community, so be it. But if they felt they wanted something stronger, that could happen through a master plan. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But not less than. MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. DORRILL: So Mr. Constantine's point would -- would be that they would be uniformly applied unless that community had a higher or more unique architectural standard. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And I want to avoid the use of higher because it -- it just may be more specific or detailed to that location. You know, I mean, if some -- take something like Everglades City that has a flavor to it. This may not work there in a way they want it to. So I -- you know, again, I just -- I don't want to use the word higher, but let's just say more specific or detailed. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. More specific. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Anything else, Mr. Mulhere, on this section? Okay. Unless there's any further questions from the board, I would like to take this opportunity to -- to commend and congratulate Commissioner Hancock for bringing this discussion forward in the first place. I think this is going to be a -- a little legacy that will be greatly appreciated by our community as we grow out over the next 25 to 50 years. I -- I think this is a good start, something that probably should have been done some years back. And, unfortunately, it wasn't, but from this day forward I think we can look forward to a -- to a community that is going to be developing in a manner in which I think we'll all be proud of. So, once again, congratulations and thank you very much for bringing this forward. (Applause) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'd like to have a -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If you'll allow me the honor, I'd like to move approval of the architectural and site design guidelines with the agreed-upon stipulations that Mr. Mulhere has presented at the podium. The one CPC recommendation that I did not hear consensus on was the exclusion of the Immokalee area; so that -- that stipulation is not an -- a part of the approval. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (All commissioners responded.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I would like to have a motion now on all the other sections of the LDC that we've covered. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the remaining LDC amendment changes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: In accordance with our discussions, second. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That's it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a split motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Being no further business, we're adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:32 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMHISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Helissa Hilligan